Read on Twitter
House Armed Services Committee is back receive the strategic forces subcommittee's report.
This is the nukey part. Has @NNSANews, DOD nukes.
NNSA was authorized in the subcommittee mark for the roughly $20B it requested.
No attempts to fund weapons programs below request.
This is the nukey part. Has @NNSANews, DOD nukes.
NNSA was authorized in the subcommittee mark for the roughly $20B it requested.
No attempts to fund weapons programs below request.
Follow along, if you like.
This year, your boss might not even know/care if you're watching video at work. https://bit.ly/HASCndaaMarkWebcast
This year, your boss might not even know/care if you're watching video at work. https://bit.ly/HASCndaaMarkWebcast
. @repjimcooper says although NNSA is authorized at the request, the subcommittee's report calls for a "better understanding" of NNSA's uncosted balances.
Some in the House said the NNSA should not get its requested funding because it had unspent appropriations sitting around.
Some in the House said the NNSA should not get its requested funding because it had unspent appropriations sitting around.
NNSA said its unspent appropriations weren't a slush fund, but funding already intended to be spent on ongoing construction projects (uranium processing facility at @y12nsc, e.g., and international obligations).
. @RepMikeTurner
(ranking strategic forces member (Cooper chairs) again touts the SF sub's requirement (from him) for DOD to contract with a federally funded research and development center for an open-source report on Chinese, Russian & North Korean nuclear arsenals.
(ranking strategic forces member (Cooper chairs) again touts the SF sub's requirement (from him) for DOD to contract with a federally funded research and development center for an open-source report on Chinese, Russian & North Korean nuclear arsenals.
Turner says having an open source report will allow HASC to say more about adversary nukes in an open forum.
On now to non-controversial amendment.
En Bloc package includes amendment from:
@TulsiPress: "a report on asking the SecDef to complete legally required briefings on the status of any official talks between the US and other relevant parties regarding the New START Treaty."
@TulsiPress: "a report on asking the SecDef to complete legally required briefings on the status of any official talks between the US and other relevant parties regarding the New START Treaty."
En bloc package adapted. Much language about satellites and space, none about civilian nuke programs.
Now @repjimcooper has an amendment to require a tougher independent cost review of the Savannah River Plutonium Processing facility (NNSA's planned South Carolina pit plant).
Repeats that he and others believe plant will be very expensive.
Repeats that he and others believe plant will be very expensive.
Rep. @DesJarlaisTN04 speaks against.
Says essentially, DOD wants 80 pits a year. NNSA wants to make 50/yr at SRS, 30/yr at LANL just do that.
Says essentially, DOD wants 80 pits a year. NNSA wants to make 50/yr at SRS, 30/yr at LANL just do that.
And @RepJoeWilson, whose district includes SRS, says a single pit plant would be a "perilous" approach. He opposes the amendment, which anyone here could have told me five minutes ago, and I'd have believed it.
SF subcommittee @RepMikeTurner turner chair is also against the amendment, and it seems like his caucus is with him.
Cooper: My amendment isn't against a two-state pit plant, or 80 pits a year.
I just want to see more coordination between DOE and DOD on this.
I just want to see more coordination between DOE and DOD on this.
Here from the text of Rep. Cooper's amendment, is how it would be a tougher review.
Secretary is the Secretary of Energy.
Facility is the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (the pit plant to be made from the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility).
Secretary is the Secretary of Energy.
Facility is the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (the pit plant to be made from the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility).
Sorry, I kept screwing up the above tweet. It's correct now.
Now @RepAdamSmith steps in.
Says they're going to authorize the requested funding for the pit plant, but NNSA is not blameless for cost overruns incurred as it tried to rebuild a national pit-production complex ( @RepMikeTurner had just implied it was all Congress' fault).
Says they're going to authorize the requested funding for the pit plant, but NNSA is not blameless for cost overruns incurred as it tried to rebuild a national pit-production complex ( @RepMikeTurner had just implied it was all Congress' fault).
Smith: let's not "send another $5 to $8 billion dollars down the toilet" and approve @repjimcooper's "accountability measure" for another study on the proposed S.C. pit plant.
But on the voice vote ask, sounds like a straight party line split.
We'll have the 1st roll call vote.
But on the voice vote ask, sounds like a straight party line split.
We'll have the 1st roll call vote.
For anyone in whose timeline I'm new, pits are the plutonium cores of thermonuclear weapons.
The first ones that would be made at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility would be for W87-1 warheads, the tips of the planned Ground Based Strategic Deterrent ICBMs.
The first ones that would be made at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility would be for W87-1 warheads, the tips of the planned Ground Based Strategic Deterrent ICBMs.
Now @RepGaramendi has one of the first real reruns of last year's markup: a study on extending the life of the Minuteman III, the nuclear ICBM GBSD will replace (starting around 2030).
That amendment didn't make it through conference last year, when HASC Chair Smith was really going to the mattresses to alter the pace of the nuclear modernization plan.
Smith has just finished saying that he's not going to fight that fight again (this year, anyway).
