Congressman Pete Visclosky (D-IN-1) Statement on New Warhead
3/19/2007
Visclosky Statement on DoE's Lead Lab Selection for the RRW 3/2/2007
Congressman Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, today issued the following statement on the Department of Energy's selection of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to be the lead design laboratory for the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead:
"This announcement puts the cart before the horse. I have serious concerns with the process leading up to today's announcement, and with the priorities of the Department of Energy. Although a lot of time and energy went in determining the winning design for a new nuclear warhead, there appears to have been little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time. My preference is that the DoE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads.
"To date, there has been no clear, coherent national security policy coming out of the Administration that defines the requirement for the RRW. In fact, much of the RRW process has a make-it-up-as-you-go-along character to it. At a minimum, before I support a decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new nuclear weapon, I am going to have to see a policy statement from the Administration that explains the national security imperative for the RRW. We are not going to begin building more nuclear bombs without a serious and open national debate on that policy question.
"Without a comprehensive defense strategy that defines the future mission, the emerging threats, and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve the strategic goals, it is impossible for Congress to appropriate funding for RRW in a responsible and efficient manner. I will use the hearing process to conduct detailed oversight of the RRW proposal this spring. The absence of a comprehensive strategic requirement for RRW will certainly cause the program to slow down, and may result in Congress eliminating funds for the program given the competition for many other worthwhile DoE programs.
On DOE Priorities:
"Given the United States' nuclear nonproliferation commitments around the world, our desire to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries, and the pressing need to reduce the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex within a believable period of time, I am disappointed that the Department of Energy and this Administration has chosen to make RRW its top priority. If the same amount of effort was put into reducing the size of the complex as was put into RRW, I am confident the DoE would have a modern weapons complex by 2015 instead of 2030.
Congressman Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana), Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, today issued the following statement on the Department of Energy's selection of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to be the lead design laboratory for the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead:
"This announcement puts the cart before the horse. I have serious concerns with the process leading up to today's announcement, and with the priorities of the Department of Energy. Although a lot of time and energy went in determining the winning design for a new nuclear warhead, there appears to have been little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time. My preference is that the DoE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads.
"To date, there has been no clear, coherent national security policy coming out of the Administration that defines the requirement for the RRW. In fact, much of the RRW process has a make-it-up-as-you-go-along character to it. At a minimum, before I support a decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new nuclear weapon, I am going to have to see a policy statement from the Administration that explains the national security imperative for the RRW. We are not going to begin building more nuclear bombs without a serious and open national debate on that policy question.
"Without a comprehensive defense strategy that defines the future mission, the emerging threats, and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve the strategic goals, it is impossible for Congress to appropriate funding for RRW in a responsible and efficient manner. I will use the hearing process to conduct detailed oversight of the RRW proposal this spring. The absence of a comprehensive strategic requirement for RRW will certainly cause the program to slow down, and may result in Congress eliminating funds for the program given the competition for many other worthwhile DoE programs.
On DOE Priorities:
"Given the United States' nuclear nonproliferation commitments around the world, our desire to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries, and the pressing need to reduce the size of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex within a believable period of time, I am disappointed that the Department of Energy and this Administration has chosen to make RRW its top priority. If the same amount of effort was put into reducing the size of the complex as was put into RRW, I am confident the DoE would have a modern weapons complex by 2015 instead of 2030.
