Hearings to examine proposed budget estimates and justification for fiscal year 2027 for the

You can read my lips. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Obviously today we're here to talk about nuclear weapons and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Most of us, all of us, know what you do. You're in charge of the weapons stockpile and non-proliferation and nuclear propulsion for our Navy. The President's proposed budget, I was looking at it before we started, it's a substantial increase by 35 percent. Most of that has to do with modernizing and buying new nuclear weapons. We're clearly behind other countries, including but not limited to China. I want to hear from you today about a number of things, but one of the things I want to talk about is how we're going to accomplish our ends over the next 15 or 20 years, but do it efficiently. The days of blank checks, particularly during the Cold War, are gone. We have competing interests. This is a very important one, but we've got to do better, it seems to me, in terms of our results. Now, the President's budget puts a lot of money in this, and we put money in reconciliation for the agency. But we keep putting money, maybe in your opinion not enough, but we do keep putting money, for example, plutonium pits. We're not getting enough pits. We need more. And I'm not sure that money is altogether the problem. And I want to talk about that. But I'll save all my other remarks for later. I'll turn to the vice chair of the subcommittee and the vice chair of the whole committee, Senator Murray.

Well, thank you very much, Chair Kennedy. You know, the National Nuclear Security Administration plays a really crucial role in maintaining our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile safely and reliably, powering the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet, keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands, and advancing critical non-proliferation efforts. And NNSA labs are on the front lines propelling new technologies like AI to answer critical national security questions. So the stakes for this work couldn't be higher. It is really crucial that we make balanced investments advancing important defense programs as well as nuclear non-proliferation work. And in the course of that work, it's also crucial that we make sure these dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. And what I see from Trump's budget to me is not balanced in the least. He wants to boost the war spending by roughly half a trillion dollars and cut investments in families. When it comes to our nuclear program, he wants to make completely unjustified exorbitant increases to weapons spending while cutting the nuclear non-proliferation work. This was already far from a balanced budget in any way, shape, or form, but the NNSA investments are to me completely lopsided, especially when you consider the fact that Republicans already shoveled nearly $4 billion for the weapons program into the reconciliation bill last year. What's more, we still lack details on exactly how the department plans to spend these resources, making our process this year very difficult. But now on top of that $4 billion spending spree, Trump is now requesting another $7 billion boost, all while he is slashing funding for non-proliferation programs, not to mention proposed cuts to medical research, affordable housing, cost-saving energy programs, and more. Look, we all agree NNSA is an important investment. How we handle our nuclear weapons program and how we diffuse potential nuclear threats is about as important as it gets. That is exactly why we need to be incredibly thoughtful and ensure due diligence here. It is an enormous responsibility. But there's nothing responsible about blindly shoveling billions of dollars at an agency without addressing some long-running challenges we have seen regarding project management, cost estimates, and sufficient federal staff to oversee that work. It is critical that NNSA do a much better job at providing accurate cost estimates, effectively managing projects, and preventing the massive cost overruns and delays we've seen too much of. Ballooning costs and inaccurate estimates waste taxpayer dollars and make it much harder for this committee to do its work. I'm also worried about how President Trump's policies are worsening cost overruns. We're seeing tariffs and wars and haphazard filings and grant cancellations. Those all worsen inflation, they fuel uncertainty in the country, they restrict our supply chains for really crucial materials, and undermine our ability to keep our crucial work on track. With work this important, we can't just throw money at projects and programs without addressing fundamental project management issues or acknowledging root causes of skyrocketing project costs. And just as we cannot ignore ballooning costs on the weapons side, we also cannot ignore Trump's plan to shortchange non-proliferation programs. This work helps keep us safe. It is mind-boggling to me that at the same time Trump is demanding trillions for a war in Iraq and trying to justify this war on the threat of nuclear proliferation, he is completely blowing off the very program that works around the clock to prevent state and non-state actors from developing nuclear weapons or acquiring weapons-usable materials, equipment, technology, and expertise. We need to continue investing in the essential non-proliferation work which helps secure nuclear materials across the globe and keeps people out of harm's way. We're talking about programs to improve detection capabilities, prevent terrorists from accessing nuclear materials, and more. This is work that the Pacific Northwest National Lab in my state, Washington State, is helping lead and that we cannot afford to shortchange. President Trump's budget largely ignores it, which is why I'm planning on ignoring the budget. Last year, Chair Kennedy and I worked together to reject similar cuts Trump proposed and to make really thoughtful investments across the NNSA portfolio. I hope we can do that work again together this time, draft a balanced bipartisan bill, and look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator. Martin, you got anything you want to say real quick?

Sorry, I'll hold off until questions. Thank you very much, Chairman.

All right. We're honored today to have you three gentlemen with us. Congressman Brandon Williams, I think, is going to give the opening statement. He of course is our NNSA administrator. Honorable David Beck, Deputy NNSA Administrator for Defense Programs. And the Honorable Matthew Napoli. Did I say that right, Matthew?

Yes, Senator.

Okay. Our Deputy NNSA Administrator for Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation. The proposed budget by the President is $32.8 billion. That's a 29 percent increase. Most of that is in weapons activities, which is an increase of 30 percent, but also important are the naval reactors and the nuclear non-proliferation efforts as well. We'll talk about all of them. Congressman, Mr. Administrator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Murray, and for your candid and I think insightful comments regarding the NNSA, recognizing both its importance as well as its challenges. And that is what we're here to talk about as well as to address today. Mr. Chairman, a written statement has been provided. I respectfully request that it be submitted for the record.

