• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Missile Defense / HASC vs. HAC on Nukes and Missile Defense

May 17, 2012

HASC vs. HAC on Nukes and Missile Defense

We’ve made a point of highlighting the different funding decisions made by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and GOP-controlled House Appropriations Committee (HAC) regarding the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) weapons activities account, particularly the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement – Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). Whereas HASC increased funding for these programs, the appropriations committee funded them at the administration’s request (including no funding for the CMRR-NF pursuant to the administration’s decision to delay the facility by 5 years).

Now that the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee report is out (the full Committee is scheduled to approve it today), we have still more examples of differences between HASC and GOP appropriators, in this case regarding the Ohio Class replacement program (also known as the SSBN(X)) and the Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. For example, while the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee increased the Pentagon’s base budget (051) request by $3.1 billion, it supported the Pentagon’s decision to delay the Ohio-Class replacement program by two years. HASC added money in an attempt to reverse this delay.

Defense News’ Kate Brannen reported on the dust-up going on within the GOP on these issues a few days ago. Below is a chart which highlights them in more detail:

Posted in: Missile Defense, Nukes of Hazard blog

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • The Long Shadow of Syria’s Chemical Weapons May 15, 2025
  • Fact Sheet: Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) May 15, 2025
  • How real is the risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan? May 13, 2025
  • Deterrence can create space for diplomacy, not replace it.  May 12, 2025
  • Op-ed: How the India-Pakistan Crisis Puts U.S. Strategy to the Test May 7, 2025

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2025 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency