“Good afternoon. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces will come to order. Today, we will consider the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities.

 “Let me begin by welcoming our distinguished witnesses: The Honorable Tom D’Agostino, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration; Dr. Ines Triay, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Department of Energy; and Mr. Glenn Podonsky, Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, Department of Energy. I want to thank each of you for being here today. 

 “The Fiscal Year 2010 budget request for the Department of Energy is slightly more than 26 billion dollars.  The Armed Services Committee annually authorizes about two-thirds of this total for Atomic Energy Defense Activities. 

 “For FY 2010, the request of 16.4 billion dollars for these programs is an increase of 147.9 million over the FY 2009 appropriation. 

 “This committee is a strong supporter of the critical missions embodied in your respective program areas: 

• Maintaining and ensuring the reliability, safety and security of our nuclear deterrent;
• Conducting the scientific research, engineering and production activities necessary to support that deterrent;
• Keeping our nuclear weapons and the weapons complex safe from physical, cyber, and other threats;
• Leading the government’s international nuclear non-proliferation efforts;  and,
• Cleaning up the environmental legacy of decades of nuclear stockpile work. 

 “We are eager to hear your testimony on the Fiscal Year 2010 budget request.   I am especially interested in your thoughts about the following issues:

 “First, does the budget adequately fund the Stockpile Stewardship Program?  As the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States just wrote in its final report, the Stockpile Stewardship Program has been ‘remarkably successful.’ But its continued success is not something we can take for granted. 

 “With world class experimental tools like the National Ignition Facility, the DARHT Facility, and the Z-Machine now available to the NNSA, the stewardship program is poised for even greater achievements. 

 “But for that to happen, we must continue efforts to sustain and strengthen the Stewardship Program. 

 “That means supporting both the scientific tools and advanced computing capabilities that are coming on line, as well as, the world class scientists and engineers that use these tools to run the Stewardship program.  

 “In this context, the committee needs to know whether the budget adequately funds the exercise of these physical and intellectual capabilities.

 “Second, and this is a question I ask year after year, does the budget properly balance various safety and security priorities? What impact will the new Graded Security Protection strategy have on your security investment strategy? 

 “Third, does the budget for Environmental Management support the numerous commitments the federal government has made?   

 “With the approval of more than five billion dollars in defense environmental clean-up funds in the FY 2009 stimulus package, can the Department successfully manage three years’ worth of funding in two years?

 “Finally, this committee continues to be concerned about the relationship between plans for consolidation of special nuclear materials and other national security activities, including stockpile stewardship, complex modernization, nonproliferation, and environmental cleanup.

 “I hope that you can shed new light on efforts to coordinate materials consolidation and disposition among the stakeholder offices within the Department.

 “These are the concerns we hope you will address in your statements and during our discussions that will follow your testimony.

 “With that, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Turner, for any comments he may have.”