Yes, sir, without objection.

I want to begin by thanking the members of the subcommittee for their consistent support of NNSA and our no-fail national security mission. The additional funding provided in last year's Working Families Tax Cut Act and fiscal year 2026 appropriations elevated America's nuclear security enterprise and enabled progress in some of our most pressing weapon and infrastructure modernization challenges. That support has positioned NNSA to build on our recent success and to continue to deliver for the warfighter and the American people. And by anecdote, I'll just mention that I have served exactly this mission as the strategic missile officer on a Trident submarine, not a banger, and have been both a customer of the enterprise and in service to this deterrence mission that I hold very dear. NNSA's fiscal year 2027 budget request is $32.8 billion and represents President Trump's America First vision grounded in peace through strength, or as we like to say, peace through atomic strength. I am proud to say that every weapon in NNSA's program of record is either on or ahead of schedule. The budget request supports the continued full and rapid modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad. It provides critical funding for the revitalization and recapitalization of the production infrastructure that underpins our weapons modernization. And it maintains America's critical edge in national security science by building on the exquisite capabilities of our incredible national security laboratories that they have nurtured for decades. It also supports a robust non-proliferation and counterterrorism portfolio that serves as America's shield against nuclear and radiological attack. These capabilities serve as the first and last lines of defense for the United States and our interests. At the same time, they will help advance the President's energy dominance objectives, ensuring the growing global interest in nuclear power will be met by American leadership. Finally, it builds on NNSA's long-standing partnership with the U.S. Navy in support of the nuclear fleet, the strongest force for peace and freedom on Earth in my proud heritage. Our ballistic missile submarines will remain the sentinels guarding our assured second-strike capability, while our attack submarines and aircraft carriers will bring American power anywhere on Earth to protect our vital interests. In an unprecedented era, we face two peer nuclear powers. Keeping America safe cannot mean business as usual. Under President Trump's leadership, NNSA will return to its Manhattan Project roots as an organization focused on weapons production to meet current and future Department of War requirements for America's strategic deterrence. The men and women of NNSA are true patriots. They are ready to meet this moment and constitute the greatest scientific and engineering organization in the history of humanity. It is an honor to lead them in service to the United States and our national security and under President Trump's leadership. With your continued support, we can ensure they have the resources necessary to sustain the momentum and to keep our modernization efforts on track across the country. I look forward to your questions. I will give you candid and direct answers to the best of my ability. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. My understanding, gentlemen, is that you didn't want to make statements. Okay. I'll start with questions. I'm going to hold my questions until everybody finishes. Senator Murray will be first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said, the defense nuclear non-proliferation program plays a really critical role in protecting Americans and our allies from nuclear threats, investigating and countering nuclear smuggling, monitoring and verifying nuclear treaty compliance, preventing and mitigating effects of radiological incidents worldwide. So I wanted to ask you today, Mr. Napoli, as international tensions arise, this work is really more important than ever. So if we are successful in denuclearizing Iran, what programs are responsible for that work and what does it entail?

Thank you, Senator, for the question. The National Nuclear Security Administration through the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation has the unique and unmatched capability to deny, detect, and defeat our adversaries from acquiring nuclear and radiological weapons. Through the funding of this committee, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation maintains a broad set of capabilities in this regard, and they're very, very diverse. That is removing and securing of nuclear materials, the technical ability to address the entire fuel cycle, including centrifuges and uranium conversion facilities, the ability to detect weaponization programs, the ability to enact verification expertise in working concert with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and respond through our nuclear emergency support team, better known as NEST. We draw upon experts within the NNSA headquarters as well as our laboratories, plants, and sites nationwide, and PNNL is a huge part of my portfolio to accomplish that mission. It takes a weapons program to know a weapons program, and our team has a track record of success in this area, addressing international threats, legacy ones, including removing highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan after the fall of the Soviet Union, dismantling Libya's nuclear program in the early 2000s, and material removals from Iraq in the early 2000s as well via Project McCall. We also work to convert research reactors from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium, and we work to secure radiological sources around the world, such as cesium and cobalt. Two primary examples just in the recent months, we secured cesium materials from University of Georgetown as well as Lebanon across the oceans, showing a broad range of capabilities of our team. NNSA and the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation stands ready to rise to any challenge.

Well, I think you made the point that this is really, really a critical program. So you can see why I was concerned when DNN carried out layoffs and cuts to really critical programs last year. Well, I think you made the point that this is really, really a critical program, so you can see why I was concerned when DNN carried out layoffs and cuts to really critical programs last year after the slush fund CR and Trump's bad request. Thankfully, Congress rejected that and worked together to pass a bill and restored the funding, and I wanted to ask you, with that funding restored in our 26 bill, what are you doing now to get those projects back up and running? It takes really critically, you know, really great people to run those programs, and I want to know what you're doing to get them back up and running since they've been cut.

Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. As you noted, people are at the heart of our business. I will continue to be an advocate for all men and women of the National Nuclear Security Administration. You know, I would like to thank you for the generous appropriations that were provided in FY 26, and we are using those in a variety of methods to scale up and execute our mission priorities. That is things like security by design work that we're doing with...

So I'm asking, are you able to get qualified people back? Are they on board? Where are you in restoring all of the cuts that were made?

We are continuing efficiency in our hiring and targeted hiring selections to make sure that we can execute the totality of our mission. Yes, ma'am.

Are you back up to where you were?

