Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Does DHS Have an Effective and Efficient Nuclear Detection Strategy? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, July 26, 2012   [open pdf - 432KB]

This is the July 26, 2012 hearing on "Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Does DHS Have an Effective and Efficient Nuclear Detection Strategy?," held before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies. From the opening statement of Daniel E. Lungren: "Nuclear and radiological terrorism is my greatest fear. It would represent an unprecedented catastrophic event, causing enormous death, destruction, as well as long-term economic disruption. So it is critical that we continue our vigilance and oversight efforts in order to address this continuing threat. Our subcommittee hearing today will examine the current nuclear detection strategy of the Department of Homeland Security and assess whether that strategy is both effective and efficient in countering this threat. It was exactly 1 year ago today, in this very hearing room, that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office informed me that it was cancelling its costly Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitoring Program, known as ''A--S--P''. After much promise, testing, and evaluation, the Department cancelled ASP without identifying a new technology replacement. Three months ago, the Department provided its proposed path forward with its Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA) ''Implementation Plan''. This was a major accomplishment of DNDO by facilitating the interagency cooperation that is essential to the development of such a comprehensive architecture. The plan provides for the first time, a 5-year look-ahead of the needed capabilities for countering our nuclear and radiological threats. While the GNDA plan contains excellent procedures and policies to coordinate our Nation's nuclear defense efforts, it fails to identify the Department's priorities for acquiring its next generation of detection equipment." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Daniel E. Lungren, Yvette D. Clarke, Bennie G. Thompson, Huban A. Gowadia, David C. Maurer, and Vayl S. Oxford.

Report Number:
Serial No. 112-110
Public Domain
Retrieved From:
Government Printing Office: http://www.gpo.gov/
Media Type:
Help with citations
Listed on Nuclear Weapons [Featured Topic]