Smith has just finished saying that he's not going to fight that fight again (this year, anyway).
Part of Smith's perspective on a Minuteman III extension last year was that if another extension is possible, the first GBSD buy needn't be as large as planned.
The first GBSD procurement contract is expected before summer's out. Estimated at about $25B.
The first GBSD procurement contract is expected before summer's out. Estimated at about $25B.
The first GBSD missiles, by the way, may go into silos with warheads that are now on Minuteman III missiles - and not, right away, with warheads containing the new pits.
@NNSANews said that in multiple open forums.
There's still concern the pit plants won't be ready on time.
@NNSANews said that in multiple open forums.
There's still concern the pit plants won't be ready on time.
Ah, parliamentary complication!
Rep. Garamendi has an amendment at HASC, but he has gone to vote on the House floor.
15 minute recess for HASC.
Rep. Smith says there are "a couple more amendments" for strategic forces.
Rep. Garamendi has an amendment at HASC, but he has gone to vote on the House floor.
15 minute recess for HASC.
Rep. Smith says there are "a couple more amendments" for strategic forces.
They're back.
They're done with amendments (Rep. Garamendi withdrew one).
They'll do what Rep. Smith calls "Senate floor style" roll-call vote on Cooper's amendment (a tougher study for the authorized Savannah River Site pit plant).
Roll in, roll out, wait for others to show.
They're done with amendments (Rep. Garamendi withdrew one).
They'll do what Rep. Smith calls "Senate floor style" roll-call vote on Cooper's amendment (a tougher study for the authorized Savannah River Site pit plant).
Roll in, roll out, wait for others to show.
And the Cooper amendment with the Savannah River plutonium pit study passes, 31-25.
And that's the end of the strategic forces part of the debate.
On to the chairman's mark, which is where the full Committee can offer amendments for the now-assembled (formally assembled) bill.
And that's the end of the strategic forces part of the debate.
On to the chairman's mark, which is where the full Committee can offer amendments for the now-assembled (formally assembled) bill.
Rep. Langevin (D-R.I.) offers, then withdraws and amendment that would prohibit deployment of more strategic nuclear warheads than allowed by the New START treaty.
Couple nukey amendments popped up in the 7 o'clock (eastern US) hour.
@RepGaramendi offered and withdrew an amendment that was sort of a retread of a provision in last year's HASC NDAA: prioritize 30 pits a year at Los Alamos, deemphasize preparations for pits at Savannah River.
@RepGaramendi offered and withdrew an amendment that was sort of a retread of a provision in last year's HASC NDAA: prioritize 30 pits a year at Los Alamos, deemphasize preparations for pits at Savannah River.
Next, Rep. @RoKhanna proposed an amendment to whack GBSD (next-gen nuclear-tipped ICBMs - deployment slated to begin 2030) by $1B and plow the money into DOD's "Pandemic Preparedness and Resilience National Security Fund."
Now, @RepMikeTurner raised a point of order, as Rep. Khanna is attending remotely. Turner said Khanna hasn't been on camera the whole time, as remote-attendance rules require.
Turner asks Smith, will it really be in order for Khanna to make his amendment?
Smith: "Yes."
Turner asks Smith, will it really be in order for Khanna to make his amendment?
Smith: "Yes."
. @RoKhanna rebuts. Says he's been there the whole time, listening. And he has even worn a tie (confirm, he has), which he hopes will make Mr. Turner "sympathetic to our amendment."
There's a lot of debate about the efficacy of ICBMs.
Sorry for the general audience in the feed, but I'm not going to live tweet all of this.
Summing up, most Dems okay slowing procurement of new ICBMs.
Most Republicans very not.
Sorry for the general audience in the feed, but I'm not going to live tweet all of this.
Summing up, most Dems okay slowing procurement of new ICBMs.
Most Republicans very not.
. @RepLizCheney repeats the point of order against Rep. Khanna.
Smith doesn't respond directly to that, but he already said Khanna's amendment is in order.
This is devolving into the same arguments we had last year.
Smith doesn't respond directly to that, but he already said Khanna's amendment is in order.
This is devolving into the same arguments we had last year.
Dems: do we need an ICBM refresh now?
GOP: Peak spending of the 30-year US nuclear modernization cycle is 7% of the DOD budget (on the DOD side, excluding NNSA)
GOP: Peak spending of the 30-year US nuclear modernization cycle is 7% of the DOD budget (on the DOD side, excluding NNSA)
Anyway, there will be a roll call vote at the end of all of this on Rep. Ro Khanna's vote to authorize $1B less for Ground Based Strategic Deterrent so that DOD pandemic preparedness can get the money.
The main things that were new in the debate this year: there's a global pandemic, and Rep. Khanna invites debate about whether to skip a year of nuclear ICBM procurement funds to help DOD combat it.
Also, Rep. Cheney asks whether ...
Also, Rep. Cheney asks whether ...
A debate in Congress about slowing the ICBM refresh might give Russia the perception that they need not negotiate away any of their own ICBMs in ongoing arms control talks with @USArmsControl.