I am in the process of evaluating our future needs and continuing to hire the best and brightest in the United States to come to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Okay, it's really important that you keep our committee informed of where you are in the hiring as we work on this budget now. It is really critical that we have your agency up running and capable. Administrator Williams, Congress included language to protect specific programs and projects in the 26 bipartisan bill. Are you executing the FY 26 funding in accordance with the funding level directives we put in that bill?

Yes, Senator, we're following the direction, the letter of intent provided by Congress.

Okay, so you're not planning any reprogrammings that would move money away from congressionally directed levels?

We're doing some reprogramming internally that's allowed by law, but I think we're very transparent in everything that we're doing. We're transparent to you and the committee to keep things moving. But if you're talking about redirecting OBBA funds, the answer is no, we're not doing...

So but in our bill, we directed funding to go to the forensic research and development, global material security, nonproliferation stewardship program, nuclear detonation detection, reactor conversion, and uranium supply. You're not redirecting any of those funds? Those were congressionally directed.

I don't believe so, and those are really important missions to us. I really view the nonproliferation mission as part of the deterrence mission. They all serve deterrence for our country, and our ability to interdict and detect other programs is a key part of our national deterrence, our strategic deterrence.

Okay, thank you for that answer. Before Trump took office, NNSA had 2,000 employees and was hiring more. Under President Trump and Elon Musk and the DOGE thing, you had a lot of cuts, and by the time you stopped the bleeding, we know that hundreds of key staff, actually the people who manage the nuclear stockpile, were gone. I know you are still trying to undo that damage, and your budget requests a 10 percent increase for federal salaries and expenses to support additional hiring across NNSA. What is your target hiring number right now for NNSA?

Senator, we are looking to hire about 100 new personnel across in terms of federal employees across our enterprise. And again, as Dr. Napoli said, those are targeted hires. It's the quality of the people we bring in is really important and that we do so in an efficient way.

Yeah, well, I know that under the DOGE cuts, a lot of people were gone. You're now trying to hire them back. Can you tell the committee how much it costs the taxpayers to have to recruit and hire back hundreds of those people?

Honestly, Senator, that all happened before I was confirmed at the end of September, so...

So you can't tell us?

I don't have that information.

Okay, well, I just think it's important that the American people understand the reality. Efficiency is good, and we need good people, and DOGE was not efficient, and it has cost us money. So I just want to make that point.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. Administrator Williams, I've been really proud to help grow the budget, more importantly, the workforce at Los Alamos since arriving to the Senate 13 years ago. And one of the challenges that that growing workforce has created is the local housing challenge in Los Alamos. And I know you've been to Los Alamos. It's sort of an island community on top of a mesa, so there's not a lot of extra space to put housing. And so I secured language in the FY 26 Energy and Water bill asking NNSA to look at that and come up with potential solutions to the housing problem, even look at ideas like putting some offices in nearby communities that are less housing constrained. When could I expect that report to be completed and shared with the committee?

Sure. Senator, first let me say that my family's, my parents are from New Mexico, and it was my childhood vacations were all driving to Roswell and Santa Fe and Taos, etc. Been camping in the Pecos Wilderness and Beatty's Cabin and places that perhaps you know.

It's hard to beat the Pecos.

It's beautiful. Beautiful area. But so we're very aware of the housing needs. As you know, that's really important to our workforce in and around that region and is a barrier to hiring the very best people to settle there. I'll also tell you that you should be incredibly proud of the workforce in particular Los Alamos that is working on the plutonium mission. They, as and I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Beck to give more details on our work with Los Alamos County in addressing some of these issues, but the work they are doing is surpassing in pit production anybody's wildest dreams of what was possible. And that is directly because of Mr. Beck's leadership and particularly the greatest commitment and effort by the workforce and management at Los Alamos. So for those details, Mr. Beck maybe can help out.

Senator, for the question, can you hit your mic? Thanks. Sorry. We are very concerned about, as you are, about housing. I spent seven years in New Mexico working at Los Alamos, so I know it fairly well. The importance of adequate housing is essential for recruitment and retention, as you're well aware. On the campus, satellite campus report, we're there's an analysis underway and we'll share that report with you, the study results after the completion, I expect later this summer.

Okay. Administrator, I want to jump to the issue of cleaning up hexavalent chromium, the hexavalent chromium plume related to Los Alamos. That's currently sort of stalled out because of the dispute between DOE and the New Mexico Environment Department. So while that dispute continues, no activities are actually taking place to mitigate that plume, and there's a real serious concern at the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, a local tribe that's just next door, about the quality and the impact to their drinking water. So is that something you can look into and figure out what we need to do to resolve the dispute and get progress on that plume?

Senator, thank you for the question. I'm aware of the issue and have been briefed on it several times. The mitigation strategy that we had in place was working, and we would like to continue for that to work. I discussed with my counterpart at DUOE, excuse me, at the Department of Energy, Tim Walsh, the head of the EM mission, and he asked me if we could together go out and see your governor and meet with local officials and try to get a resolution in place. I would welcome your advice and any assistance you have on brokering that, but I'm committed to go out and try to work this in person.

Great. We would be very happy to help facilitate that visit. Mr. Beck, I'm running out of time, but I want to bring up fusion real quickly. We've had a number of private sector actors, Pacific Fusion and Fuse Energy, start facilities in New Mexico, partnering with Sandia to build on the capabilities of the Z machine there at Sandia. We know that China is racing ahead in this space, and a public-private partnership could significantly accelerate NNSA's ability to deliver high-yield fusion capabilities. Can you just talk to me a little bit about how NNSA is thinking about this space and what some of the opportunities are?

