(1) 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:34 p.m. in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Alexander, Graham, Feinstein, and Udall. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ, U.S. AIR 

FORCE (Retired), UNDER SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY 

AND ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN L. DAVIS, UNITED STATES AIR 

FORCE, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

MILITARY APPLICATIONS 

ANNE HARRINGTON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE 

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

ADMIRAL JAMES F. (FRANK) CALDWELL, JR., UNITED STATES 

NAVY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF NAVAL 

REACTORS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water 

Development will please come to order. 

As I was saying to Senator Feinstein, my co-chairman in effect, 

both Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer were saying yesterday that Senator McConnell hopes to begin the appropriations 

process on the floor on April 18. Senator Schumer said he intended 

to support having an appropriations process, and the Democrats 

have all written Senator McConnell saying they want one. It looks 

like everybody wants an appropriations process this year, so we’re 

hoping very much that’s possible. And Senator Feinstein and I will 

work with our House committee chairs to try to make ours one of 

the first bills that’s available to the majority leader to bring to the 

floor. We hope to do it in a bipartisan way. And if there are controversial amendments, we hope those will be offered on the floor 

of the Senate rather than in the committee. 
2 

This afternoon, we are having a hearing to review the President’s 

fiscal year 2017 budget request for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration. Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening 

statement. I will then recognize each Senator for up to 5 minutes 

for an opening statement, alternating between the majority and the 

minority in the order in which they arrived. 

We will then turn to our witnesses for their testimony. General 

Klotz will present testimony on behalf of the National Nuclear Security Administration. And we’ll include the full written statements 

of all the witnesses in the record. After General Klotz, Senators 

will then be recognized for 5 minutes of questions each. 

First, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here, and 

also Senator Feinstein, an exceptional co-chairman of this committee. We work together regardless of which party has the majority and usually come up with a pretty good result for the country. 

Our witnesses today include Lieutenant General Frank Klotz, 

Administrator of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration); Brigadier General S.L. Davis, Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Applications; Ms. Anne Harrington, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; and Admiral Frank Caldwell, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors. 

NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of 

Energy that’s responsible for a vital mission, managing our nuclear 

weapons stockpile, reducing global dangers posed by weapons of 

mass destruction, and providing the Navy with safe and effective 

nuclear power. This is the subcommittee’s fourth hearing this year 

on the President’s budget request. 

NNSA has an important national security mission, but faces 

many challenges. We’ll have to make some hard decisions on the 

most important priorities. 

The President’s 2017 budget request is $12.9 billion, an increase 

of 2.9 percent over the fiscal year 2016. The focus of my questions 

today will be on four main areas: one, keeping critical projects on 

time and on budget, that is a major priority of Senator Feinstein 

and of mine; two, effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons 

stockpile; three, supporting our nuclear Navy; and four, maintaining our vital nuclear workforce. 

PROJECT OVERSIGHT

NNSA is responsible for three of the largest construction projects 

in the Federal Government: the Uranium Facility in Tennessee, the 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina; and the Plutonium Facility in New Mexico. Combined, these projects could cost 

more than $20 billion to build, and over the past 4 years, Senator 

Feinstein and I have worked hard to keep costs from skyrocketing. 

We want to make sure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent 

wisely and that these projects are on time and on budget. 

We have focused most of our oversight on the Uranium Facility 

in Tennessee for the past 5 years. We asked for a Red Team review 

headed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Chief Thom Mason to 

review the project, which recommended ways to get it back on 

track. We said that the project had to be completed by 2025 with 

a cost of no greater than $6.5 billion and that the design had to 

be at least 90 percent completed before we even began construction 
3 

of the nuclear facility. We urged the Department to take aggressive 

steps to get costs under control so we could meet these goals. 

The facility is off to a good start, but there is a lot more work 

to do. I am going to ask you more today about the Uranium Facility, particularly about your schedule for completing the design and 

when you anticipate construction can begin. 

I would also like to discuss the MOX Facility in South Carolina. 

You have proposed that we stop construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and recommended that Congress fund a different 

process called Dilute and Disposal. You’ve said the Dilute and Disposal alternative will cost less, actually a lot less, and get the material out of South Carolina much sooner than if we continue to 

fund MOX. 

General Klotz, I am particularly interested in your plan for dealing with the 13 tons of plutonium that are currently in South Carolina, and ask that you address this either in your opening statement or questions. 

EFFECTIVELY MAINTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Another major part of your budget maintains our nuclear weapons stockpile, and I want to make sure we’re spending those dollars 

effectively. The budget request includes $1.3 billion to continue the 

four ongoing life extension programs, which fix or replace components in weapons systems to make sure they’re safe and reliable. 

The work must be done, but life extension programs are very expensive, so they need to be properly managed. I will ask you about 

that today. 

SUPPORTING OUR NUCLEAR NAVY

Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of nuclear power for 

our submarines and aircraft carriers. Naval Reactors has a lot on 

its plate right now. They are designing a new reactor core for the 

next class of submarines, refueling a prototype reactor, and building a new spent fuel processing facility. In addition, you have to 

support the day-to-day operation of 73 submarines and 10 aircraft 

carriers, including a total of 97 operating reactors. You have about 

the same number of operating reactors that we have in the commercial world. 

The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors designs and oversees have had an impeccable safety record for more than 60 years. 

There has, I believe, never been a reactor accident. 

While life extension programs provide the opportunity to maintain vital skills in many areas, now moving on to those, they do 

not exercise all of the skills needed for a healthy weapons program. 

When I had the opportunity to talk to Admiral Caldwell about 

the Naval Reactors program last week, he told me about his technical base, the men and women who respond when our ships are 

at sea. I would like to hear more today about that. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

We’re here today to review the president’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for the 

National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the 

Department of Energy that is responsible for managing our nuclear weapons stock-
4 

pile, reducing global dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction, and providing 

the Navy with safe and effective nuclear power. 

This is the Subcommittee’s fourth hearing this year on the president’s budget request, and I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ testimony. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, has an important national security mission, but faces many challenges. That’s why we need to do what 

we were sent here to do—to govern. 

Like last year, we will have to make some hard decisions so we can continue to 

fund the most important priorities. 

The president’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for the NNSA is $12.9 billion, an 

increase of $357 million (or 2.9 percent) higher than the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. 

Today, I’d like to focus my questions on four main areas: 

1) Keeping critical projects on time and on budget; 

2) Effectively maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile; 

3) Supporting our nuclear Navy; and 

4) Maintaining our vital nuclear workforce. 

KEEPING CRITICAL PROJECTS ON TIME AND ON BUDGET

The NNSA is responsible for three of the largest construction projects in the Federal government: the Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee; the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina; and the Plutonium Facility in New Mexico. 

Combined, these projects could cost more than $20 billion dollars to build, and 

over the past 4 years, Senator Feinstein and I have worked hard to keep costs from 

skyrocketing. We want to make sure hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent wisely 

and that these projects are on time and on budget. 

Senator Feinstein and I have focused much of our oversight on the Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee over the past 5 years. 

We asked for a Red Team review of the project, which recommended ways to get 

it back on track. 

We said the project had to be completed by 2025 with a cost no greater than $6.5 

billion, and the design had to be at least 90 percent completed before we began construction of the nuclear facilities. We urged the Department to take aggressive steps 

to get costs under control. 

The Uranium Processing Facility is off to a good start, but there’s a lot more work 

to be done. 

I’m going to ask you more today about the Uranium Processing Facility, particularly about your schedule for completing the design and when you anticipate construction can begin. 

I’d also like to discuss the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina. The 

NNSA has proposed that we stop construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 

and recommended that Congress fund a different process, called Dilute and Disposal. 

You have said that the Dilute and Disposal alternative will cost less, and get the 

material out of South Carolina much sooner than it would if we continue to fund 

MOX. 

General Klotz, I am particularly interested in your plan for dealing with the 13 

tons of plutonium currently in South Carolina, and ask that you address this in 

your opening statement. 

EFFECTIVELY MAINTAINING OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Another major part of the NNSA’s budget maintains our nuclear weapons stockpile, and I want to make sure we are spending taxpayer dollars effectively. 

The budget request includes $1.3 billion to continue the four ongoing life extension programs, which fix or replace components in weapons systems to make sure 

they’re safe and reliable. 

This work must be done—but life extension programs are very expensive, so they 

need to be properly managed. 

I will ask you today whether you will be able to meet your production deadlines 

on time and on budget. 

SUPPORTING OUR NUCLEAR NAVY

Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of nuclear power for our submarines 

and aircraft carriers. 
5 

Naval Reactors has a lot on their plate right now—they are designing a new reactor core for the next class of submarines, refueling a prototype reactor, and building 

a new spent fuel processing facility. 

In addition, Naval Reactors supports the day-to-day operations of 73 submarines 

and 10 aircraft carriers—including a total of 97 operating reactors. 

The small nuclear reactors that Naval Reactors designs and oversees have had 

an impeccable safety record for more than 60 years; there has never been a reactor 

accident. 

MAINTAINING OUR VITAL NUCLEAR WORKFORCE

While life extension programs provide the opportunity to maintain vital skills in 

many areas, they do not exercise all of the skills needed for a healthy weapons program. 

When I had the opportunity to talk to Admiral Caldwell about the Naval Reactors 

program last week, he told me about his ‘‘technical base’’—the men and women who 

respond when our nuclear ships at sea have a problem. 

I’d like to hear more from the witnesses today about the challenges they face in 

maintaining the needed skills within their workforce, and what they are doing to 

make sure they have the right skills to meet their important missions. 

Senator ALEXANDER. With that, I would recognize Senator Feinstein to make her opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

think you know how much I respect you. And to the panel, I want 

to say welcome. And this is one of the best parts of working in the 

Senate, that you can work with somebody you respect, that you 

work out differences of opinion that he gives on some, I give on 

some, and for some reason, it all works. I wish we could do more 

of that. 

So thank you, Senator Alexander. 

As you said, NNSA’s overall request is a 3 percent increase in 

fiscal year 2016, but, and I want to talk about this for a minute, 

the nonproliferation program sees a 7 percent decrease, and I am 

a strong proponent of that program. Compared to 2010, the fiscal 

year 2017 request for weapons is a $2.9 billion increase. I think 

that’s very difficult for me. The nonproliferation program request 

is a $300 million decrease from its peak in fiscal year 2012, General. The nonprogram is down $500 million, while weapons program’s budget continues to climb. ‘‘Why?’’ I ask. 

General, your appearance here today is 2 weeks before the final 

Nuclear Security Summit, where 50 countries will gather to discuss 

ways to further strengthen nuclear security measures and cooperation. I think it was in Prague in 2009 that President Obama committed to locking down all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years. 

That time has passed. The administration has made great strides 

toward that goal and has further reduced the dangers of nuclear 

terrorism since that time. 

I’ll give you a few examples: removal of over 3,800 kilograms of 

plutonium and highly enriched uranium; removal of 42,000 highpriority radioactive sources, such as cesium and kobalt, that can be 

used in a dirty bomb; conversion of 23 reactors from use of highly 

enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium; and installation of 

more than 400 fixed and mobile detectors in 43 countries. I congratulate you, and that’s very important to me. And yet, even with 

these accomplishments, nuclear material is still obtainable and attractive to criminals and terrorists. 
6 

A recent article by the Center for Public Integrity brings some 

information on nuclear smuggling out of the shadows. There have 

been 20 reported nuclear material interdictions in Europe and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some cases, smugglers 

were attempting to move significant quantities of highly enriched 

uranium, and in others, it appears to just be small samples with 

the promise of bigger things. It has been openly reported that a 

cache of highly enriched uranium went missing in Russia after the 

end of the Cold War. The substantial success in securing border 

crossings around Russia is helping to prevent this material from 

making its way to the United States. The worsening economy in 

Russia, the rise of the Islamic State in particular, and I deal with 

a lot of that on the Intelligence Committee, and the fear that one 

group or another gets some form of dirty bomb, and the chaos 

spreading from the Middle East into Europe tells me now is not the 

time to let down our guard on nuclear security. 

But on the weapons side of NNSA, all I see is unrestrained 

growth. I understand that the nuclear weapons complex needs to 

improve its infrastructure. No problem. NNSA reports a $3.2 billion facility maintenance backlog, and the $400 million increase in 

its fiscal year 2017 budget request is largely dedicated to halting 

the growth of that maintenance back deficit, as I understand, and 

obviously, I think we both support that. 

But the budget for nuclear weapons just seems to keep growing. 

A 45 percent head—excuse me—increase since 2001. I almost said 

‘‘hedge’’ because I very much believe that it’s very wasteful to have 

a hedge at 3 to 1, and one day we have to have the courage to do 

something about that. But there is more to come. Warhead life extension programs, construction of the Uranium Processing Facility, 

the Plutonium Facility, the reactor for the Ohio-class replacement 

submarine, will all demand higher spending levels in the next 5 to 

10 years, and this doesn’t include projects for which NNSA has not 

budgeted for, such as new component manufacturing facilities or 

new science facilities. 

According to your budget request, spending on weapons is projected to grow another $1.3 billion over the next 5 years to $10.5 

billion. I’m really going to have a great deal of trouble supporting 

that. By comparison, the nonproliferation spending is projected to 

grow only $300 million. Importantly, that assumes that MOX, 

funded out of nonproliferation, is stopped, deemed to be too costly 

to continue to proceed with. So the question comes, What is the alternative and that cost? 

In the area of warheads and new facilities, NNSA’s management 

record, candidly, although I think it’s better, does not inspire confidence. Rather, the history of cost growth and schedule slippages 

suggests that even more money will be required than currently projected. So where does it end and how much is enough? Outside of 

MOX, I don’t see tough choices being made. I just see more money 

for weapons and less money for everything else. 

Since it met its 2013 goals for locking down nuclear materials, 

NNSA has pushed out the goals and milestones for their nonproliferation efforts. For example, work in securing 4,400 radiological facilities that was to be completed by 2022 now won’t be 

done until 2033, obviously extended by 10 years. In some cases, the 
7 

work has become more technically and diplomatically difficult, and 

we understand that, but it’s also true that the nonprobudget has 

seen a steady decline since 2012. 

Now, I don’t believe we should or can sacrifice our ongoing efforts 

in nuclear security on the altar of our nuclear weapons stockpile. 

So I look forward to discussing this issue with you and our witnesses today. And I hope I can count on you to take a measured 

and reasonable approach to these matters. 

So, General, thank you, and I welcome you. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Senator Udall, would you like to make an 

opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

Senator UDALL. Yes, just briefly. And I don’t think I’ll take all 

my time, but I just want to welcome and greet General Klotz for 

being here. 

I really enjoyed visiting with you in my office within the last 

week or so about many of the big issues facing the NNSA and the 

other witnesses here today, Deputy Administrator Harrington, 

Brigadier General Davis, and Admiral Caldwell. Thank you for 

being here and thank you for your service to the country. I think 

it’s terrifically important the work that you do. And as you know, 

New Mexico’s two national labs are a critical part of the NNSA’s 

infrastructure and provide indispensable support for your mission 

to keep the Nation’s stockpile safe, reliable, and secure. 

At Sandia National Laboratory, they’ve hired 35 percent of their 

current staff in the last 5 years to support the life extension 

projects that are going on there. And at Los Alamos, the lab is embarking on plans to revitalize Cold War era infrastructure. And I 

couldn’t agree more with both the chairman and the co-chairman 

that we need to keep our costs under control, but we also need to 

do the job right. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. 

I’m going to focus my questions today on when we talk about cost 

control, the big project they’re working on at Sandia is the B61. 

The B61, the trend has been to keep it within budget and to do it 

on time, and I’m wondering, what are the lessons there? Because 

I think that we have done a good job in that respect. 

And then I would like to ask about how much NNSA budgets 

need to increase to address the aging stockpile. You all know that 

that’s an issue that’s out there. And then there is a GAO report 

on the plutonium infrastructure strategy, and they raised some 

issues there, and I’m going to ask about that and where we’re 

headed on that plutonium infrastructure strategy. 

All of this costs money. We need to keep the budgets under control, but as I said, we need to do it right. And I thank you again 

for your service. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Senator Udall. 

At this time, we’ll turn to General Klotz, who will present testimony on behalf of the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

General Klotz. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ

General KLOTZ. Thank you, sir. 
8 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, Senator Udall, 

thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s fiscal year 

2017 budget request for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. We value this committee’s leadership in national security as well as its robust and abiding support 

for the missions and the people of NNSA. 

As you rightly pointed out, our budget request, which comprises 

more than 40 percent of DOE’s budget, is $12.9 billion, an increase 

of nearly $357 million, or 2.9 percent, over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The budget request continues the administration’s unwavering commitment to NNSA’s important and enduring missions. These missions are defined in the NNSA’s Strategic Vision, 

which we released last year and which is available on our website, 

and they include to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear 

weapons stockpile without nuclear explosive testing, to prevent, 

counter, and respond to the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and to support the capability of our nuclear-powered Navy to protect American and allied interests around the 

world. 

To succeed, NNSA must maintain crosscutting capabilities that 

enable each of our core missions. These crosscuts focus on advancing science, technology, and engineering, supporting our people in 

modernizing our infrastructure, and developing a management culture focused on safety, on security, and on efficiency, adopting the 

best practices in use across the government as well as in the commercial world. 

The budget materials and briefings that we have provided describe NNSA’s major accomplishments in 2015 as well as the underlying rationale for our budget proposal for fiscal year 2017. 

Let me just briefly highlight a few of the points here. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE

First and foremost, the United States has maintained, as I said, 

a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear explosive testing now for over 20 years. As a result of the 

funding provided by this Congress and supported by this subcommittee, and the significant improvements NNSA has made in 

program management over the past 2 to 3 years, all of our life extension programs, or LEPs, and major alterations are on schedule 

and within budget. 

NNSA’s science and technology base also continues to yield critical modeling and simulation data and to deploy increasingly capable high-performance computing in support of stockpile stewardship. Last year, for example, the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory increased its shot rate, its experiment 

rate, from 191 in 2014 to 356 in 2015, an 86 percent increase. Our 

budget request also supports the recapitalization of NNSA’s aging 

research and production infrastructure, most notably at the facilities where we perform our major uranium, plutonium, tritium, and 

other commodity operations. Of significance, NNSA completed the 

first sub-project for the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, on time and millions of dollars under budget. 
9 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

This year’s request for the defense nuclear nonproliferation account, as has already been pointed out, is 6.8 percent lower than 

the fiscal 2016 enacted level, for two reasons. First, prior year carryover balances are available to execute several programs in this 

mission space. And secondly, we propose terminating the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel, or MOX, Fabrication Facility project. 

While the administration remains firmly committed to disposing 

of surplus weapons grade plutonium, it is clear from independent 

analyses that the MOX fuel approach is unsustainable given the 

enormous costs involved. The already proven Dilution and Disposal 

alternative would enable the plutonium to be disposed of decades 

sooner than the MOX approach and at less than half the cost and 

with far fewer risks. In fact, 4.8 metric tons of plutonium have already been diluted and disposed of in this manner, demonstrating 

beyond doubt the feasibility of this approach. 

The new approach will enable us to be more responsible stewards 

of taxpayer dollars while upholding our commitment to dispose of 

surplus weapons grade plutonium more quickly. That’s why the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes that the Department pursue the Dilution and Disposal approach as the path 

forward and begin termination of the MOX project. 

In addition, the Department could dispose of all the surplus plutonium in South Carolina using the Dilute and Dispose approach 

under its current authorizations, getting the plutonium out of the 

State decades earlier than under the MOX approach. 

NAVAL REACTORS PROGRAM

The request for our third appropriations, the Naval Reactors program keeps pace with mission needs and continues NNSA’s commitment to three major initiatives: the Ohio-class reactor plant system development, the Land-Based S8G Prototype refueling overhaul in upstate New York; and the spent fuel handling recapitalization project in Idaho. And, of course, Admiral Caldwell is far 

better prepared than I to answer any questions that you may have 

in this area. 

MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

For each of these missions, NNSA is driving improvements in 

management and governance. For all of our programs, we have instituted rigorous analyses of alternatives, defined clear lines of authority and accountability for Federal and contract program management, improved cost and schedule performance, and ensure that 

Federal project directors and contracting officers have the appropriate skill mix and professional certifications to effectively manage 

NNSA’s work. Our budget request for Federal salaries and expenses reflects an increasing emphasis on improving program and 

project management across all of our mission pillars. 

So in closing, the nuclear security enterprise continues to make 

significant process—progress. Through disciplined careful planning, 

consistent funding, and your continued strong support, we believe 

we can make smart investments to build on that progress and to 

meet new challenges in the future. 
10 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and we look forward to addressing your questions. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. KLOTZ

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the President’s fiscal year 2017 

budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. We value this Committee’s strong support for the nuclear security mission, and for the people and institutions that are responsible for executing it. 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for NNSA is $12.9 billion, this is 

an increase of $357.5 million or 2.9 percent over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

The request is approximately 43 percent of the DOE’s total budget, and 67 percent 

of DOE’s total 050 budget. 

The NNSA has a unique and special responsibility to maintain a safe, secure, and 

effective nuclear weapons stockpile for as long as nuclear weapons exist; to prevent, 

counter, and respond to evolving and emerging nuclear proliferation and terrorism 

threats; to provide nuclear propulsion to our Navy as it protects American and Allied interests around the world; and to support our outstanding NNSA Federal 

workforce. By supporting overall growth, this budget request represents a strong endorsement of NNSA’s vital and enduring missions, and is indicative of the Administration’s unwavering commitment to a strong national defense. 

NNSA’s missions are accomplished through the hard work and innovative spirit 

of a highly talented Federal and Management and Operating (M&O) workforce committed to public service. To provide this team the tools they need to carry out their 

complex and challenging task, both now and in the future, we must continue to 

modernize our scientific, technical, and engineering capabilities and infrastructure. 

In doing so, we are mindful of our obligation to continually improve our business 

practices, and to be responsible stewards of the resources that Congress and the 

American people have entrusted to us. 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request also reflects the close working partnership between NNSA and the Department of Defense (DoD). NNSA works closely with DoD 

to meet military requirements, support our Nation’s nuclear deterrence capabilities 

and modernize the nuclear security enterprise. I would also note, that as in previous 

years, DoD is carrying in its fiscal year 2017 budget request separate funding in 

fiscal year 2018 and beyond that will be reallocated annually to NNSA’s Weapons 

Activities and Naval Reactors. 

