Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization: Energy Department Weapons Programs

FDCH TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Mar. 20, 2003
Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization: Energy Department Weapons Programs

CORNYN:

Secretary Abraham, it's good to see you this morning. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee today and tell you that I look forward to working with you to ensure that our nuclear weapons facilities receive the proper funding and resources they need in order to carry out their important mission.

I'm especially glad to see that we are moving forward with the modern pit facility. I think most Americans would be surprised, as I was when I learned that we currently do not have a certified capability to produce such an important part of our nuclear arsenal. And, indeed, it's supremely ironic that at a time when we are justifiably concerned about the ability of North Korea to produce nuclear weapons, America cannot.

On that point, the point of the modern pit facility, I want to ask you about the length of time it takes to complete that facility. I'm informed that the best estimate is 15 to 17 years, and I wanted to ask you why does it take so long, and is there anything that we in Congress can do to speed up the process.

ABRAHAM:

Well, Senator, you raise an important point. The duration of time between this point and when we feel we can have a fully operational modern pit facility is a long one, because, obviously, there are inordinate numbers of both safety standards, environmental standards, and others that have to be met along that pathway.

I should, however, note that we believe that this year, we'll be actually able to produce a certified pit which can be certified at the work that's being done at Los Alamos. It's a small operation by comparison to what we would envision a modern pit facility to be. And so we're not going to be without any capability, because we will have that. But that is, obviously, a very small production capability.

As to the specific impediments, I'd have to, if I could, respond for the record on that and give you maybe some of the technical explanations that I don't have with me here today.

CORNYN:

That would be very helpful.

ABRAHAM:

But we do envision that this—the other issue here is there has been some concern about whether or not we should move ahead on some of these projects. Just the timeframe that you just outlined is a good example of some of the challenges we have in terms of maintaining capability, which has been our priority, trying to establish the capability to do the work that we may or may not in the future be called on to do.

CORNYN:

Well, certainly, I think we all understand if there are safety or scientific reasons for such a huge length of time. But if there are bureaucratic rules or other things that don't make sense that we can address here in Congress, I hope you'll let me and the committee know.

Will the modern pit facility that we're talking about have the flexibility such that it would be able to produce a range of pits, possibly even for weapons that currently are not in America's nuclear inventory?

ABRAHAM:

Yes, and it's, I think, the objective to have a facility that will have flexibility. Clearly, we're always in the process of not only thinking about being capable of doing things today, but being able to address challenges of the future, and I think the concept behind the facility is to have a design that allows for that flexibility.

CORNYN:

Let me jump to another subject in my remaining time—maintenance backlogs at our nuclear weapons complex. Of course, I guess we would all agree that it's critical that we maintain upkeep of our facilities.

As you know, the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program appears to have been successful in halting the growth of the approximately $1 billion maintenance backlog at our nuclear weapons facilities. Unfortunately, the backlog will remain the same or grow if the readiness in the Technical Base and Facilities Program, which continues current and future maintenance, continues to decline. In fact, the nuclear weapons complex may be in the same poor shape in the future when the FIRP ends.

Do you believe maintenance activities are adequately funded at the plants and laboratories in order to eliminate maintenance backlogs in the next eight years when FIRP ends?

ABRAHAM:

Well, we definitely place a high priority on eliminating that backlog. Two of the challenges which we have tried to address in the more robust budgets which this administration has been submitting are the deterioration in the infrastructure, generally, and the maintenance backlogs that Congress has also identified as a problem.

So we believe that the funding that we're providing puts us right on the course towards addressing that backlog. It's going to take some time. We recognize that. And it may be at the end of that, as we move down that road, that we conclude that not only do we have to have an ongoing maintenance program that's effective, but that we find additional challenges that fall into a category of perhaps being defined as backlogged by that point.

I would just say that the overall program enjoys—that is, the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program does enjoy a very substantial amount of support in this budget, and we certainly intend to apply that effectively to the infrastructure problems we've encountered.

CORNYN:

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.