Senator, you're exactly right. The competition with China is crucial to our ability to maintain our deterrent. We are working with a number of fusion companies to review their technology process, their progress, and discuss our partnerships. In 2024, we issued an RFI to understand pulsed power. We're moving forward on a laser-based RFI to come out soon. And we have CRADAs in place with fusion firms to upgrade the Z machine at Sandia. And we're in ongoing talks with companies to evaluate their technology readiness to proceed further. Competition with China is essential.

Thank you, Chairman.

Senator Hagerty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Williams, I'd like to start with you. You and I had a good meeting in my office not too long ago, and there you articulated your vision for the NNSA. And I very much appreciated that you want to create and maintain a strong nuclear deterrent, that you want to accelerate production in order to meet our national security demands, and that you want to build our nuclear capabilities. And those objectives seem straightforward, but they're also incredibly consequential. And if I think about it in the context of where our adversaries are going, it becomes even more competent, even even more consequential and more critically important that we build and expand our nuclear capability. So I just want to commend you for the budget request that you put forward. It calls for a 12 percent increase over enacted levels with a heightened focus on weapons activities and production modernization. The budget signals a clear prioritization of strengthening the U.S. nuclear deterrent amid rising global competition. But at the same time, much of our infrastructure dates back decades, and key programs continue to face cost growth and schedule delays. So bear with me a second here. And speaking of cost overruns, according to GAO's February 2026 report on NNSA major construction projects, NNSA's cumulative cost overrun for its portfolio of baseline projects increased from $2.1 billion in 2023 to $4.8 billion in 2025. Most of these overruns are associated with the uranium processing facility. However, seven other major projects have incurred or expect to incur a cost overrun of more than 20 percent compared with the original baselines. Administrator Williams, while you've only been serving in this role for what, roughly six or seven months, would you mind to discuss your observations thus far, what you think the root causes have been for these cost overruns, how they got so egregious, frankly, and under your leadership, how are you going to make certain that these cost overruns are brought back under control?

Senator, thank you for the question. I just want to start with the importance of the mission. As I shared with you in your office, I was in Tiananmen Square during the protests of May of 1989. I saw firsthand, you know, the students' aspiration, went and visited Beijing University and Freedom Wall and experienced that for a couple of days. And then, of course, the crackdown, which I did not observe, but that came a month later, inspired me to volunteer to serve in the nuclear Navy, and I spent six strategic deterrent patrols in the Pacific countering exactly the threat that that we're meeting today. So this is a very important mission, and the production mission is in support of that. The cost overruns are deeply concerning and troubling to me. I can tell you that under our leadership, we are not going to do business in the same way. I have we have spent a lot of time in root cause analysis exactly as you suggest. I would say just succinctly that one is that we committed to projects without having all of the requirements exactly all of our needs nailed down. And when you do that and you start designing and eventually commit, that the budgets grow and grow and grow because you've not had the discipline, as any big complex project, to get all the requirements upfront and nailed down. It's frankly, it's fairly consistent across government programs and particularly acute at NNSA. Second is what I would just call a culture of risk aversion, where we're I often refer or compare it to going to a football game and where the where the goal is that the refs never make a bad call. And so after each play, all the refs get together and they watch 50 replays and from every different angle, and any one referee can stop play, you know, forgetting of course that there's teams on the field. And that's exactly what we've become at NNSA, is that we've forgotten that we're in great power competition and we're changing our culture. And the third and last thing I'll say is accountability. We're going through and looking at every contract, the major contract, and making sure and where necessary re-competing those contracts to make sure that the the contractor's goals are aligned with the government goals, and that is to move things to the left and deliver them on time. It is a different time at NNSA and we're going to deliver.

Well, I appreciate that you're taking it so seriously. I just one final question, is there anything that you need Congress to do that would facilitate your efforts here?

Well, I wish I wish that including my own experience serving in the House, that there were members of Congress in both both houses that would take time to understand what I call the nuclear IQ, to become aware of the threat from from China. Of course, you serving as ambassador in Japan are acutely aware of, you know, of the threat in the environment. I think that we could all stand as a nation to be much more cognizant of why we have a nuclear weapons program, why what it's for. You know, we're only 3 percent of the Department of Defense budget. During the Cold War, it was 6 percent even as it ramped up to to Vietnam. And so deterrence is cheaper than war. And I think just that awareness and concern for the strategic deterrent would be a great service to the nation.

Well, thanks for your effort to keep us all aware. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Hoeven.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. Also, Secretary Williams, thanks for coming by and visiting us. Appreciate it very much. If you would, please update me on the status and how we're doing both on the replacement for the air-launched cruise missile, the LRSO, long-range standoff, and then also for the replacement to the ICBM, which of course is Sentinel. Obviously, you're in charge of doing the work on the warhead, so with both the W87-1 and the W80-4 programs, how are we doing in terms of staying on schedule and progressing with those programs?

Thank you for your question, Senator. Of course, the Minot Air Base is hugely important as it hosts two of the three legs of the triad.

And our chairman is really excited about that and just can't, you know, extol enough the virtues of the Minot Air Force Base because he's so fired up knowing that that is the only dual nuclear base in the country. I can't tell you how excited he is about that.

