Here at the Center/Council we follow Congress and national security issues very closely.  So naturally we put together a summary of the important and controversial provisions and amendments from the House Armed Services Committee’s mark of the Defense Authorization bill last week.  If you want to read the full text of the bill and report you can do so here.

A Review of the House Version of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Bill

By a vote of 60 to 1, the House Armed Services Committee approved $553 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget, a 4.1% increase over appropriations for FY 2011, along with an additional $118 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, matching the administration’s request on both counts.

The full House is expected to consider the bill the week of May 23. Many of the provisions listed below may be challenged on the House floor.

(More below the jump)

NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED ISSUES

New START implementation and further nuclear weapons reductions (for more on this provision see here)
The bill calls for a report on the Pentagon’s plan for implementing the New START treaty.  The plan would include a description of the feasibility and potential cost savings of accelerating New START implementation.  The Committee also adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) that would delay force reductions under New START until the Secretaries of Defense and Energy certify that the plan to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and delivery systems is being carried out.  The provision also limits reductions in the stockpile of U.S. warheads held in reserve and prevents any unilateral reductions below the limits contained in New START unless several conditions are met.  The amendment passed on a party line vote.  It was drawn from a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Turner (R-OH) on May 5 known as the New START Implementation Act.

Annual report on nuclear modernization plans
The bill calls for the President to submit an annual report for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2019 on the plan for the modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, and delivery platforms (missiles, submarines, and bombers). The provision was drawn from the New START Implementation Act.

Non-strategic nuclear weapons reductions
The Committee adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Turner (R-OH) to prohibit the reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons based in Europe unless either 1) the reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal of these weapons is requested by the government of the host nation; or 2) the President certifies that NATO has decided to support such reduction, consolidation, or withdrawal. The amendment passed on a party line vote.  It was drawn from the New START Implementation Act.

Nuclear targeting strategy
The Committee adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Fleming (R-LA) that would prevent any changes to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy unless the President submits a report to Congress describing the implications of such changes and certifying that such changes do not require a retreat from a strategy of targeting the nuclear forces and leadership of an adversary (i.e. counterforce targeting) to a strategy of targeting cities or civilian populations (i.e. counter value targeting). The amendment passed on a party line vote.  It was drawn the New START Implementation Act.

National missile defense (i.e. ground based midcourse defense)
The Committee agreed to an increase of $100 million for the ground based midcourse defense system.  Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) offered an amendment to eliminate the increase and instead add $100 million to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account.  However, Turner offered a second-degree amendment to retain the $100 million increase for the system by proposing to cut $100 million from a U.S. army reconnaissance and surveillance program.  Turner’s second-degree amendment was adopted but it was opposed by every Democrat and two Republicans.  A similar amendment to the Sanchez amendment may be offered on the House floor.

Missile defense cooperation with Russia
The Committee adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Turner (R-OH) that would codify the language in the New START treaty resolution of ratification opposing limitations on U.S. missile defense programs and supporting improvements to defensive capabilities.  The Committee also adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Brooks (R-AL) that would establish limitations on funds to provide Russia with access to U.S. missile defense technology.  The amendments were drawn the New START Implementation Act.

Space based missile defense
The Committee adopted an amendment by Rep. Franks (R-AZ) that would require the Secretary of Defense to spend $8 million to conduct a study examining the technical and operational considerations associated with developing and operating a limited space-based missile defense interceptor capability.

Nuclear material security
The bill fully funds the National Nuclear Security Administration’s request of $2.55 billion for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.  Rep. Sanchez considered offering an amendment at add $20 million to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (which is part of the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Account), but withdrew it because she had yet to receive a necessary waiver from the Foreign Affairs Committee.  Sanchez may offer the amendment on the House floor.

Funding for nuclear modernization
The Committee fully funded the National Nuclear Security Administration’s request of $7.63 billion for weapons activities.  The Committee also approved the Defense Department’s research and development requests of $1.07 billion for the Ohio-class submarine replacement program, $197 million for a new long-range, nuclear-capable bomber, and $9.93 million for a new air launched nuclear cruise missile.  The bill includes a provision that would withhold 10% of the request for the Ohio-class replacement program until the Secretary of Defense submits a report summarizing the analysis that supported the Department’s decision to reduce the planned number of missile tubes per submarine to 16.

OTHER CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN THE BILL

F-35 second engine
The bill includes provisions supporting the an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  The Pentagon has insisted on cutting the program, but in a last ditch effort to keep it alive, manufacturers GE and Rolls Royce have offered to develop the engine for free, absorbing a $100 million annual development cost in the hope that the program will eventually find its way back into the budget or find a new buyer.  As a result, the Committee voted 55 to 5 to let GE and Rolls continue building for the next two years.  The Pentagon intends to build 2,456 of the aircraft.

Extending the war on terror
The bill expands the war on terror, first authorized three days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The original measure, called an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force’” or AUMF, authorized force against the perpetrators of the attacks or those thatr harbored them. The new provision “affirms” a state of armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.

War in Afghanistan
The Committee approved full funding of $118 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) considered offering an amendment to cut that funding, but decided to wait until the bill reached the House floor.  Other bills to terminate the war in Afghanistan may be turned into amendments and offered.

