The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto a version of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act – significant defense legislation – for myriad reasons, including a plutonium pit production provision it described as unwieldy, unnecessary and unwise.
Among the more than three-dozen reasons President Donald Trump's senior advisers had "serious" reservations about and stood against the House legislation is its Section 3115, which would require an independent cost, confidence and schedule assessment of the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility, the prospective Savannah River Site factory where nuclear weapon cores would be produced.
The White House suggested such a review would be redundant, as similar U.S. Department of Energy guidelines for major projects already exist. Trump has previously warned he would reject the latest NDAA for other reasons.
The House on Tuesday evening passed its defense policy bill 295-125 – a veto-proof majority. Rep. Joe Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, said the legislation is "a win" for the military and his congressional district, which includes the entirety of Aiken County and the Savannah River Site.
"For 60 consecutive years the NDAA has exemplified the legislative process at its best. Over the course of months, we identify policies on which we can agree and participate in thorough, thoughtful debate on issues where we disagree," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., said in a statement. "In our current political climate, characterized by partisanship and divisive leadership in the White House, it is increasingly important that Congress show the American people we are still capable of compromise."
Federal law requires the production of 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030, but the U.S. has for years lacked the ability to make the nuclear weapon cores en masse. The last place that made them in great volume, the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado, was raided by the FBI and was ultimately shuttered.
To solve the impasse, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Defense in May 2018 recommended forging the pits in two states: South Carolina, at the Savannah River Site south of Aiken, and New Mexico, at Los Alamos National Laboratory near Santa Fe.
The multibillion-dollar endeavor's aggressive schedule, tight deadline and overall complexity and gravity have raised both eyebrows and worries in Congress. Section 3115 embodies the concerns.
Smith weeks ago said he would "confidently bet $100" that the Savannah River Site would not uphold its end of the cross-country plutonium pit production equation. Similarly, Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat, warned of the potential Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility price tag and bloat and said members of the House Armed Services Committee "know full well problems that we've had in the past with premature and, sometimes, inadequate construction plans."
"We want to make sure that there are not unnecessary delays or cost overruns at Savannah River," he said, advocating for additional oversight.
|
Follow us