I want to thank the committee for its support of the fiscal year 2016 budget request and look forward to your continuing support in fiscal year 2017. We have 

made some tough decisions and tradeoffs to meet both military commitments and 

nuclear security priorities. Without congressional support, modernization of our nuclear enterprise, implementation of our long-term stockpile sustainment strategy, 

and sustainment of our nonproliferation and prevention and response capabilities 

could be at risk. The program we have proposed is highly integrated and interdependent across the four accounts. 

Details of the fiscal year 2017 budget request for the NNSA follow: 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATION

For the Weapons Activities account, the fiscal year 2017 budget request is $9.2 

billion, an increase of $396.2 million, or 4.5 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This account provides funds for the Defense Programs portfolio, which 

is responsible for all aspects of the stockpile stewardship, management, and responsiveness programs; the enterprise-wide infrastructure sustainment activities managed by our Office of Safety, Infrastructure, and Operations; NNSA’s physical and 

cybersecurity activities; and the secure transportation of nuclear materials. 

Maintaining the Stockpile 

Last year, the work of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) allowed the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to certify to the President for the 20th 

time that the American nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable, without the need for underground explosive nuclear testing. This achievement 

is made possible each year by essential investments in state-of-the-art diagnostic 

tools, high performance computing platforms, and modern facilities, which are 

staffed by NNSA’s world-class scientists, engineers, and technicians. 
11 

For Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), the fiscal year 2017 budget request is $3.3 

billion, a decrease of $57.3 million, or 1.7 percent below the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

levels. These reductions will not restrict NNSA’s ability to annually assess system 

performance and reliability or maintain the schedule for Life Extension Programs 

(LEP). 

The major LEPs are a fundamental part of this account. The $222.9 million requested for the W76–1 warhead LEP directly supports the Navy and will keep the 

LEP on schedule and on budget to complete production in fiscal year 2019. We continue to make good progress on the B61–12 LEP, which will consolidate four 

variants of the B61 gravity bomb and will improve the safety and security of the 

oldest weapon system in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. With the $616.1 million requested, we will remain on schedule to deliver the First Production Unit (FPU) in 

fiscal year 2020. 

NNSA is responsible for the refurbishment of the nuclear explosives package and 

new bomb electronics, while the Air Force will provide the tail kit assembly under 

a separate acquisition program. When fielded, the B61–12 bomb will support both 

Air Force strategic long-range nuclear-capable bombers and dual-capable fighter aircraft, providing extended deterrence to our allies and partners, and allow retirement 

of the last megaton class weapon in the inventory, the B83 gravity bomb. 

In July 2015, we began Phase 6.2 (Feasibility Study and Design Options) for the 

W80–4 cruise missile warhead LEP. The fiscal year 2016 budget request included 

$195 million to accelerate the FPU by 2 years to fiscal year 2025, a decision made 

by the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) in late 2014. The fiscal year 2015 budget 

request included $10 million to start the program. We had initially planned a rampup of Phase 6.2 study activities beginning in fiscal year 2016 to support the NWC 

FPU decision. However, as a result of the fiscal year 2016 continuing resolution, we 

were unable to begin the planned ramp-up activities until just recently. Furthermore, because of the delay in receiving fiscal year 2016 funding, the program cannot 

execute the full fiscal year 2016 enacted amount this year. As a result, a significant 

amount of the program’s fiscal year 2016 funding will carry over into fiscal year 

2017. Consequently, the fiscal year 2017 budget request is $25.3 million over the 

fiscal year 2016 budget request, rather than $117 million over the fiscal year 2016 

budget request, as previously projected. While this delayed start will affect planned 

technology maturation activities in Phase 6.2A (Design Definition and Cost Study), 

we still fully expect to meet the planned FPU date in fiscal year 2025 to support 

the Air Force Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) program. 

In fiscal year 2015, the NWC approved additional scope for the W88 Alteration 

(ALT) 370 to meet an emerging requirement. NNSA is now accelerating the new 

Conventional High Explosive (CHE) refresh work to match the original ALT schedule. As a result, we are synchronizing the full program to transition seamlessly to 

the Production Engineering phase in February 2017. In preparation for that phase 

transition, NNSA will publish a baseline cost report by the end of this fiscal year. 

This budget request reflects these efforts and includes $281.1 million in fiscal year 

2017 to support the FPU in fiscal year 2020. 

Also within DSW, the fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $1.3 billion for 

Stockpile Systems and Stockpile Services. These programs sustain the stockpile pursuant to the direction given in the President’s Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Plan 

(NWSP). In doing so, the programs deploy unique skills, equipment, testers, and logistics to enable the daily operations of the nation’s nuclear deterrent. Specifically, 

these programs produce and replace limited life components (LLCs) such as neutron 

generators and gas transfer systems, conduct maintenance, surveillance, and evaluations to assess weapons reliability, detect and anticipate potential weapons issues 

such as the recent CHE refresh issue mentioned above, and compile and analyze 

information during the Annual Assessment process. 

The pursuit and application of technological advancements to enhance safety and 

security while reducing life cycle costs of the stockpile runs through all of these activities. The development of Integrated Surety Architectures enhancing transportation safety and security is an example of these efforts. 

Within DSW, the fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes $577.8 million for 

the Strategic Materials account to maintain NNSA’s ability to produce the nuclear 

and other materials needed to support the enduring stockpile. This program includes Uranium Sustainment, Plutonium Sustainment, Tritium Sustainment, Domestic Uranium Enrichment (DUE), lithium and other strategic materials. Funding 

for Uranium Sustainment will enable enriched uranium operations in Building 

9212, a Manhattan Project-era production facility at the Y–12 National Security 

Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to end in fiscal year 2025, and allow the bulk 

of this obsolete building to shut down. The sustainment and modernization of en-
12 

riched uranium capabilities and the acceleration of Area 5 de-inventory will reduce 

safety and mission risks in the near term. 

Plutonium Sustainment funds replacement and refurbishment of equipment and 

the critical skills needed to meet the pit production requirements as outlined in the 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2015. 

Tritium Sustainment ensures the Nation’s capability and capacity to provide the 

tritium necessary to meet national security requirements, either through production 

at Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear power plants or by recovering and recycling 

tritium from returned gas transfer systems. 

The DUE program continues its efforts to ensure that we have the necessary supplies of enriched uranium for a variety of national security needs. The fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes $69 million for Weapons Dis- mantlement and Disposition, an increase of $16.9 million, 32.7 percent above the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted level, which includes funds to support the President’s goal 

to accelerate the dismantlement rate of previously retired weapons by 20 percent. 

This will enable NNSA to dismantle the weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 

by 2021, rather than the original goal of 2022. It will also result in increased Management and Operating staff at both the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas and the 

Y–12 National Security Complex. 

For Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), the fiscal year 2017 budget request is $1.9 billion, an increase of $36.2 million, 2 percent above the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level. This includes $663.2 million for the Advanced Simulation 

and Computing (ASC) Program, an increase of $31 million for the Advanced Technology Development and Mitigation (ATDM) subprogram that supports high performance computing on the path to exascale, and $87.1 million for Advanced Manufacturing Development (AMD), a decrease of $43 million. The decrease reflects a realignment from technology development investments to address higher NNSA priorities. The budget request focuses on continued investment in advanced manufacturing opportunities and improving the manufacturing processes for components 

that support multiple weapons to maximize the benefits of these investments. Advanced Manufacturing invests in technologies that will reduce the time and cost of 

current manufacturing methods, replaces obsolete processes, and supports manufacturing developments for future weapon upgrades. Additive Manufacturing, also 

known as 3–D printing, aids in developing and manufacturing components for stockpile and weapon technology applications. The overall RDT&E request reflects small 

increases for the Science Program ($442.0 million, an increase of $18.9 million) to 

achieve two subcritical experiments per year before the end of the FYNSP, and 

begin alterations to U1a tunnel complex at Nevada to prepare for these experiments: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Program ($523.9 million, an increase of $11.9 million) and the Engineering Program ($139.5 million, an 

increase of $8.1 million). 

The Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield program has spearheaded ongoing improvements in management and operational efficiencies at 

NNSA’s major high energy density (HED) facilities, including the National Ignition 

Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California and 

the OMEGA facility at the University of Rochester in New York. In fiscal year 2015, 

NIF markedly improved its shot-rate efficiency with over 350 key experiments performed (compared to 191 in fiscal year 2014) in support of the SSP. This level of 

effort represents an 85 percent increase over the previous year and an 18 percent 

increase over its goal for 2015. 

NNSA has taken major steps in high performance computing to deliver on its missions and play a leading role to support the President’s Executive Order on the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI). In 2015, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) received the first hardware 

delivery for NNSA’s next generation high performance computer, Trinity. This computer will initially have eight times more applications performance than the Cielo 

machine it is replacing. NNSA also continued its CORAL collaboration with LLNL, 

the DOE Office of Science national laboratories at Oak Ridge and Argonne, IBM, 

and other vendors. CORAL will help develop next generation computing platforms 

to dramatically improve our ability to run increasingly complex codes and will be 

a significant step on the path to exascale computing. 

NNSA collaborates with the DOE Office of Science while making these much 

needed investments in exascale computing. The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $95 million from NNSA for the development of capable exascale systems. 

Defense Programs also maintains the vitality of the broader National Security Enterprise. An important aspect of this effort is investing in Laboratory-, Site- and 

Plant-Directed Research and Development (LDRD/PDRD). Independent reviews 

have consistently affirmed the importance of the program to the long-term vitality 
13 

of the labs. LDRD/PDRD provides basic research funding to foster innovation and 

to attract and retain young scientific and technical talent and is critical to the longterm sustainment of our national laboratories. Congressional support is essential to 

ensuring that we have both the workforce and the new developments necessary to 

support the nation’s security into the future. 

Improving Safety, Operations and Infrastructure 

NNSA’s ability to achieve its mission is dependent upon safe and reliable infrastructure. The age and condition of NNSA’s infrastructure will, if not addressed, put 

the mission, the safety of our workers, the public, and the environment at risk. 

More than half of NNSA’s facilities are over 40 years old while 30 percent of them 

date back to the Manhattan Project era. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for Infrastructure and Operations is $2.7 billion, an increase of $442.8 million, 19.4 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This funding will help NNSA modernize and upgrade aging infrastructure and address safety and programmatic risks 

through strategic investments in both general purpose infrastructure and programspecific capabilities that directly support our nuclear weapons and nonproliferation 

programs. 

To support critical programmatic activities, we are making important strides in 

recapitalizing our aging infrastructure and capabilities. In fiscal year 2015, NNSA 

funded new and continuing projects to enhance or replace programmatic capabilities 

and address the risks posed by the aging infrastructure. NNSA’s investment in 

these projects is vital to the revitalization of the NNSA enterprise. The fiscal year 

2017 budget request provides funding for more than 70 recapitalization projects. 

The request will also support general purpose infrastructure and program-specific 

capabilities through Line Item Construction projects. These projects include, for example, the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) project, the U1a Complex Enhancements Project 

(UCEP) in support of the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments (ECSE) 

portfolio, the Albuquerque Complex Project to replace the current inadequate facilities, and a project to expand the electrical distribution system at LLNL. 

One of the most worrisome of the NNSA infrastructure challenges is the excess 

facilities that pose risks to our workers, the environment, and the mission. While 

many of these facilities will ultimately be transferred to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for disposition, NNSA is focusing on reducing the risk where 

it can. In fiscal year 2015, NNSA successfully demolished our second non-process 

contaminated building at Y–12 within the past two calendar years. The fiscal year 

2017 budget request supports a number of activities to continue to address excess 

facilities. These activities include the transition of the Kansas City Bannister Federal Complex to the private sector for environmental remediation and redevelopment, risk reduction activities at Alpha-5 and Beta-4 at Y–12—both of which are 

highly process-contaminated—and disposition of more uncontaminated facilities 

across the NNSA enterprise. 

Our Secure Transportation Asset (STA) program provides safe, secure movement 

of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and weapon components to meet projected DOE, DoD, and other customer requirements. The fiscal year 2017 budget request of $282.7 million includes an increase of $45.6 million, 19.2 percent above the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted levels, to continue asset modernization and workforce capability initiatives. These initiatives include: (1) restoration of Federal agent strength 

levels to meet the goal of 370; (2) the Safeguards Transporter (SGT) Risk Reduction 

Initiatives to manage the SGT beyond its design life; (3) development and testing 

of the selected alternative for the SGT replacement, the Mobile Guardian Transporter (MGT); and (4) replacement of vehicles and tractors. 

The Office of Defense Nuclear Security (DNS) develops and implements sound security programs to protect Special Nuclear Material (SNM), people, information, and 

facilities throughout the nuclear security enterprise. The fiscal year 2017 budget request is $670.1 million, a decrease of $12.8 million, or 1.9 percent below the fiscal 

year 2016 the enacted level of $682.9 million due to one-time dedicated increases 

in fiscal year 2016. After adjusting for an fiscal year 2016 one-time $30 million designated plus up and $13 million dedicated line item construction amounts for each 

year, the remaining fiscal year 2017 operating request of $657.1 million is an increase of $17.2 million, or 2.7 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted operating 

level of $639.9 million. The request manages risk among important competing demands as NNSA continues to face the challenges associated with an aging physical 

security infrastructure that must be effectively addressed in the coming years. To 

this end, DNS is conducting a Site Condition Review (SCR) of the physical security 

systems at all locations to facilitate the development of an enterprise-wide security 

systems upgrade and refresh strategy. This effort will identify and manage current 
14 

and future security improvements and upgrades on a 10-year planning cycle and includes determining the condition of critical security equipment and infrastructure. 

A final report of this effort will provide DOE/NNSA leadership and Congressional 

stakeholders with consolidated and up-to-date information to enable informed decisions for fiscal planning and programming. 

The SCR is being conducted within the context of important organizational improvements and management strategies published in the June 2015 Security Roadmap. The document establishes a clear vision and path forward to correcting identified security issues and promoting sustained performance within the NNSA security 

program. The Security Roadmap is a multi-year effort that implements key recommendations for improvement identified in past assessments; it includes a total 

of 57 strategic initiatives covering culture, process, infrastructure, and workforce 

challenges. As of the end of 2015, DNS has completed six of the initiatives and is 

currently working on another 20 initiatives. The remaining 31 initiatives are pending formal initiation. 

For Information Technology and Cybersecurity, the fiscal year 2017 budget request is $176.6 million, an increase of $19 million, or 12.1 percent above fiscal year 2016 

enacted levels. This increase will fund much needed improvement to the Information 

Technology and Cybersecurity program, including Continuous Diagnostic and Mitigation (CDM), Telecommunications Security, infrastructure upgrades for the Enterprise Secure Computing Network (ESN), Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Energy 

Sciences Network (ESnet) program, and an increased Information Technology budget. This cybersecurity program continuously monitors enterprise wireless and security technologies (e.g., identity, credential, and access management) to meet a wide 

range of security challenges. In fiscal year 2017, NNSA plans to continue the recapitalization of the Enterprise Secure Network, modernize the cybersecurity infrastructure, implement the Identity Control and Access Management project at NNSA 

Headquarters and site elements, and implement all Committee on National Security 

Systems and PKI capabilities. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION APPROPRIATION

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN), fiscal year 2017 budget request is $1.8 billion, a decrease of $132.4 million, 6.8 percent below the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This appropriation covers NNSA’s nuclear threat reduction mission. 

DNN addresses the entire nuclear threat spectrum by helping to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons or weapon-usable materials, technologies, and expertise, 

countering efforts to acquire such weapons, materials, and technologies, and responding to nuclear and radiological incidents. The fiscal year 2017 budget request 

funds two mission areas under the DNN appropriation: the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response 

(NCTIR) Program. 

Nonproliferation Efforts 

NNSA made significant progress in nuclear threat reduction in 2015. Working 

with foreign partners, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation removed approximately 170 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium from 

several civilian sites; successfully down- blended additional HEU to achieve a cumulative total of 150 metric tons of U.S. excess, weapons-usable HEU (approximately 

6,000 nuclear weapons worth of material); recovered more than 100,000 curies of 

disused or orphaned radioactive material; ensured the United States remains on 

track to fulfill the commitments made at the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit; and 

supported the Secretary of Energy’s efforts to develop the Joint Comprehensive Plan 

of Action (JCPOA) by providing scientific expertise and technical options to the 

United States negotiating team. 

The Material Management and Minimization (M3) program provides an integrated 

approach to addressing the threat posed by nuclear materials through a full cycle 

of materials management and minimization. The primary objective of the program 

is to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing and, when possible, eliminating weapons-usable nuclear material around the world. The fiscal year 2017 

budget request is $341.1 million, an increase of $24.5 million, 7.7 percent above the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. This funding increase will accelerate reactor conversions in Kazakhstan and in the United States, as well as initiate the critical decision process to support the dilute and dispose program for domestic plutonium disposition. 

The Global Material Security (GMS) program works with partner nations to increase the security of vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and improve 

their ability to detect, interdict, and investigate illicit trafficking of these materials. 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this program is $337.1 million, a decrease 
15 

of $89.6 million, 21 percent below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This decrease 

is possible because GMS is completing its work to protect the remaining International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Category I radiological sources in the United 

States to meet our 2014 Nuclear Security Summit commitment, and because GMS 

is committed to reducing its prior year carryover balances. 

The Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC) program supports the nonproliferation and arms control regimes by developing and implementing programs 

to strengthen international nuclear safeguards; control the spread of nuclear and 

dual-use material, equipment, technology and expertise; verify nuclear reductions 

and compliance with nonproliferation and arms control treaties and agreements; 

and address other nonproliferation and arms control challenges. The fiscal year 

2017 budget request will fund safeguards and export control activities, including efforts specifically in support of JCPOA implementation. This funding also supports 

statutorily mandated activities such as technical reviews of export licenses and 

interdiction cases, technical support for the negotiation and implementation of civil 

nuclear cooperation agreements (123 Agreements), and upgrades to the 10 CFR 810 

authorization process. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this program is 

$124.7 million, a decrease of $5.5 million, 4.2 percent below the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This decrease primarily reflects a return to baseline funding following 

the one-time increase of $3.5 million by Congress in the fiscal year 2016 budget for 

improvements in the export control process, as well as cost-savings in export licensing activities achieved through operational efficiencies. 

The DNN Research and Development (DNN R&D) program supports innovative 

unilateral and multi-lateral technical capabilities to detect, identify, and characterize (1) foreign nuclear weapons programs, (2) illicit diversion of special nuclear 

materials, and (3) nuclear detonations. To meet national and Departmental nuclear 

security requirements, DNN R&D leverages the unique facilities and scientific skills 

of DOE, academia, and industry to perform research, including counterterrorism-related R&D. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this program is $393.9 million, 

a $25.4 million or 6.1 percent decrease below fiscal year 2016 enacted levels. The 

decrease in funding reflects projected savings resulting from a reduction in planned 

activities for arms control-related R&D and a return to the baseline Nuclear Detonation Detection (NDD) program after development of an initial mitigation path for 

supply chain interruptions. 

Nonproliferation Construction consolidates construction costs for DNN projects. 

Currently, the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is the only project in this program; however, the fiscal year 2017 budget request terminates the MOX project. 

The Department will complete pre-conceptual design for the dilute and dispose approach to establish Critical Decision-0 (CD–0), Approve Mission Need, and begin 

conceptual design in late fiscal year 2017. The fiscal year 2017 budget request of 

$270 million will be used to bring an orderly and safe closure of the MFFF. The 

scope and costs will be refined in subsequent budget submissions when the termination plan for the MFFF project is approved. 

Nuclear Counterterrorism and Emergency Operations 

DOE has adopted an enterprise-wide approach to strengthen overall preparedness 

to respond to a broad spectrum of potential emergencies. These emergencies include 

natural phenomena, such as adverse weather events or earthquakes, and man-made 

events, such as accidents or acts of terrorism. To better accomplish this mission, in 

November 2015, NNSA reorganized the Office of Emergency Operations and the Office of Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation. 

Both of these organizations are supported under the Nuclear Counterterrorism 

and Incident Response (NCTIR) Program. In fiscal year 2016, the NCTIR program 

transitioned to the DNN account in order to align all NNSA funding to prevent, 

counter, and respond to nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The fiscal year 2017 

budget request includes $271.9 million to support the NCTIR program, an increase 

of $37.5 million, 16 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Within NCTIR, 

NNSA continues to work domestically and around the world to prepare for and improve our ability to respond to radiological or nuclear incidents. 

Our counterterrorism and counterproliferation programs are part of broader U.S. 

Government efforts assessing the threat of nuclear terrorism and to develop technical countermeasures. The scientific knowledge generated under this program ensures that NNSA’s technical expertise on nuclear threat devices, including improvised nuclear devices (INDs), supports and informs broader U.S. Government nuclear security policy and guides nuclear counterterrorism and counterproliferation 

efforts, including interagency nuclear forensics and DoD contingency planning. 

NNSA’s emergency response teams must deploy and respond with the most up to 

date equipment. The current equipment is aging, increasing maintenance expenses, 
16 

and has started to impact NNSA’s ability to perform its emergency response mission. The Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) remains the nation’s premier firstresponse resource to assess a radiological incident and advise decision-makers on 

necessary steps to minimize hazards, but its effectiveness is beginning to be compromised by obsolete equipment. To ensure that NNSA is able to execute its radiological emergency response mission, RAP’s equipment must be recapitalized regularly. Additionally, NNSA is acquiring state-of-the-art, secure, deployable communications systems that are interoperable with our Federal Bureau of Investigation 

and DoD mission partners, ensuring decision makers receive real-time technical recommendations to mitigate nuclear terrorist threats. 

The Office of Emergency Operations is now aligned to focus on its core Department-wide all- hazards and complex-wide emergency management mission. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for this office is $34.7 million, an increase of $9.6 million, or 38 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This will improve the 

emergency management system through an enterprise-wide approach that effectively increases the Department’s all-hazards emergency preparedness and response 

capability during complex, cascading, or enduring incidents, and more effectively 

calls upon and leverages the assets, resources, and skills across the DOE complex. 

The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will continue to be the 24/7/365 singlepoint-of-contact for Departmental and interagency notifications regarding situations 

requiring centralized management such as, national emergencies, heightened international tension, Departmental emergencies, natural disasters, or acts of terrorism. 

The program also manages the Emergency Communications Network, and Continuity Programs for all of DOE, including NNSA. The Office of Emergency Operations will continue to work within the DOE to develop plans to replace the existing 

EOC and to improve the Department’s capabilities to respond to emergencies. 

NAVAL REACTORS APPROPRIATION

Advancing Naval Nuclear Propulsion 

NNSA supports the U.S. Navy’s ability to protect and defend American interests 

across the globe. The Naval Reactors Program remains at the forefront of technological developments in naval nuclear propulsion and ensures a commanding edge 

in warfighting capabilities by advancing new technologies and improvements in 

naval reactor performance and reliability. 

In 2015, Naval Reactors enabled U.S. nuclear powered warships to operate for another year safely and effectively, steaming more than two million miles in support 

of national security missions. Initial reactor start-up was achieved in the lead reactor plant of pre-commissioning unit (PCU) Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first new 

design aircraft carrier propulsion plant in 40 years. This historic milestone represents the culmination of almost 20 years of dedicated and sustained effort by 

Naval Reactors and its field activities, our Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear industrial base suppliers, the Navy design team and the nuclear shipbuilders. 

This is the first step in fully testing the integrated operations of the propulsion 

plant, culminating in sea trials this spring. Finally, we continued our reactor plant 

design and reactor core manufacturing development efforts in support of the new 

design Ohio-class Replacement reactor plant, including the life-of-ship core. 

The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2017 budget request is $1.42 billion, an increase 

of $45 million, 3.2 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. In addition to 

supporting today’s operational fleet, the requested funding will enable Naval Reactors to deliver tomorrow’s fleet by funding three national priority projects, and recruiting and retaining a highly skilled work force committed to the Navy and the 

nation. The projects include (1) continuing design of the new reactor plant for the 

replacement of the Ohio-class SSBN, which will feature a life-of-ship core and electric drive; (2) refueling a Research and Training Reactor in New York to facilitate 

Ohio-class Replacement reactor development efforts and provide 20 more years of 

live reactor based training for fleet operators; and (3) building a new spent fuel handling facility in Idaho that will facilitate long term, reliable processing and packaging of spent nuclear fuel from aircraft carriers and submarines. 

Naval Reactors has requested funding in fiscal year 2017 to support these 

projects, and to fund necessary reactor technology development, equipment, construction, maintenance, and modernization of critical infrastructure and facilities. 

By employing a small but high-performing technical base, the teams at our four Program sites—the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, the Knolls Atomic 

Power Laboratory and Kesselring Site in greater Albany, and our spent nuclear fuel 

facilities in Idaho—we can perform the research and development, analysis, engineering and testing needed to support today’s fleet at sea and develop future 

nuclear- powered warships. Importantly, our labs perform the technical evaluations 
17 

that enable Naval Reactors to thoroughly assess emergent issues and deliver timely 

responses that ensure nuclear safety and maximize operational flexibility. This technical base supports more than 15,000 nuclear-trained Navy sailors, who safely 

maintain and operate the 98 nuclear propulsion plants in the fleet 24 hours per day, 

365 days per year around the globe. It will also facilitate delivery, as directed by 

Congress, of our conceptual plan for potential naval application of low enriched uranium. 

NNSA FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES APPROPRIATION

The NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses (FSE) fiscal year 2017 budget request is $412.8 million, an increase of $49.1 million, 13.5 percent above the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. The fiscal year 2017 budget request provides funding for 1,715 

full-time equivalents (FTE) and support expenses needed to meet mission requirements. We are actively engaged in hiring to that number in a thoughtful and strategic manner. The fiscal year 2017 budget request will support 1,715 FTEs, an increase of 60 FTEs (25 above the authorized 1,690) above the anticipated number of 

FTEs in fiscal year 2016, and request an additional 25 for a total of 1,740 FTEs 

in fiscal year 2018 and the outyears. The exact number of FTEs will be determined 

following a detailed staffing review. It also provides for a 1.3 percent cost of living 

increase and a 5.5 percent increase for benefit escalation. In addition, the request 

provides funding for additional Federal Background Investigations for security 

clearances and provides additional funding to the Department’s Working Capital 

Fund, primarily for Office of Personnel Management (OPM) credit monitoring and 

the Department’s accounting systems (iMANAGE). 

In fiscal year 2017, NNSA will continue its efforts to meet current and future 

workforce needs by analyzing how evolving missions are affecting job requirements. 

Reshaping of the workforce over the next several years will be essential, including 

identifying the right staffing size and skill sets and implementing professional development plans now and in the future. NNSA will also continue to streamline its 

operations, particularly in travel and support services, to provide a lean and efficient organization. 

MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE

To enhance our ability to carry out our mission and execute this budget request, 

we will continue to focus on improving our project management and cost estimating 

capabilities. In keeping with the Secretary of Energy’s increased focus on Management and Performance, NNSA is committed to managing its operations, contracts 

and costs in an effective and efficient manner. The NNSA’s Office of Acquisition and 

Project Management (APM) is driving continued improvement in contract and 

project management practices. APM is leading NNSA’s effort to institute rigorous 

analyses of alternatives, provide clear lines of authority and accountability for Federal and contractor program and project management, improve cost and schedule 

performance, and ensure Federal Project Directors and Contracting Officers with 

the appropriate skill mix and professional certifications are managing NNSA’s work. 

NNSA participates in the Secretary of Energy’s Project Management Risk Committee as a means to institutionalize and share best practices across the Department. NNSA established the Office of Project Assessments, reporting directly to the 

Principal Deputy Administrator, ensuring senior leadership visibility and accountability throughout the Enterprise for project performance. This office generated $33 

million in cost avoidances as a result of their independent project peer reviews. 

Since 2011, NNSA has delivered approximately $1.4 billion in projects, a portion 

of NNSAs total project portfolio, $70 million (or 5 percent) under original budget. 

Significant examples in the last year include the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) 

Site Readiness Subproject, which delivered $20 million under budget; Y–12’s Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction Project, which delivered $6 million under budget and 

11 months ahead of schedule; and LANL’s Transuranic Waste Facility Project, 

which is on track to complete $3 million under budget. Using the Department’s best 

practices, the UPF and Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility 

Projects were restructured into smaller more manageable subprojects, significantly 

reducing project delivery risk. 

NNSA is committed to encouraging competition and increasing the universe of 

qualified contractors, by streamlining its major acquisition processes. The most significant example was the competitive award of the Kansas City National Security 

Campus M&O contract, awarded without protest, saving taxpayers $150 million and 

increasing the use of small businesses. As an affirmation of the quality of NNSA’s 

acquisition management team, only four out of 103 competitive procurements were 

protested, with NNSA winning all protests. Finally, NNSA exceeded its small busi-
18 

ness goal by over 20 percent, awarding $233 million to small business in fiscal year 

2015. 

NNSA will continue to focus on delivering timely, best-value acquisition solutions 

for all of our programs and projects. NNSA will use a tailored approach to contract 

structures and incentives that is appropriate for the unique missions and risks at 

each site. Our M&O contractors are responsible for disparate activities, ranging 

from research and development to industrial production. Accordingly, we will work 

to develop the right incentives for each circumstance and for each of our contracts. 

COST ESTIMATING AND PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE) continues to develop its capabilities to provide trusted independent cost and resource analysis of 

NNSA’s programs and projects. As detailed in its implementation plan, the number 

of CEPE Federal staff will grow from a target of 15 in fiscal year 2016 to 18 in fiscal 

year 2017. CEPE will conduct independent cost estimates on the B61–12 LEP and 

W88 Alt 370 in fiscal year 2016 and the W80–4 LEP in fiscal year 2017. CEPE is 

also institutionalizing best practices for analysis of alternatives and leads the corporate process to build the NNSA budget. 

CONCLUSION

The NNSA performs vital activities at home and throughout the world in support 

of the nuclear security mission. Its success in addressing 21st century challenges 

hinges upon the technology, capabilities, and infrastructure entrusted to the organization. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES F. CALDWELL

A strong Navy is crucial to the security of the United States. Navy warships are 

deployed around the world every hour of every day to provide a credible ‘‘forward 

presence.’’ With over 45 percent of the Navy’s major combatants being nuclear powered, including 10 aircraft carriers, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 55 attack submarines, and 4 guided missile submarines—it is vital that these ships are ready 

when and where our Nation needs them. In addition to supporting these nuclear 

powered combatants, Naval Reactors has also safely maintained and operated two 

nuclear powered land-based prototypes—both over 38 years old—to conduct research 

and development and two Moored Training Ships—both over 51 years old—the oldest operating pressurized water reactors (PWRs) in the world. These land-based prototypes, Moored Training Ships, and Naval Nuclear Power Training Command train 

over 3000 sailors per year to operate our naval nuclear propulsion plants. 

Our ballistic missile submarine force remains on patrol, marking over 60 years 

of peacekeeping capability through strategic deterrence. The Navy had 34 submarine deployments and 26 strategic deterrent patrols during 2015. In addition, at 

any given time, there were always at least 56 of 71 submarines deployed or on 

stand-by to deploy within a few days. Our carriers, USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and 

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) completed successful deployments to the Central 

Command area of responsibility, and the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) turned over 

with the USS George Washington (CVN 73) to serve as the forward-deployed carrier 

in Japan. 

This past year, we also saw the christening of the attack submarine PCU Illinois 

(SSN 786) and keel laying for the PCU Colorado (SSN 788) and PCU Indiana (SSN 

789), our fifteenth and sixteenth Virginia-class submarines. We’ve also added another attack submarine to our force by commissioning USS John Warner (SSN 785), 

and began a program that delivers two Virginia-class submarines annually. In 2015, 

we laid the keel for the second Ford-Class CVN, PCU John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). 

We currently have 12 submarines and one next generation aircraft carrier in various phases of construction at our shipyards. Initial reactor start-up was achieved 

in the lead reactor plant of PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first new design aircraft carrier propulsion plant in 40 years. This historic milestone represents the culmination of almost 20 years of dedicated and sustained effort by Naval Reactors and 

its field activities, our Department of Energy laboratories, nuclear industrial base 

suppliers, the Navy design team and the nuclear shipbuilders. This is the first step 

in fully testing the integrated operations of the propulsion plant, culminating in sea 

trials this spring. Finally, we continued our reactor plant design and reactor core 

manufacturing development efforts to support of the new design Ohio-class Replacement reactor plant, including the life-of-ship core. 
19 

The firm support of this subcommittee last year enabled safe operation of the 

fleet, Naval Reactors mandatory oversight, and continued progress on key projects. 

Naval Reactors’ budget request for fiscal year 2017 will continue this work. The 

funding request is for $1.420 billion, an increase of $45 million (3 percent) over the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted funding level. In addition to supporting today’s operational 

fleet, the requested funding will enable Naval Reactors to deliver tomorrow’s fleet 

by funding three national priority projects and recruiting and retaining a highly 

skilled work force committed to the Navy and the nation. The projects are: 

—Continuing to design the new reactor plant for the replacement of the Ohioclass ballistic missile submarine, which will feature a life-of-ship core and electric drive; 

—Refueling a Research and Training Reactor in New York, to facilitate Ohio-class 

Replacement reactor development efforts and provide 20 more years of live reactor based training for the fleet operators; and 

—Building a new spent fuel handling facility in Idaho that will facilitate long 

term, reliable processing and packaging of spent nuclear fuel from aircraft carriers and submarines. 

Naval Reactors has requested funding in fiscal year 2017 to support these 

projects, and to fund necessary reactor technology development, equipment, construction, maintenance, and modernization of critical infrastructure and facilities. 

By employing a small but high-performing technical base, the teams at our four Program sites—the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, the Knolls Atomic 

Power Laboratory and Kesselring Site in greater Albany, and our spent nuclear fuel 

facilities in Idaho—we can perform the research and development, analysis, engineering and testing needed to support today’s fleet at sea and develop future nuclear-powered warships. Importantly, our labs perform the technical evaluations 

that enable Naval Reactors to thoroughly assess emergent issues and deliver timely 

responses that ensure nuclear safety and maximize operational flexibility. This technical base supports more than 15,000 nuclear-trained Navy sailors, who safely 

maintain and operate the 97 nuclear propulsion plants in the fleet 24 hours per day, 

365 days per year around the globe. It will also facilitate delivery, as directed by 

Congress, of our conceptual plan for potential naval application of low enriched uranium. 

The requested increase in funding is also required to support the planned ramp 

up of design efforts for the new reactor plant for the Ohio-class SSBN Replacement—the Navy’s number one acquisition priority. Providing unparalleled stealth, 

endurance, and mobility, our ballistic missile submarine force has delivered more 

than 60 years of continuous at-sea deterrence, and continues to be the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. Ohio-class Replacement SSBN activity this year includes reactor plant design and component development to support procurement of 

long lead components starting in fiscal year 2019. Progress in these areas in fiscal 

year 2017 maintains schedule alignment with the Navy as the program moves forward to construction start in fiscal year 2021 while retiring technical risk and targeting cost reduction. 

Related to Ohio-class Replacement and the Program’s training needs, the fiscal 

year 2017 budget request will support the land-based prototype refueling overhaul 

at the Kesselring Site in upstate New York. In fiscal year 2017, Naval Reactors will 

continue the core manufacturing work needed for the refueling overhaul, which will 

also enable timely construction of the life-of-ship core for Ohio-class Replacement. 

Further, plant service-life engineering design will be completed in fiscal year 2017 

to ensure that the land-based prototype overhaul, performed concurrently with refueling, supports 20 additional years of research, development and training. 

The Naval Reactors fiscal year 2017 budget request also contains funds to continue the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project. After many years of funding 

reductions, Naval Reactors greatly appreciates Congressional support for this much 

needed project in fiscal year 2016, where we received the full request of $86 million. 

Congressional support in 2016 enabled progress, design, and planning for site preparations and long lead material procurements in fiscal year 2017. We will use the 

$100 million requested in fiscal year 2017 to finalize key facility and equipment requirements and advance facility design to support establishing the Performance 

Baseline in fiscal year 2018 and the start of construction in fiscal year 2019. Continued Congressional support will help ensure that the facility in Idaho is ready to receive spent nuclear fuel from the fleet in fiscal year 2025. Because the new facility’s 

capabilities are required to support aircraft carrier refuelings and defuelings, any 

delay to the project schedule would require procurement of additional shipping containers to temporarily store naval spent nuclear fuel at a cost of approximately $150 

million for each year the project is delayed. 
20 

At the requested funding level, Naval Reactors can safely maintain and oversee 

the nuclear-powered fleet. Naval Reactors can also continue to advance the Ohioclass Replacement and Land-based Prototype Refueling Overhaul, continue progress 

on the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project, and meet our environmental 

responsibilities. 

Naval Reactors is committed to executing our projects on time and on budget, and 

continuing the search for the safest and most cost effective way to support the nuclear fleet. I respectfully urge your support for aligning funding allocations with the 

fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, General Klotz. 

We will now begin a round of questions. 

URANIUM PROCESSING FACILITY

I want to ask about the big construction projects. And let me 

take just a minute on the Uranium Facility before I go to MOX. 

When do you expect the design to be 90 percent complete? 

General KLOTZ. We expect the design for the project to be 90 percent complete at the—towards the end of next year, 2017. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So that means you would expect to begin 

construction of the Uranium Facility toward the end of 2017? 

General KLOTZ. We might not actually begin construction at that 

time. I would have to give you a specific time in terms of which 

we actually begin construction, but as you know, because, as you 

rightly pointed out, we meet routinely with you, Senator, and with 

Senator Feinstein, to go over that. And, in fact, our staffs are working to schedule, as soon as we get past the budget hearings, a discussion on that. But as you know, we have broken the overall 

project up into several sub-projects, one of which the site rating 

sub-project, as I mentioned in the opening statement, was completed last year, February of last year, for $65 million, which was 

$20 million under the budget. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, I congratulate you on that, and I 

think it’s important to point out that over the last 5 years that 

project has gone from skyrocketing out of control to a managed 

process. Are you on a path that you believe is on time and on budget, meaning no more than $6.5 billion by 2025? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir. As recommended by the Red Team, 

chaired by Dr. Thom Mason, the director of Oak National Laboratory, we are implementing every one of the recommendations in 

that, and we are going to deliver that facility at $6.5 billion by 

2025. 

MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY

Senator ALEXANDER. Since we’re talking about billions, let’s go to 

MOX. You said the Dilute and Dispose procedure could be less than 

half the cost of the current MOX procedure. What kind of dollars 

are we talking about? 

General KLOTZ. We have conducted several reviews over the past 

year, one by another Red Team chaired by Dr. Mason, of Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, and two congressionally mandated independent assessments by The Aerospace Corporation. Consistently 

these reviews have concluded that the projected life-cycle cost of 

the MOX fuel approach for plutonium disposition will be in the 

range of $30 to $50 billion, and possibly even higher, and will re-
21 

quire approximately $800 million to $1 billion annually for decades 

to come for the life of the MOX fuel program. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And the cost of the alternative proposal? 

General KLOTZ. Half or better. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So we’re talking about, according to those 

figures, saving a half billion dollars a year? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir. Or as the Secretary testified just a week 

ago at this very same place, perhaps maybe even more. 

Senator ALEXANDER. How much excess plutonium is covered 

under the agreement with Russia? 

General KLOTZ. Sir, 34 metric tons. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And how much excess plutonium is actually 

in South Carolina? 

General KLOTZ. Approximately 13 metric tons. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Can all of those 13 tons in South Carolina 

be sent to WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant), that is, in New Mexico, under current law? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir, that is correct. And, in fact, in December of just last year, DOE issued its preferred alternative for disposing of 6 metric tons at Savannah River, not under the Plutonium Management Disposition Agreement that you were referring 

to, by diluting it and disposing of it at WIPP. And we are now in 

the process of finalizing a record of decision, announcing the decision to prepare 6 metric tons for eventual disposal at WIPP, and 

we can also, under existing statutory authorities, we can put the 

other 7 metric tons that are at Savannah River into WIPP. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So there are 13 tons of plutonium in South 

Carolina. 

General KLOTZ. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Six of them, six of those tons, have nothing 

to do with the Russian agreement. 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Seven do. 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And you’re going to take—which tons go 

first to New Mexico? 

General KLOTZ. The six that are not part of the agreement. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And under existing agreements, there is 

room in the New Mexico facility for all 13 tons. 

General KLOTZ. That is correct, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. You have previously stated that nearly 5 

tons of plutonium have already been disposed of at WIPP using the 

same process you plan to use for the 6 tons in South Carolina that 

have nothing to do with the Russian agreement. So is the process 

of disposing of plutonium by Dilute and Dispose well understood? 

Are you comfortable with it? Is it a competent process? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir. As I said, we have done it before. We 

understand how to do that process, and it’s very well understood. 

Senator ALEXANDER. How long will it take to complete the disposal of the 6 tons of material in South Carolina that are not part 

of the Russian agreement? 

General KLOTZ. Well, we’ll have to do some things to speed up 

our capability of doing that. Right now, DOE plans to ramp up operations at Savannah River to dilute a small quantity, perhaps 150 
22 

kilograms per year of plutonium, over the next 2 to 3 years. We 

would also further increase throughput to approximately half a 

metric ton per year for a relatively small amount of funding, say, 

$5 million over 3 years. 

Additionally, NNSA has already begun design work with money 

that was appropriated in the 2016 appropriations bill for two additional glove boxes that will increase our ability to dilute to over 1 

metric ton a year, and we expect these glove boxes to be in place 

during the mid-2020s. So that’s when we can really seriously begin 

moving the 6 metric tons to WIPP. 

By comparison, the MOX approach, if we followed that, the first 

metric ton of plutonium would not be processed until the 2040s, 

and only if Congress can begin funding the project now at about 

$1 billion a year. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, my time is up, but to summarize, you 

have testified that in your opinion and based on independent studies, that Congress might spend more than a half billion dollars 

more pursuing the MOX facility as opposed to Dilute and Dispose, 

so it’s about half the cost or better. And, finally, you’ve said you 

could get all 13 tons that are now in South Carolina of plutonium, 

only 7 of which have anything to do with the Russian agreement, 

that you can get them out of South Carolina and into the WIPP 

facility much faster than you could using the current MOX procedure, and that under current authorities, you have permission— 

you wouldn’t have to change the law in order to send those 13 tons 

to WIPP. Am I correct? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir. That’s all correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

And thanks to my colleagues for letting me go over a little bit. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NUCLEAR CRUISE MISSILE

General Klotz, I recently met with Admiral Haney, the head of 

Strategic Command, regarding the new nuclear cruise missile and 

its refurbished warhead. I came away unconvinced of the need for 

this weapon. The so-called improvements to this weapon seem to 

be designed candidly to make it more usable, to help us fight and 

win a limited nuclear war. I find that a shocking concept. I think 

this is really unthinkable, especially when we hold conventional 

weapons superiority, which can meet adversaries’ efforts to escalate 

a conflict. So maybe you can succeed where Admiral Haney did not. 

Let me ask you this question, Why do we need a new nuclear 

cruise missile? 

General KLOTZ. Well, thank you very much for the question, Senator, and let me just state at the outset, defining the—but I will 

answer your question—defining the military requirements is the 

responsibility of the Department of Defense, which obviously includes the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 

Commander of Strategic Command. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Don’t bucket your view. 

General KLOTZ. But we accept the responsibility for building the 

warhead that goes in it. But let me just say since when I was in 

uniform, I had command of Air Force Global Strike Command, and, 
23 

therefore, of the cruise missiles that the Air Force and the Department of Defense are proposing to replace. My sense at the time, 

and still is the case, is that the existing cruise missile, the airlaunched cruise missile, is getting rather long in the tooth with the 

issues that are associated with an aging weapons system. It was 

first deployed in 1982, and, therefore, it is well past its service life. 

In the meantime, as you know from your work on the Intelligence Committee, there has been an increase in the sophistication 

and capabilities, as well as proliferation, of sophisticated air missile defenses around the world. Therefore, the ability of the cruise 

missile to pose the deterrent—the capabilities necessary to deter is 

under question. Therefore, I think just based on the aging and the 

changing nature of the threat, we need to replace a system which 

we’ve had, again, for—since the early 1980s with an updated variant. 

I guess I didn’t convince you any more than Admiral Haney did. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’m trying to figure out how to say it so that 

it’s polite. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, you didn’t convince me because this just 

ratchets up warfare and ratchets up deaths, and, you know, even 

if you go to a low kiloton, 6 or 7, it’s a huge weapon. And I thought 

there was a certain morality that we should have with respect to 

these weapons. And if it’s really mutual deterrence, I don’t see how 

this does anything other than it’s like the drone. The drone has 

been invented. It’s been armed. Now every country wants one. So 

they get more and more sophisticated. To do this with nuclear 

weapons I think is awful. And when I talked when I came here— 

now, I’m probably the only one here that was a child when those 

weapons went off, and as the chairman has heard me say before, 

I was in San Francisco, across the Pacific from where it happened, 

a small kid, it made a profound difference to me. You know, I remember jumping under the desks, I remember the exploding— 

Barry Goldwater’s campaign of the daisy that exploded with one, 

and I saw bodies, I saw what happened to people. 

I know a little bit about the sophistication of our weapons, not 

as much as you do, but I think there is a very definite morality in 

what we have. And I talk to people, well, the size is a deterrent. 

This is not a deterrent. All this means is that others will be doing 

the same thing. I don’t want North Korea with a 6-kiloton nuclear 

cruise missile. 

And somehow I think we lose our moral authority when we build 

new nuclear weapons. I don’t see any way—you know, there’s a certain moral code any way I can vote to support this, and I want you 

to know it. If you have anything you would like to say, I would love 

to hear it. 

General KLOTZ. Well, first of all, Senator, I obviously respect 

your opinion, but I think on this, we have a fundamental disagreement. In my view, the moral approach is to develop a deterrent capability which poses the prospect to any potential adversary that 

they should never use nuclear weapons against the United States 

or those of our allies across the globe. We maintain the capability 

of having a deterrent by having systems which cannot be negated, 

defeated, nullified by any adversary, either by offensive attack or 
24 

by defensive capabilities that they may have. And so as we’re faced 

with the prospect of potential adversaries having vastly improved 

conventional—vastly improved missile and air defenses, then we 

need to make sure that—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you admit, Admiral, that we have very 

big conventional weapons? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, I do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The biggest in the world? 

General KLOTZ. And Air Force Global Strike Command, which I 

used to command, had responsibility for one of those. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Isn’t that enough? 

General KLOTZ. In a world armed with nuclear weapons, regrettably so, I think that in order to deter nuclear attack or the threat 

of nuclear attack against us or allies, we need a corresponding nuclear deterrent. That’s my belief. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Well, let me go to—can I do one other 

question quickly? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Sure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What is the cost of the 3 to 1 hedge? Staff 

has tried to get those numbers, but have been unable to. I would 

like to ask that you provide it. 

General KLOTZ. We will provide that. 

[The information follows:] 

The U.S. nuclear stockpile is made up of warheads in three categories—deployed 

warheads, logistics spares, and hedge. The deployed warheads are warheads located 

at operational bases, and must be fully maintained in a ready-to-use status at all 

times. Logistics spares are warheads retained (by DoD or DOE) to facilitate the logistics of warhead surveillance, maintenance, and refurbishment to ensure the required number of warheads in the other categories is maintained. Hedge warheads 

mitigate the risk of technical failure of any single weapon type or delivery system 

at a given time. 

The number and type of warheads in the hedge depends on a number of factors, 

including the size and composition of the U.S. stockpile and the status of life extension efforts. Additional warheads of a type being refurbished may be retained temporarily (unrefurbished) as risk mitigation for a potential technical issue in the 

newly refurbished warheads. 

By far the largest cost of maintaining this hedge is the cost of refurbishing the 

warheads that will be retained over the longer term as part of the hedge. Based 

on current life extension program (LEP) estimates and projections of the future size 

and composition of the stockpile (as reflected in the Nuclear Weapons Council’s current Requirements Planning Document), over the next 25 years the cost of refurbishing warheads for inclusion in the hedge is approximately $3.5–$5.6 billion in fiscal year 2016 dollars (or 11–22 percent of the cost of LEPs for the warheads that 

would comprise the hedge at that time). Strategies that reduce the number of hedge 

warheads in future stockpile configurations (such as our current 3∂2 strategy) will 

keep this refurbishment cost from rising above this level. 

The cost, if any, for specific surveillance and assessment of the hedge would be 

small since the warheads in the hedge are the same as those being surveilled and 

assessed in the other stockpile categories. 

Some small costs may associated with maintenance of hedge warheads when included in work scope associated with non-hedge counterparts, such as an alteration 

or modification. In this way they retain technical parity with warheads in other categories. 

It is expected that the size of the hedge can be reduced as we implement a 3∂2 

strategy for the stockpile, with three ballistic missile warheads and two others, one 

for the LRSO and another for gravity bombs. This strategy will allow the U.S. to 

minimize the size of the stockpile, consistent with our commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, while adequately hedging against technical risk. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 
25 

Senator ALEXANDER. Senator Graham, is your schedule such that 

I can go to Senator Udall since he’s been here? 

Senator GRAHAM. Absolutely. He can go first. 

Senator ALEXANDER. All right. 

Senator Udall, why don’t you go ahead since you came early? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET

Before we get into some of the details on the upcoming budget, 

I would like to step back and take a look at the overall funding picture. How does this budget compare to the NNSA’s budget request 

in the year of the previous administration, fiscal year 2008? Where 

are we in terms of up, down, on that? 

General KLOTZ. Well, I think a good round number for how much 

the overall NNSA budget has increased since then is about 40 percent. 

Senator UDALL. 40 percent—— 

General KLOTZ. Maybe closer to 37 percent. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE

Senator UDALL. Okay. And my understanding is that there is an 

incredible amount of scientific and technical work that needs to be 

done in future years as the stockpile ages and needs further work 

to keep it safe, secure, and reliable. Do you expect future NNSA 

budgets to need to increase further to continue to address the aging 

stockpile? 

General KLOTZ. Yes, sir, we do. And in our budget submission for 

this year, we included our projections for the future years’ nuclear 

security program out through the year fiscal year 2021, and it 

shows an increase in all of the budget lines each of those years except for 1 year for Naval Reactors. 

And I will say right up front that there will probably be some 

additional costs which we will add there because one of the things 

we have done, and part of the management improvements, is to be 

much more rigorous about how we do analysis of alternatives, define mission requirements, and do independent cost reviews, and 

some of the things that are—we know we’re going to have to pay 

for in the so-called outyears, we still have to baseline those and 

come in with the costs. 

CMR FACILITY

Senator UDALL. Now, I would like to move on to the work to replace the aging CMR Facility at Los Alamos. The GAO report, 

which was released this month, highlighted the plutonium infrastructure strategy, and I’m quoting from them now, ‘‘Uncertain and 

possibly underestimated,’’ and that, ‘‘This uncertainty is due to the 

fact that NNSA has not yet determined the number of additional 

modular buildings that may be required,’’ at the Los Alamos Lab. 

Where are we on this issue? Where do you see this going at this 

point in terms of the demands that are on you from various agencies? 

General KLOTZ. Well, thank you for that question. In fact, that 

is one of the lines in our future years’ budget that will change as 
26 

time goes through. And, you know, I agree with the GAO’s assessment, but one of the reasons why that’s the case is the GAO has 

been very clear in reports over the past decade or so that the 

NNSA and the DOE need to do a better job in terms of defining 

requirements, holding to those requirements, doing analysis of— 

rigorous analysis of alternatives cost estimations. So we need to do 

that process with the modules. We are beginning the analysis of alternatives of how we create the additional space at Los Alamos 

that we need to carry out the congressional mandate to produce— 

or demonstrate a capability to produce war reserve plutonium pits 

in the years ahead. So until we have that and until we can baseline 

the cost of that, we won’t know for certain what the costs are. 

There’s a tendency in Washington, both on the executive side and 

I would dare say on the congressional side as well, to ask for a 

number very, very early on in a project. I think until you have done 

that kind of analysis, any number you have is a guess. We would 

like to be more precise and more accurate in terms of providing 

what we think the costs will be. 

Senator UDALL. And the budget includes funding for the initial 

design and development of a trusted strategic radiation hardened 

advanced microelectronics capability, which Sandia plays an important role supporting through the Trusted Foundry at the Microsystems and Engineering Science Applications, what’s called the 

MESA Complex. Do you agree that the core competency on microsystems design at Sandia is an important national security asset? 

General KLOTZ. Absolutely. And, in fact, our only facility for producing radiation hardened microelectronics that can operate in a 

nuclear environment is MESA, the Microsystems Engineering 

Science Applications at Sandia National Laboratory. It, too, is another facility which has been around for a while and is a little long 

in the tooth, but more importantly, the technology in this area continues to evolve. Sandia is still producing chips using 6-inch silicon 

wafers. Industry has already moved on to 8-inch and projected to 

go even further. So there are things we need to do to the facility 

to sustain it. There are things we need to do to the capabilities 

within MESA to make sure that we can continue to provide this 

vital capability. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, General. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Senator Udall. 

Senator Graham. 

EXCESS PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, General. The agreement with the 

Russians covers how much plutonium? 

General KLOTZ. 34 metric tons. 

Senator GRAHAM. Where is the 34 metric tons located? 

General KLOTZ. 7 of those metric tons are at Savannah River 

now. The remainder is primarily in storage at Pantex near Amarillo, Texas. 

Senator GRAHAM. So when you talk to Senator Alexander about 

13 tons at the Savannah River site, 6 of it was not covered by the 

agreement. Is that correct? 

General KLOTZ. That’s correct. Yes, sir. 
27 

Senator GRAHAM. So what are we going to do with the material 

in Texas? 

General KLOTZ. The material in Texas would ultimately be slated 

for being turned into—being processed in a way that it could be diluted and then ultimately disposed of —— 

Senator GRAHAM. Where is that going to be done at? 

General KLOTZ. We expect it would be done in Savannah River. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you require any legal changes to get it to 

the WIPP program? 

General KLOTZ. We do not require—we have statutory, sufficient 

statutory, authority to dispose of all 13 metric tons that are currently at Savannah River. 

Senator GRAHAM. That’s not my question. Does the statutory authority cover the 21 tons in Texas? 

General KLOTZ. We expect that we would probably have to do 

some work on statutory authorities associated with that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you expect probably maybe? 

General KLOTZ. Probably. 

Senator GRAHAM. No, absolutely you would. 

General KLOTZ. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Good. Do you have any agreement with the 

Russians to change course? 

General KLOTZ. We do not have an agreement with the Russians 

to change course, but, as you know, there is a provision within the 

agreement to—for the parties to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Where are we at in that agreement? 

General KLOTZ. As the Secretary has testified just a week 

ago—— 

Senator GRAHAM. So what do the Russians say? 

General KLOTZ. The Russians are saying when you have a solid 

way forward—first of all, they have—the technical people I have 

talked with indicate an understanding of why we would want to do 

this and the technical aspects of it. Basically they’ve said—— 

Senator GRAHAM. So what do the Russians want in return? 

General KLOTZ. Well, when they—when you are ready to go forward—— 

Senator GRAHAM. So let’s see if I got this. We’re going to change 

the entire program, then we’re going to go to the Russians and see 

if they’re okay with it? Is that the plan? 

General KLOTZ. I—that is the—— 

Senator GRAHAM. That’s the plan. That’s a lousy plan. That is 

absolutely the dumbest friggin’ plan I could think of, to change 

course and hope the Russians would agree and not know what 

they’re going to charge you for it. Now, other than that, things are 

going great. 

Now, in 2001, we made a decision about MOX, to reject the dual 

strategy. 2014, or 2010, I guess it was, we signed an agreement 

with the Russians that we’re going to MOX out 34 metric tons. In 

2016, we got a building, $5 billion worth, 90 percent, 70 percent 

complete, and we’re going to stop and start all over again. Is that 

the plan? 

General KLOTZ. Well, you know, we don’t agree that it’s 70, 80, 

90 percent. 
28 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, you can come and look at the damn 

thing. 

General KLOTZ. I have. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Is it big? 

General KLOTZ. It is big. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, it cost $5 billion, I can promise you that. 

And I think it’s 70 percent. What are we going to do with the building? 

General KLOTZ. We would have to see what—what—if we—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Have you talked to anybody from New Mexico 

about their view of taking all this material? 

General KLOTZ. As the Secretary told you last week, he has informally approached—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, have you—— 

General KLOTZ. Have I personally? I have talked—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Excuse me. We’ve informally talked to New 

Mexico. We now admit that you absolutely have to have a statutory 

change to cover the 21 metric tons. We’re talking informally to the 

Russians. We’re going to change the entire scope of the program 

and hope they agree with it. Is that pretty much where we’re at? 

And we have no clue what we’re going to do with this building. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALEXANDER. General Klotz, I’ve got some questions on 

another subject. This—the MOX subject is one that Senator Feinstein and I, Senator Graham, as well as Senator McCain and Senator Reed, are going to continue to address in the next few weeks. 

INTERIM STORAGE OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL

Let me ask you and maybe Admiral Caldwell and maybe Ms. 

Harrington, the interim storage for used Navy fuel, building a new 

storage site for used fuel, but Admiral Klotz, that’s temporary storage, right? 

Admiral CALDWELL. Sir, I think that question is directed to me, 

sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Okay, sir. That’s temporary. 

Admiral CALDWELL. The fuel that we’re storing in Idaho is stored 

for interim—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. That means temporary. 

Admiral CALDWELL. Yes, sir; it does. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So you’ll need somewhere to put it, an additional site. Would that fuel be eligible for Yucca Mountain? 

Admiral CALDWELL. Yes, sir; it would be. The fuel we have out 

there today is packaged for interim storage, and it’s packed in steel 

containers with concrete overpacks. Those steel containers are designed to last up to 10,000 years in the environment that we did 

the calculations for. And then the overpacks are designed to last 

at least 100 years. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yeah. But to reiterate, your site is a site for 

temporary storage. 

Admiral CALDWELL. That’s correct, sir. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And it needs a permanent repository such 

as Yucca Mountain. 

Admiral CALDWELL. That’s absolutely correct, sir. 
29 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yeah. Senator Feinstein and I are working 

on as many paths as we can toward places for safe storage of used 

nuclear fuel. 

General Klotz, you proposed work on a separate repository for 

defense waste separate from Yucca Mountain, they would only be 

able to accept waste from our defense sites, which doesn’t include 

used fuel from commercial power reactors like the reactors that are 

closed in California with what we call stranded fuel. This would 

have to be built with funds that could be used for life extension 

programs or other infrastructure. Why would we build a separate 

repository for defense waste? Why wouldn’t we just put all that 

stuff in Yucca Mountain? 

General KLOTZ. Senator, I know the proposal, but to be perfectly 

honest, that is a project, a program, which resides elsewhere within 

the Department of Energy, not within NNSA. So I would have to 

get back to you on any specifics as far as—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. But if we spent money on a separate defense waste repository, it would have to come out of some of your 

funds—— 

General KLOTZ. It would depend on which—again, whether it’s 

050 money or not, and I just don’t have the granularity of knowledge to respond to that. 

LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM NAVAL CORES

Senator ALEXANDER. Let me ask one of you on a different question. You’ve done some good work on the last several years converting research reactor fuel from highly enriched uranium to lowenriched uranium, and you’re down now I think to about six highperformance reactors that are still fueled with highly enriched uranium. Why don’t you spend your time and money developing a way 

to have low-enriched fuel for the Navy vessels instead of worrying 

about the last six high-performance reactors? 

Admiral CALDWELL. Sir, thanks for the question. Low-enriched 

uranium, from a military standpoint, there is no advantage to 

using that in a naval reactor plant. We use highly enriched uranium today, we’ve used it for decades, because it allows us to put 

the energy that we need to into a reactor core so that we can operate those ships for conceivably the life of the ship or for very long 

periods of time. 

The reason why one might consider pursuing a low-enriched uranium naval core would be for the United States to be able to take 

a leadership role in development of low-enriched uranium and to 

be able to do that from a nonproliferation standpoint. 

The other reason why one could consider it is because we need 

to sustain the workforce, the highly skilled workforce, that does 

this work for naval nuclear propulsion plants. That workforce is 

heavily taxed right now with the development of the Ohio replacement. Once that work tapers off, we’re going to need some work to 

keep that workforce active and viable for future reactor plants. 

So where we are today is we are continuing our work on highly 

enriched uranium. If I was to go to low-enriched uranium, it would 

require me to refuel ships more frequently than I do today. It 

would require us to take ships offline and remove them from the 

operational availability. To give you some example of that, we’re 
30 

developing the Ohio Replacement to last for 42 years without refueling. A low-enriched uranium core would require at least one refueling. The Ford reactor plant for the new carrier is designed to 

have one refueling. A low-enriched uranium core might take two or 

more, at the cost of maybe $1 billion apiece. With the Ohio Replacement program, the fact that we don’t refuel it saves the Nation $40 billion total ownership cost for that class of submarine. 

So from a military standpoint, we want to have the ships operating more, we want to have—reduce the time that they’re in the 

yards. If you use low-enriched uranium, we would have to deal 

with even more waste, we would have to deal with different types 

of waste, because the waste generated from low-enriched uranium 

is different from highly enriched uranium. And, additionally, the 

Navy might have to go purchase more ships to make up for the lost 

operational availability. So from a military standpoint, highly enriched uranium does what we need it to do. 

Now, that all said, we were asked to develop a conceptual plan 

for developing a low-enriched uranium core for naval use. We have 

a draft report that’s working its way through the Navy and 

through the Department of Energy; we’re coordinating that. It lays 

out a program that would take 10 to 15 years at the cost of $1 billion to simply develop a low-enriched uranium core. Beyond that, 

it would take another 10 years to deploy that core, actually build 

it. So you’re talking about technology that would take 25 years or 

so before it would come to fruition. Success could not be guaranteed, but if the conceptual plan lays out a plan to go look at that 

for consideration in a carrier plant, a larger plant, where you can 

put more fuel in it, probably not viable for a submarine plant, 

which is small. 

So that conceptual plant is working its way through. Success 

could not be guaranteed. It costs a substantial amount of money. 

And if I was directed to go do that kind of work, I would need 

money above and beyond what I have today to support today’s 

Navy. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. I get the impression you think 

the idea of low-enriched uranium fuel for the Navy vessels isn’t 

such a hot idea. 

Admiral CALDWELL. I think there is some value in being able to 

sustain my workforce, so let me amplify that. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yeah, well, my time is about up, but I think 

that was a good complete answer—— 

Admiral CALDWELL. There is one aspect of this, though, sir. To 

go to low-enriched uranium, I have to develop an advanced fuel 

system. That advanced fuel system could have benefit for a low-enriched uranium core or a highly enriched uranium core. So there 

could be some benefit in going down the path to sustain my workforce and expand the technology that we have. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Admiral. 

Senator Feinstein, I don’t have any other questions, so I’ll let you 

ask whatever you would like. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have one because I mentioned in my opening remarks that $3.2 billion in deferred maintenance of facilities, 
31 

a huge sum, I don’t think I need to say that, actually. So, General 

Klotz, in your plans, to what extent is NNSA looking at alternative 

approaches for addressing the problem, such as reducing the number of facilities or consolidating functions? 

General KLOTZ. Thank you very much. You’re right, we have a 

very substantial backlog of deferred maintenance. Again, referring 

to my previous military career, I found that the first dollar usually 

goes to the pointy edge of the spear, or for the men and women 

who carry the spear, and then every year a decision is made to accept risk on facilities and infrastructures, and, you know, defer it 

one more year. Well, one more year becomes two more years, becomes 10 more years, and then ultimately you get to a tipping 

point in terms of our facilities, and I think that’s where we are in 

NNSA and in other parts of the deal, in the laboratories that are 

out there with some facilities dating back to the Manhattan Project 

that you referred to earlier. 

So Secretary Moniz laid down a—threw down the gauge a couple 

years ago and said that he wanted to arrest the halt in the growth 

of deferred maintenance for the Department of Energy as a whole, 

including NNSA. So with the fiscal year 2016 budget that thankfully you all enacted at the end of last year, we’ve essentially halted it at the 3 point I think 7, is what I would say, $3.7 billion level, 

and with 2017, we actually start to go down. 

Now, we’re exploring alternative ways of financing new facilities 

to get out of these old facilities that include using third-party financing. We have an enormous successful example of that in the 

Kansas City National Security Campus, which we reduced, got out 

of an old building that dated back to World War II, reduced our 

footprint from 3 million down to 1 million square feet. We’ve asked 

for money in this budget to demolish that particular facility. 

So we’re serious about looking for, whether it’s a capital construction project or a third-party financing or an operating lease 

approach to do that, we’re looking for new facilities to get our people in, and at the same time, to reduce the footprint and to demolish the buildings that are there now. 

The one problem we do have with demolishing some of our buildings is if they are contaminated, we have to go through a very long 

tedious and expensive process of cleaning up the contamination before we can turn it over to that part of DOE that does the demolition. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me—what are your estimates? 

How—the $3.2 billion in deferred maintenance, did you have specific plans for meeting that, or are you just going to ignore it? 

General KLOTZ. No, we have a specific plan, and we’d be happy 

to share that plan for you in terms of—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate it. 

General KLOTZ. Yes, ma’am. I’d be delighted to do it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And your staff. 

General KLOTZ. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That would be just fine. 

General KLOTZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That’s it, I think, unless we want 

to debate a nuclear cruise missile more, which I don’t think you do. 

[Laughter.] 
32 

General KLOTZ. I’d love to come up and just sit down with you 

in your office and pursue that further. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Sure. I’d be happy to, actually. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I might come watch. 

[Laughter.] 

General KLOTZ. I’ll invite Admiral Haney to come over. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It would be better than the Republican debates. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. Probably more informative. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I don’t belittle people. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, no, no, you don’t. I’m not getting into 

this with—I’m sorry—I’m sorry I even brought it up. 

The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members may 

submit additional information or questions for the record within 

that time. The subcommittee requests all responses to questions for 

the record be provided within 30 days. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

I want to thank General Klotz, Admiral Caldwell, Ms. Harrington, and General Davis, I want to thank all four of you for 

being here and thank you for the work you do for our country. We’ll 

look forward to following up with you. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.]