There may be competing interests down in Louisiana, I'll not try to stoke that any further, but it is absolutely critical that we have these capabilities to deter China and Russia. I think we're all aware of how quickly that they are advancing their own nuclear programs. The LRSO is a critical standoff stealth weapon, you know, delivered by the B-52s as they are at Minot. And of course, the Sentinel, a long overdue replacement for for the Minuteman IIIs. NNSA is responsible for providing the warheads for those as you point out, and I'll just tell you that we're going to deliver ahead of the Air Force needs and keep those programs on schedule, and we're going to do everything possible to help our partners in the Air Force, you know, stay on track and pull those mission those missions to the left, those programs to the left and deliver earlier wherever we can. So very strong partnership and cooperation.

Yeah, and that that's very encouraging. And then also, how about this is of course a budget hearing, is your budget adequate to keep up with what we're considering, and are you getting any money through reconciliation?

We are working on the reconciliation message, of course, in coordination with with OMB and with the President. I would just point out that again, historically, the nuclear weapons enterprise, whether that's the Atomic Energy Commission or NNSA, is about 3 percent of the relative spending for the Department of Defense. And so I would say that if we're going to plus up our defense spending, that that should also be in the in the nuclear deterrent as well, specifically for the weapons program proportional to about 3 percent. But we're working with the appropriate authorities in the administration to to make that case.

Talk about why it is so important that we make this investment in our nuclear triad. Why is that absolutely vital to national security?

Senator, my model for strategic deterrence is very different, if I may say, for what I think we all grew up with. I think we all grew up with a model of mutually assured destruction, that we have nuclear weapons so that if they launch theirs, we launch ours and that's it. That is, in my opinion, is not the greatest threat that we face right now. I think the threat that we face is Putin or Xi specifically believe that they can use a theater or tactical weapon or just a handful of weapons to get on the escalation ladder and to get strategic concessions from the United States or our allies by crossing the threshold of first use of nuclear weapons. It's not an all-out exchange. I think they know that would be utterly suicidal because our weapon systems are absolutely exquisite and ready and they know that. But if they think that they can escalate to de-escalate, that they can cross the threshold and threaten us and that we will we don't have an adequate response, I think that is the greatest threat to global stability. It is critical that we maintain our strategic forces so that we dissuade them of that idea. We have focused really on the big exchange and the bigger weapon systems. Of course, I owned that mission on the USS Georgia, but that is why the LRSO is so important. That's why our rapid capabilities is so important. And we are moving out on that mission to provide STRATCOM, to provide combatant commanders exactly the prompt, precise, and proportional weapons that are necessary to deter adversaries.

In fact, the nuclear the nuclear enterprise, our strategic enterprise, the triad, is the bedrock on which all of our conventional forces rest. And it's vital to make sure that somebody doesn't try to escalate for us to be stronger than our adversaries.

Senator, second place in deterrence is annihilation or subjugation. And we cannot fail.

Yeah. And I want to emphasize that Barksdale is our partner when it comes to B-52s and the LRSO. And we appreciate that very much as does our esteemed chairman.

I'll visit Minot in the summer and Barksdale in the winter.

You're welcome anytime. All right, I'll look forward to it. Sounds great. Thank you. Thanks to all three of you. Appreciate what you're doing.

Senator Hoeven is a silver-tongued devil, isn't he? Senator Merkley.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for bringing your expertise. I wanted to ask about the plutonium pit production program. And the reason I wanted to ask about that is that we have two different sites for this, and we've been doing pits from our the very first bomb. I mean, we had two different bombs in World War II, they had two different designs, one's a pit with compression, other was the shotgun strategy. The but we've been doing this for a very, very long time. So when I see $5 billion a year to simply do a new version of something we've done for, well, three-quarters of a century, it kind of raises a question on whether this is really a program just to keep funneling billions of dollars a year into some key contractor, because this is stuff we know how to do. And plus, the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos both have done studies where they artificially age the pits, and they found no degradation even up to the artificial aging to 150 years old. So is this really a carefully elevated program based on absolute scientific need or is this kind of a a whopper of a subsidy to a bunch of companies?

Senator, it is certainly not a a subsidy, sir. I have studied the plutonium pit aging, and I can provide only a scientific explanation. Our weapons are made to survive the most extreme conditions, including in space, including anti-ballistic missile capabilities that our adversaries offer, which would be to pass through and close to a nuclear detonation meant to interdict it, and to arrive on target and to deliver the yield as calculated. That is precisely and by the way, with tremendous certainty that they will do that. And anything that degrades that is a invitation to our adversaries to test the capability of our deterrent. And my job is to make sure that they never are tempted in that way. If you have specific questions, I would direct them at Mr. Beck who could tell you more about pit production.

Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Beck, would you maybe later come back and go through this because if if one looks at those studies from two different laboratories, they're saying this is unnecessary. We've been doing these pits forever, we know what a plutonium pit is, we know how to make it. It's not the wrapping and the compression that goes around it, it's not the broader weapon system. So rather than take up my time now, but I do think that it's important to look at programs where there's repeated questions being raised about whether they're actually critical to national security. And we have two different pit production facilities. This is just one one of those areas that keeps drawing attention, and I'd like to get a little bit more into the actual science and goal, but I don't think we need to do that today, but if could you could you come back and brief those of us who might be interested?

Yes, Senator, be glad to do that.

Thank thank you very much. And Administrator Williams, so one of the justifications for the war in Iran was to secure nuclear materials. And we certainly have made that a priority over time because not just because of the potential for nuclear materials controlled in different states to be a risk for nuclear weapon production, but also a risk for potential terrorist attacks, including dirty bombs. So in this budget, it drastically cuts the programs to secure nuclear materials worldwide. And I just wanted to get a little sense of why that would be a smart move for us.

