Thank you, Chairman Inhofe.  I want to join you in welcoming Secretary Perry back to this committee, and I want welcome Administrator Gordon-Hagerty, who is appearing here for the first time.  Thank you both for your service.   

The President’s fiscal year 2020 budget request for defense-related activities at the Department of Energy is $23 billion.  This is a 4.3 percent increase over last year’s enacted level, and it is approximately 73 percent of the entire $31 billion request for the Department of Energy.  The specific request for the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, is $16.5 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion or an 8.3 percent increase over last year.  Given that defense-related activities comprise such a large percentage of the Department’s budget and the large proposed increases to the NNSA budget, I want to thank the Chairman for asking these witnesses to testify before our committee today.

Administrator Gordon-Hagerty, the requested $1.2 billion increase to the NNSA budget is intended to help meet the requirements of both the 2010 and the 2018 Nuclear Posture Reviews.  The NNSA’s workload is at its highest peak since the 1980’s with plans to overhaul five weapons systems over the next 15 years.  These projects include a cruise missile warhead first built in 1980, the B61 gravity bomb, which first entered production in 1961, and an ICBM warhead which entered service in 1978.  All of these programs will require nuclear and non-nuclear parts from your complex at the same time.  The NNSA is also to preparing to produce 30 pits per year at Los Alamos which will require extensive new equipment, while at the same time, NNSA is building a $6.5 billion building at Oak Ridge to handle uranium.  I am interested in your approach to ensuring all these projects are accomplished on time, on schedule, and on budget.

Also, in anticipation of this increased workload, the FY16 National Defense Authorization Act authorized a Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation Office to provide an independent review  on programs and their cost estimates.  I am interested in hearing if this office is being funded and staffed appropriately.

Secretary Perry, your department recently revised the environmental cleanup liability of former atomic weapons production sites from an estimate of $163 billion to $377 billion, a jump of $244 billion over the next 30 years.  I would note at the Hanford Washington Reservation, there are approximately 55 million gallons of radioactive liquid sludge in 177 underground storage tanks, some of which are leaking.  I would like to know why the cost of cleanup has grown so much.  In addition, I would like to understand why it is taking so long to clean out the Hanford underground tanks, while the Savannah River Site cleanup of underground storage tanks is well on its way.  

On a final point, Secretary Perry, proposals to sell U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia have generated significant interest and could have broader repercussions for the Middle East and global non-proliferation efforts. 

In May of last year, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated that if Iran “developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”  That statement, combined with apparent Saudi insistence on the right to produce fissile material – whether it be enriched uranium or plutonium – requires that we carefully evaluate whether we could unintentionally encourage a nuclear arms race in the Middle East by selling Saudi Arabia nuclear reactors and associated technology.

Since the passage of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, the United States has promoted the peaceful use of atomic energy.  Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act requires the United States and any country seeking a transfer of nuclear technology to sign a non-proliferation agreement that is then reviewed by Congress.  Part 57b of the Atomic Energy Act requires that you, Mr. Secretary, review any transfer of technology that could lead to the production of special nuclear material outside the United States.  Clearly the intent of Congress for over seventy years has been to balance the peaceful use of atomic energy against the possibility it might be used to make a nuclear weapon.  We have serious questions in this regard, Mr. Secretary, and I hope you can respond to them.  We appreciate your update on this issue and many more, again, thank you both for your service.