POLISCOPE
Back to feed
Part ofnational defense →
FEDERALhearing transcript
High Impact

House Subcommittee Hearing on 2023 Nuclear Defense Budget

Original title: [H.A.S.C. No. 117-91] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION

January 1, 2023

national defensenuclear weaponsfederal budgetmilitary oversightatomic energy

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing serves as a formal review of the funding and operational priorities for U.S. nuclear defense programs, which directly impacts federal spending levels and the development timelines for nuclear infrastructure projects like .

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

National Nuclear Security Administration

The agency is subject to congressional oversight regarding its budget and the timeline for nuclear infrastructure projects.

Department of Defense

The department's nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs are under review for Fiscal Year 2023 funding.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2023.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on May 17, 2022, to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2023 budget for nuclear forces and atomic energy defense activities. The session featured testimony from top officials in the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration regarding and nuclear program oversight.

Key Facts

  • The hearing took place on May 17, 2022, in the Rayburn House Office Building.
  • The session focused on the Fiscal Year 2023 budget for nuclear forces and atomic energy defense activities.
  • The subcommittee discussed the pace of nuclear pit production, specifically referencing projects in South Carolina.
  • Witnesses included representatives from the NNSA, Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force.
  • The committee chair requested that opening statements be limited to 5 minutes to accommodate a pending vote schedule.
  • The hearing included both a public session and a planned (but potentially rescheduled) classified session.
  • Prepared statements from all witnesses and subcommittee leadership were entered into the official record.

Why It Matters

This hearing serves as a formal review of the funding and operational priorities for U.S. nuclear defense programs, which directly impacts federal spending levels and the development timelines for nuclear infrastructure projects like .

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of this subcommittee hearing?
The hearing is part of the oversight process for the National Defense Authorization Act, specifically reviewing the budget and programs related to nuclear forces and atomic energy.
Who are the primary agencies involved in these nuclear programs?
The hearing involved the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and various branches of the Department of Defense, including the Navy and Air Force.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Show 2 more sponsors

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

temporal pattern100% confidence

Legislative Time Pressure

The hearing was significantly constrained by a 'pending cascade of votes' in the House, forcing the committee to skip opening statements to focus on questioning.

Jim Cooper

Connected Entities

personJill Hruby“Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration”Map →
personDeborah Rosenblum“Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Pro”Map →
organizationNational Nuclear Security Administration“Department of Energy agency responsible for nuclear security”Map →
personJohnny R. Wolfe, Jr.“Director of Strategic Systems Programs, U.S. Navy”Map →
personJim Cooper“Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces”Map →
personJohn F. Plumb“Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy”Map →
personJames C. Dawkins, Jr.“Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, U.S. Air”Map →
personDoug Lamborn“Ranking Member of the Subcommittee”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance80
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy20
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz15
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record