The it is absolutely critical that Iran not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. And I agree with the President on his statement that that is the red line, and that's repeated often by the Secretary of War as well as the White House. The the tools that we need to detect a weapon program and detect their capability and to interdict it, I think are very well supported as Dr. Napoli pointed out. And maybe you could provide a little bit more context there in terms of our ability to support that.

Well, as I pointed out, this is not just about the pathway to a nuclear weapon. This is also about various materials in various countries where there's a change of government and often in the chaos surrounding that, there's a lot of concerns over the control of nuclear materials. It's why we've had a very robust program to track those materials all around the world and to get very involved, often in secret programs, to secure those when they're at risk so they don't end up in a dirty bomb. And so yes, go ahead.

Senator, thank you for the comments. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, our mission is to deny, detect, and defeat state and non-state actors from acquiring nuclear and radiological weapons. That is what we do each and every day, and we have a dedicated team of men and women here at the National Nuclear Security Administration and across the labs, plants, and sites to execute that mission. That is from material removal, material tracking to ensure that it does not get into the wrong hands.

So why should we cut this program? What's the justification?

Senator, I would argue that the President's budget request is mission capable and will continue to allow us to execute our mission worldwide.

For example.

For example, we're conducting material removals across the globe. I previously mentioned some of the material removals that we're doing here at home. We just made the state of South Carolina the 13th state that is cesium-free, and we're on track to meet all cesium removal requirements here in the United States. And then we go into other areas around the globe to conduct that business as well, including a removal team that we had in Lebanon, which was a difficult situation for us, but we executed that mission with precision.

Well, thank you. Appreciate that. My time's up, and I do think it's a very important mission. Thank you.

Senator and Chairman, if I may, just Senator, there's a number of missions that we can't refer to in open testimony. And if there is an invitation, we'd be happy to brief you on that. I would say that Dr. Napoli's team is extraordinarily capable and are doing extraordinary missions around the world and are very successful at it. No one comes close worldwide to that. For example, if I may, immediately following the invasion of Russia into Ukraine, because of the long-standing cooperation between DNN and the Ukrainian government, we were invited by the Ukrainians to help secure their nuclear power plants. The world's never faced a situation of a nuclear power plant in a war zone before. And it was Dr. Napoli's team before our arrival, but that same team who helped advise the Ukrainians in securing their grid and providing backup power to their nuclear power plants and really coming up with creative ways to interdict drones and protection of those facilities. So we really are extraordinarily capable, and I think the President's budget continues that capability as Dr. Napoli has indicated.

The thing that motivated my question was the $135 million cut to the global material security account and just wanting to make sure that that cut would not reduce success in this very important mission.

Senator, we will absolutely be successful. Our business is scalable, and we will execute that in an efficient manner as we move forward.

Senator Murray has more questions, and Senator Heinrich.

Mr. Beck, I wanted to ask you a question about the pit mines. You recently released a memo outlining a series of transformation objectives, including a reevaluation of all the ongoing major production infrastructure projects across the NNSA complex. One of the most costly efforts at the agency right now is the pit production mission. NNSA is slated to release a long-awaited integrated master schedule for pit production that outlines the two-site construction schedule. Can you clarify, does the FY27 budget propose funding for projects based on the existing plan for pit production, or does it factor in changes you're pursuing in your transformational objectives effort?

Senator, I'm so glad you asked that question. One of the reasons why there's a couple reasons I'm in this job is I care about the mission. The other one is I'm frustrated about some of the things you've already mentioned about how expensive it is to build facilities in the world that we're in. And the Administrator's mentioned some of the reasons for that. We are the transformation objectives are an effort to try to impart greater urgency into our production so that we can create get to the deterrence level that we need going forward in the future. And we're looking hard at the pit strategy. Our pit strategy is we we're looking at it from a synergistic effect where we're bringing all the pit capabilities together and looking at it as a systems approach. And we have an integrated plan for the work that's done at Los Alamos. We do not yet have a complete integrated master schedule that includes Savannah River because the CD-2/3 estimate for SRPPF is not quite in. We expect that this summer. We are moving forward with an improved strategy to be able to make more pits faster. And our intent is to to change the way we do business. This is not the NNSA of two years ago. We are moving fast to make more pits. The number of pits we plan to make this year at Los Alamos, we got that done in the first half of the year, and we'll make three times that number by the end of the year. That's done in cooperation with all the sites. Savannah River in particular is helping with classified tooling, training, electro-refining efforts, and chemical analysis. So it's a total team effort across the sites. The facility at Savannah River will not be ready until the 2030s. We're trying to move that forward faster. But we are going through, if you one of the transformation objectives in that list is to evaluate every line item and capital project we have to re-look at three things. Do we have the right leadership? That's the number one thing, leadership, federal and contractor leadership. Do we have the right strategy? Many times we do not. And do we have the right operational drumbeat and metrics to achieve where we go? And as we look at that, we're making some significant improvements to move forward faster. And I'm encouraged by that, by the great work that has been done by the Savannah River and Los Alamos people that are assigned pits, and they are doing extremely good work this year, and I'm proud of what's been happening so far.

Okay, well, from appropriations perspective here, that's our job. If the execution strategy on some of the largest projects that you have change, how are you going to work with this committee so we understand where the resources are going that we are providing?

This is my second time in government. This is my 50th year in a nuclear weapons business. And having an agile strategy is one thing. One of the challenges you have is the budget's not as agile as you'd like it to be because it takes a long time to get to this stage. We will work with you very closely. We're working with your staff. We're briefing your staff in this you know, we've spent many times briefing the staff on how to move forward and where we need help. And there's some things in particular, some reprogrammings that I think make sense to move forward to be more agile.

