00:00requested. So, we will now consider log number
00:075466R2 by Mr. Garamendi. What purposes the gentleman from California seat recognition?
00:15Does he have an amendment at the desk? I have an amendment at the desk and I'm going to be
00:19listening really, really closely to which one they call up. Okay, without objection,
00:23the reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of
00:26explaining his amendment. I clearly have too many amendments for us. Clerk will distribute the amendment.
00:395-2-8-0. Okay.
00:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the few moments to gather myself and reposition for the new
01:03issue. All of these nuclear weapons are built around a plutonium pit. And as we saw, as I explained,
01:16with the 400 ICBMs, we are putting ourselves into a mandatory process that we're creating ourselves.
01:26perhaps without thinking through the ramifications. The manufacturing of nuclear
01:38plutonium pits is an extremely sensitive, dangerous, and extraordinarily expensive process that requires a
01:48very secure facility. That facility is now being built at Los Alamos. And the production of pits at Los Alamos,
02:01the first, what do they call it, pit that is actually war ready, was produced this year. And the process will go on.
02:11We're requiring that 80 pits a year be built by 2006. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen.
02:22It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen in 2008. It's not going to happen in
02:252030 or even 35. It's not going to happen. There is a limitation on the number of pits that can be built under the best of
02:35circumstances at Los Alamos. And it's said to be 30. But the reality is it probably will never get to 30.
02:43So it'll be somewhat lower in number. I look at my friend and colleague from South Carolina who
02:51we've gone round and round on this forever. And I greatly respect his jobs program that is being
03:00developed in South Carolina for the Savannah River facility, which is being repurposed. And we had this
03:08debate the previous decade about its purpose. And then it was decided it couldn't work for that.
03:14So it's now being repurposed, rebuilt at an extraordinary multi-billion dollar cost to manufacture pits.
03:23There is no way, despite the gentleman's advocacy and strong support for South Carolina and the pit
03:31production there, it's not going to be available to produce a pit in the next decade. Maybe in the
03:39second decade from now, it could. But we're talking about a very significant construction program,
03:48very, very expensive. And then all of the equipment, all that goes into manufacturing a pit,
03:54will have to be added to that. All of which says this is a Herculean task. It is a task that
04:02is going to be time consuming and it will be extraordinarily expensive. We don't know the cost.
04:08Every year the cost goes up. I would love to sit down with my friend and have a long conversation about,
04:16gee, is there something else we could spend money on in South Carolina that would actually benefit
04:21the people of South Carolina beyond an immediate job to build a facility? I'm sure there is.
04:28And I'd like to find it. So what we have here is that once again, we have put ourselves in an untenable
04:36position by requiring the National Nuclear Security Agency to produce a certain number of pits within
04:45a specific period of time. They have failed to do that year after year. They're going to fail again
04:51next year. The law makes them a failure. And they're operating contrary to law. They're not going to produce
04:59the pits as required by the law that we write. So I'm going, why don't we think this thing through?
05:05Why don't we think through, well, maybe we can take one of the multi-thousand pits that sit in reserve
05:15at one of our facilities. They're sitting on the bench or in the racks. They're available. Can they be
05:23repurposed for the purpose of a new nuclear weapon? Leaving aside the question of whether we ought to
05:29have a new nuclear weapon or not? That's another debate. But why do we need to produce a pit?
05:35It comes down to this. In my last 30 seconds, the only explanation I have found from the NNSA is
05:42we must produce the pit so that we can produce a pit. Why? Why can't we use an existing pit? One of the
05:51thousands that were available from the nuclear weapons that we have torn apart and put the nuclear
05:59pits on the shelf. Why? Can we do it cheaper? Can we do it better? Can we do it faster? The answer is
06:05we don't know because we're stuck on this cycle of thoughtlessness. With that, I yield back. Thank
06:12you, Mr. Chairman.
06:13The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Desjardins.
06:20Thank you, Chairman. I hope my friend from California isn't offended that I'm now opposing his
06:24third amendment in a row, but I do oppose the amendment which would undermine the targets for
06:30plutonium pit production currently in law. The committee debated and rejected a similar amendment
06:36last year, and I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment as well. As my colleagues probably
06:41recall from that discussion, current law requires the Department of Energy to build the production
06:45capacity to meet certain levels of pit production by specific dates. These targets were based on DOD
06:51requirements. The Garamendi amendment would effectively say if you're not going to meet these deadlines,
06:56you can propose your own. I disagree with that approach. My colleague argues that pit production
07:01deadlines cannot be met, but nullifying the deadlines as this amendment seeks to and would do is not the
07:08answer. I would also point out that the MARC directs the chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council to provide
07:14the committee an updated assessment on the Department of Defense's pit production requirements. Any changes
07:20to the law should be based on the Department's needs, and until the Department informs us those needs
07:24have changed, I believe the deadline should remain in place. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
07:29amendment, and I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
07:35Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mike Rogers, and I strongly oppose this amendment again.
07:43With the highest respect for my friend, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, again, and indeed there are
07:49legitimate concerns he's raised that can be answered, and I look forward to his finding these out. Our nation's
07:58strategic nuclear deterrence is perhaps the best example of peace through strength. With the murderous invasion of
08:04Ukraine by war criminal Putin and Russia's recent decision to transport nuclear weapons to the Putin-occupied
08:11client illegitimate dictatorship of Belarus, the United States must be ready to face any challenge if
08:18provoked. Plutonium pit production and modernization is the right direction, as Mr. Garamendi has seeks, for
08:28critical and pressing national security needs. Employees of the Savannah River site in South Carolina are
08:34working around the clock, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to bring the Savannah River plutonium
08:40processing, plutonium processing facility to produce the majority of our nation's supply of plutonium pits
08:48online as soon as possible. As the only member of Congress who has actually worked at the Savannah River
08:53site, I know firsthand of the professionalism of the site employees, and indeed we look forward to
09:00having a visit at some time by Congressman Garamendi, who will be welcome to South Carolina. We should be
09:06working all that we can do to promote and support this mission to drive peace through strength. Plutonium
09:13pits are a key component for nuclear weapons, and our adversaries, sadly Putin and the Chinese Communist Party,
09:20have very modern plutonium pit production facilities. Due to factors including plutonium aging, safety,
09:27and security advancements, global risk, and weapons modernization, these pits need to be reproduced
09:34and replaced from time to time. But for nearly three decades, the United States has not had the
09:39ability to produce them in the quantities required for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Given the uncertainties
09:46regarding plutonium aging and the evolving geopolitical landscape, the United States cannot postpone
09:52reestablishing this critical capability. Delaying the restoration of this capability would result in
09:57significant cost increases and risks to national security. We must promote peace through strength.
10:04With that, I urge opposition to this particular amendment. I yield back.
10:09Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition with regard to Mr. Garamendi's amendment?
10:15Seeing none, there's no further debate on the question. The question now occurs on the amendment
10:20offered by Mr. Garamendi. So many is in favor. We'll say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No.
10:26Deputy Chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote will be postponed.
Comments