Relocating aircraft carriers from Virginia to Florida
The committee cut $30 million requested by the Pentagon to move a carrier from Norfolok, Virginia to Mayport, Florida. The Navy argues it is prudent to locate the carriers in more than one port but opponents say the cost of the move is not worth it.

Guantanamo Bay prison
The bill reaffirms  Congress’ opposing closing the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, bars the transfer of prisoners to the United States or to foreign countries in most cases (An amendment by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) to lift the ban on trying Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts failed 22 – 38)

Gays in the military
The measure requires that all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and not just the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, certify that the termination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy barring gays in the military would not harm the military.

Cost of health care in the military
The committee agreed to some increase of fees for active duty and retired military for their health care program called Tricare, but at a smaller level than proposed by the Administration. Health care costs now take about 10% of the Pentagon budget.

In recent weeks NNSA has hinted at how it plans to allocate the $2.321 billion appropriated by Congress in the final FY 2011 continuing resolution for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.  Recall that the final number for this account is …

In case you’ve missed it: A UN sanctions committee report submitted to the Security Council over the weekend suggests North Korea and Iran have been regularly sharing ballistic missile technology via air cargo in violation of UN sanctions against Pyon…

UPDATE: Under the supervision of Pakistani intelligence, U.S. investigators interviewed Bin Laden’s three wives late last week.

Two weeks ago, as you know, Osama Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs. The operation to take out public enemy number one, though successful, has fractioned an already capricious relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

Pakistan is less than pleased that President Obama ordered the raid without notifying Pakistani officials in advance.  Now, echoing past fissures in U.S.-Pakistani relations, Pakistan is being uncooperative in lieu of the news that Osama Bin Laden was essentially hiding in plain sight.

Although President Obama did not directly accuse Pakistan of harboring Osama Bin Laden for five years in the affluent city of Abbottabad, he did convey his belief that there was likely a network inside of Pakistan that helped to keep him hidden. Largely for this reason, the U.S. is demanding that Pakistan allow American investigators to speak with Osama Bin Laden’s three widows. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s response has been less than forthcoming.  

As a result, many in the United States argue that we should distance ourselves from Pakistan. Some even argue that we should cut off all aid to the country. On May 3, 2011, Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced the Pakistan Accountability Act, which essentially freezes aid until Pakistan produces substantial evidence that it was unaware that Bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.  

But it is not that simple. The U.S. and Pakistan rely on each other. In a May 9th op-ed on U.S.-Pakistan relations South Asia expert Michael Krepon notes that, “It would be a serious error of judgment, to conclude that this relationship cannot be salvaged.”  Or as Senator Lugar said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Pakistan is strategically vital.

There are a couple things that scare me about Pakistan, now more than ever. First things first, if we believe Pakistan when they assert they had no idea that Bin Laden was in Abottabad, like many, I regard that as equally unsettling that they were unable to detect Bin Laden’s presence when he was within walking distance of a major military academy. Additionally, due to the fact that there is an air of mystery regarding Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile and serious internal conflict within the country—I am less than confident that their weapons are safe and secure. Furthermore, they are rapidly increasing their nuclear stockpile in nuclear facilities that are located in areas populated by the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda.  Finally, as Tom Donilon recently stated, “more terrorists and extremists have been captured or killed in Pakistan than in any place in the world.”

In short, Pakistan is an unstable country—with a lot of nuclear weapons and terrorists. On the other hand, Pakistan is also our “war-on-terror” buddy, as I like to call them. We fund their military to help in counterterrorism.  

The U.S. is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Pakistan. It is hard for me to believe Pakistan’s cries of ignorance about Osama Bin Laden. But regardless, if we cut funding and ties to Pakistan we probably lose what little influence we have in an unstable nuclear weapon state and we forego their help on counterterrorism initiatives.

The relationship we have with Pakistan is imperfect at best, but things would probably be worse if the relationship didn’t exist at all.  

I have an op-ed on Iran in The Register Citizen today. Take a look.  

Here are a few excerpts:

Last year, a powerful computer virus called “Stuxnet” targeted Iran’s nuclear program. By the time it was discovered, the virus had succeeded in setting back the country’s nuclear progress. Now, Iran claims to have identified a new threat. The virus, which Iran is calling “Stars,” may or may not be authentic. But no matter the outcome, Iran’s announcement could be good for the United States.

[snip]

Iranian leaders have called the Arab Spring an “Islamic awakening,” but the protest movements have been largely secular, calling for democracy and human rights — two issues on which Iran does not have a stellar reputation.

Beyond that, the protests have taken a turn for the worse, as far as Iran is concerned, threatening to unseat one of its greatest allies in the region, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran’s connection with Syria is crucial to its relationship with Hezbollah and, moreover, its ability to project power in the Middle East.

[snip]

Ultimately, Iran looks to be losing ground, and its announcement of the Stars virus is one more problem on a growing list. Either Iran has shown its susceptibility to another damaging virus with the potential to set back its nuclear program yet again, or its announcement is an attempt to draw attention away from those issues it sees as far more damaging.