Well, speaking on behalf of the Chair and myself, we need to know what those are and where you're going so we know what resources need to be provided and where those are going. Those are critical decisions for us to understand.

We have met with your staff this week and last week, and we're working through that process to make that happen. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Heinrich.

Thanks, Chairman. Administrator Williams, I want to talk a little bit about the Genesis mission because it's highlighting what I care most about in the AI space, which is actually solving hard science and engineering problems. I don't care as much about chatbots. I want to be able to do big things in the science space. And NNSA is at the forefront of a lot of those hard problems. And I know that Sandia National Labs is really excited about what the Genesis mission could mean for their work. So I want to make sure that NNSA is an equal partner with the new AI and Quantum Office in developing Genesis mission platform capabilities. Can you talk a little bit about how the FY27 budget will be split between you and Under Secretary Gill?

Let me tee that up by a broader discussion about Genesis because I think it is critical. You're going to see Secretary Gill out in front. He's a great, tremendous leader, very qualified. In the Office of Science has really big impact to make on our economy, on materials, on health, on all kinds of things that matter to all Americans as well as to the world. And they're going to enable that mission, but they get to do that with the national labs, the science labs, and the energy labs, and they get to do that in an unclassified setting to a large extent. And because of that, they are able to attract cooperation and participation by universities, by companies, by all kinds of researchers in an open environment to develop those tools. Our mission, as you know, is very different, and we exist, excuse me, in the classified side. But we are partnered side by side. My statement is that the platform of Genesis, even though there will be a very, very hard boundary between unclassified and classified side, but the platform will be the same. I think of AI as like a river. And if you're not in the middle of the river where the current is the fastest, you are going to fall behind. And if we get all of these silos in U.S. government of different projects, you know, with their own technology stacks, their own technology decisions, I come from the IT industry, that you're going to end up in these backwaters. And when they're finished, they're going to look up and the canoe is going to be way down the river and they're not going to be able to contribute to it. And so the idea behind Genesis is that it's a common platform across Department of Energy. We're working with the interagencies, with Department of War, the IC community, NASA, others to come participate in this. I don't want to control it. I don't want to control how they spend or where they spend. But that's the plan going forward. So to your question, our funding through appropriations through your committee goes to programs. And there is a lot of concern about program money leaking over into science projects, if you will, through NNSA instead of serving the national security mission. The Office of Science doesn't have that problem. So our appropriation requests look very different, and it's our hope that we get, and I am directing, that we start standing up the capabilities in total lockstep partnership with science so that any of our programmatic spending, which we spent $600 million this past year or will spend $600 million this year on AI technologies and capabilities inside of the NNSA mission, that we're able to do that in lockstep. So that is a broad brush, but it's critical that as U.S. government that we do this in a really thoughtful way because the competition with China is absolutely existential. I believe that conquering AI and using it for the benefit of all Americans is as important as mastering the strong force of the atom that led to the Manhattan Project and that led to our strong strategic deterrent. It's that critical.

Mr. Beck, before I run out of time, the CREST project will modernize the aging Annular Core Research Reactor that's at Sandia. That's what enables their radiation effects testing. Can you give me a little bit of an update on the status of that project and talk about what's in the budget request for CREST this year?

Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. In fact, I reviewed that project this week. We are looking hard at our path forward in preparation for the 28 budget build. The design for the reactor is underway. We are, there are some funding gaps causing staggered contract awards and we're working those, but the NNSA is seeking ways to speed up the project because it's essential to our mission. I use enabling the mission as a litmus test for everything we do and that this passes that test by far. We have to be able to do what and test what this reactor does for us. And so we're looking to reduce the schedule risk, but CREST is an important part of our program that we look forward. It's the only survivability testing option that we have, as you know.

Senator, I may add that I believe approval and first funding for the CREST program was maybe the very first thing I signed when I was confirmed as administrator. Like 48 hours after being confirmed. So it's that important.

Well, let us know how we can help. Thank you.

Gentlemen, I've listened very carefully. You guys are good. And I really appreciate that. This is not an area you want to screw around in. And I hope you can go back and get some of your former colleagues back on board. I want to talk in a second about money, but first I want to ask Dr. Napoli a very unfair question. I look around the world. This is not a criticism of anybody. Anybody. I look around the world. I look at the conflict in Middle East. Look at Ukraine. Look at Russia. Look at North Korea, which has been really quiet. That doesn't mean that underneath the surface they're not moving forward. Obviously look at China. Look at the things going on in South America. Some of our neighbors are moving toward democracy, but some of them are moving toward authoritarianism. That's certainly the case in sub-Saharan Africa. And we've learned a lot from the conflict in Iran, it seems to me. A lot of people have had to show their cards. And you know the question I ask myself. Let's take Japan. Wealthy country, smart people, developed. If I'm running Japan, I'm going to be thinking about getting a nuclear weapon. Aren't you? I mean, aren't you? Let's be honest. If I'm the UAE, I just got out of OPEC. If I'm the UAE, thinking, my God, I've got a neighbor who's Charles Manson. I'm going to be thinking about getting a weapon. How do we stop that?

Senator, that's a great question. If you really care about nonproliferation, if you really care about countries that are aspirational and have expressed interest in getting a nuclear weapon and yet that are allies of the United States, and you can pick any country, Poland, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, any country that might have those aspirations or wish, confidence in the American deterrent, the American extended deterrent, our capability and credibility is the best argument for not developing their own weapons program.

Is that confidence there?

If we continue to demonstrate our commitment to modernize our strategic deterrent, to address the tactical and theater threat and counter that threat, if we do that in earnest, if we do our jobs right, yes, sir, they will believe in the peace through American atomic strength as has been set for the last 80 years. But if our allies doubt that, then they then we're going to have a proliferation problem and that is exactly why we need to make historic and generational investments in the infrastructure and in the commitment to our strategic weapons capability. And that is exactly why we need to make historic and generational investments in the infrastructure and in the and in the commitment to our strategic weapons capability.

Dr. Napoli.

Thank you, Senator. First, before I answer your question, I do want to lament that I was born and raised in the great state of Louisiana. I was educated in Louisiana, so I want to thank you for your leadership in the state. I'm a graduate of Louisiana Tech University and I am extremely proud of that.

Great school. Great school.

Thank you, sir. After I graduated, I joined the military and I served my entire career in the Department of Navy, defending our nation. The topics that you bring up are profound and I think the administrator hit it extremely well on American extended deterrents. I would also add to that our support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As soon as we finish this hearing, I'll be on a train to New York to attend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference and lobby for the nonproliferation mission. So I want you to know that I take the questions that you ask with absolute gravity of the responsibilities associated with that and I will work tirelessly to accomplish that mission during my time in office.

Well, here's what I see. And I could be wrong. I see Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and the supreme leader in Iran, the new one as well as the deceased former, working together. I see Xi as the quarterback. I mean, it's a partnership, but the managing partner is President Xi. And their goal is to have Russia dominate Eastern, Central and Eastern Europe. And to have Iran dominate the Middle East. That's not going so well right now. But that's their goal. And their goal is to have China dominate the Indo-Pacific with freedom to roam in sub-Saharan Africa and freedom to roam along with Putin in South and Central America. And by the way, Putin and Xi have plans for both the Arctic and space. Now, you can call yourself what you want, an isolationist, an interventionist, a neocon, you can call yourself what you want. That's not a world that's safe for America. I do not want America to be the world's policeman. I don't want those guys to be the world's policeman either. Now, I also don't think America first has to mean America alone. But it's complicated because America together implies that everybody's got to pick up their share of the check. And we just can't afford to do all this anymore. I guess every generation says this. I've never seen the world more dangerous than it is now. I haven't. I think we've got to come to some sort of understanding. I'd like to say friendship, but understanding with Europe. And with Japan, and with South Korea, and with Australia, and with Canada. I think it's going to take all of us. But everybody's got to pay their way. And I think we can hold a line on the proliferation unless people think they can't count on us. Okay? The South Koreans are proud people. Man, what they've done in a short period of time, it's a miracle. They've gone from dirt poor to gosh, just breathtaking progress. They're not going to sit there and not protect themselves. Right now they think they can count on us. They can. But that's part of what this is all about. I'm not going to ask you to comment on this, and I know I'm putting you on the spot because we don't need a headline saying Dr. Napoli says Japan's going to go get a nuclear weapon. And you didn't comment on that as far as I'm concerned, but you know, I'm not Bambi's baby brother. I'm damn sure they've talked about it. Here's the deal on the money. The President says we're going to spend $1.5 trillion extra on defense. That includes you gentlemen and your colleagues. I don't know yet how we're going to do that. My guess is that if we try to spend an extra $1.5 trillion on defense through our normal budget, that my Democratic friends are going to have something to say. Just a hunch, okay? So at some point, the powers that be around here, I'm still trying to figure out who they are, okay, are going to say, well, we need to do another reconciliation bill and spend some of that money in reconciliation. Right now, our record on reconciliation is not real good, okay? So I don't know how all this is going to fit in. But it is clear to me that we've got to spend more money on defense, but it and it is clear to me that we have got to spend more money on our nuclear stockpile and on nonproliferation and on our reactors. But guys, we don't have a penny to waste. And I want to ask the hard questions. Do we need two plutonium pit production facilities? I'm not saying we don't, but we're going to have to talk about it. What do we do to hire the people we need? Every single one of you can go tomorrow in the private sector and quadruple your salary with stock options. Okay, how do we attract people like you to come on into government and help us deal with all this? I wish I, you know, it's easy to raise questions. I admire the hell out of the problem, but I don't have the solution. But that's what we're going to be doing together. There's no bigger, more important part of this Energy and Water Development budget than what you guys do. Okay? We'll get together privately, publicly. If we need to have a classified briefing, tell me. Don't get pissed off and quit. We need you on board, okay, because this is serious stuff we're dealing with. Serious, serious stuff. And I'll leave with this final thought. It's not just the number of weapons. It's what they can do and how we deploy them. And I'm going to hush, but we've got to keep the UK and Australia hitched up on the submarine program. I mean, there are a lot of things we've got to explore together. So we want your input. All right, thank you, gentlemen. I've learned a lot. Thank you very much. Thanks to the folks behind you who do a lot of the work. Thank you, guys. You all take the rest of the day off.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Listen, I've got to say this. Written questions for the record submitted by 5:00 PM Wednesday, May 6th. We'd appreciate your prompt responses, though I know you've got other things to do, but in a reasonable period of time. We may meet again because I've learned a lot today and I want some of my other colleagues who couldn't be here today to, one of whom is Lindsey, Senator Graham. We had to put a muzzle on him this afternoon, but we're going to take it off by tonight. I'd like him to be here when we talk about the plutonium pits because my guess is he's going to have something to say. Okay, with that, thank you for your time. Meeting's adjourned.