As we noted last week, the White House threatened to veto the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act if it included two provisions offered by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) in Committee that would delay implementation of the New START treaty and constr…

As the House debates the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act today and tomorrow, it will take up the following amendments on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation policy (for our earlier analysis on the nuclear policy provisions in the House version of the defense bill see, here, here, and here):

#64 – Missile defense – Loretta Sanchez (CA) – cuts the additional $100 million added by the Committee for the ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) system (National Missile Defense) based in Alaska and California.

#88 – Limitation on nuclear force reductions – Michael Turner (R-OH) Clarifies the intent of section 1055 by explicitly allowing activities determined by the Secretary of Defense to be necessary to ensure the continued safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.

#89 – Tactical Nuclear Weapons – Turner (R-OH) Would create an additional exception allowing for the reductions, withdrawals, or consolidations of non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, when made pursuant to either a Treaty or authorized by an Act of Congress.

#135 – Non-proliferation funding – Loretta Sanchez (CA) – increases funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (Department of Energy non-proliferation funding) by $20 million with an offsetting cut elsewhere.

#137 – Russian nuclear forces – Loretta Sanchez (CA) – requires a report on Russia’s nuclear forces.

All of these amendments save for Sanchez’s amendment to cut $100 million from GMD will be considered “en bloc.”  An en bloc amendment consists of a group of several amendments.  They are supported by the majority and minority and will be uncontroversial.  

Sanchez’s amendment on GMD, however, will be controversial…  

Two weeks ago he House Armed Services Committee agreed to an increase of $100 million for GMD, which is designed to protect the continental U.S. from a limited missile attack from a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea. Rep. Sanchez offered an amendment to eliminate the increase and instead add $100 million to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account. However, Rep. 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.

Sanchez is offering her amendment again on the floor, although this time the $100 million saved by the cut will go to debt reduction rather than another program.

There are a number of reasons why the additional $100 million would be better spent elsewhere (or not at all):

• The U.S. ground-based mid-course defense system continues to be beset by development challenges and testing failures.  Seven out of fifteen tests of the system have failed since 1999, including the last two intercept flight tests in January 2010 and December 2010.  
• In testimony to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees earlier this year, Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly stated that the FY 2012 budget request of $1.16 billion for GMD reflects his decision to delay the production of seven additional interceptors and a flight test scheduled for this year until the problems that caused the most recent test failure are resolved.  According to Gen. O’Reilly, “there is a reduction in our need, our funding. And we’re using that funding in order to support these other activities to return to flight testing.”  In other words, an additional $100 million for GMD is money Gen. O’Reilly doesn’t need or want. 
• Gen. O’Reilly also stated that reductions in the out-year budget requests for GMD reflect a transition from investment in construction and infrastructure to work on interceptors and flight tests as well as the achievement of operating efficiencies.  “We have not reduced what we intended to accomplish even though there’s 2.4 billion (dollars) less in the MDA budget,” he said.
• As Center Chairman Lt. Gen. Robert Gard wrote in a recent analysis, in his 2010 report, the director of the Department of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation office stated that ground and computer tests “suggest” that the Ground-Based Mid-Course system can provide a capability to defend the U.S. against a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles with “uncomplicated emerging threat warheads”, meaning with no or very simple decoys or other counter-measures. Yet in a 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, the U.S. National Intelligence Council stated: “We assess that countries developing ballistic missiles,” including North Korea and Iran, “would also develop various responses to U.S. theatre and national defenses … by the time they flight test their missiles.”  The system has yet to be tested against operationally realistic threats that use decoys or countermeasures that could defeat the system and there are no near term plans to do so.  

UPDATE, 5/25, 11:00 PM: Rep. Sanchez’s amendment on GMD came up for debate at about 10:45 PM just before the debate on the defense bill adjourned for the day. Reps. Sanchez, Andrews, and Smith (the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee) hammered the rationale for adding an additional $100 million for national missile defense, noting that Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly testified to Congress earlier this year that he didn’t need or want additional money for GMD because MDA has altered its plans until they solve the problem that caused the most recent test failure. Rep. Sanchez asked for a roll call vote on the amendment, which will take place tomorrow.

UPDATE, 5/26, 1:50 PM: The amendment failed 184-234. 15 Republicans voted for the amendment, 16 Democrats voted against it. More or less a party line vote.

Two new reports from the IAEA shed light on the current nuclear status of both Iran and Syria.  The confidential reports were issued ahead of the IAEA Board of Governors’ June 6-10 meeting, where Iran and Syria will be at the top of the agenda.

There is both good and bad news, so in the spirit of ending on an optimistic note, let’s start with the bad.

The Bad

1) Syria was probably building a nuclear weapon:

The IAEA reports that a long-gone Syrian site (the one that was bombed by Israel in 2007) was “very likely” to have been a nuclear reactor.  The US has made this assertion all along, stating that the site was near-completion partially due to the help of North Korea.  The IAEA, however, has never shown its explicit support for the claim.  This is no longer the case.

“Based on all the information available to the agency and its technical evaluation of that information, the agency assesses that it was very likely that the building destroyed at Dair Alzour site was a nuclear reactor which should have been declared to the agency,” the report said.

Syria, like Iran, denies harboring a secret nuclear weapons program, but has refused to allow inspectors to return to the site after an initial visit revealed traces of uranium and other suspicious materials.

2) Iran is probably building a nuclear weapon:

Building on previous comments by Director General Amano, the IAEA’s second report says that the agency has “received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear-related activities, which is currently being assessed.”

According to the New York Times, the report reveals for the first time that the agency has evidence Tehran has conducted work on nuclear triggering technology that experts say could be used for only one, weapons related, purpose.  Iran’s “experiments involving the explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce a short burst of neutrons” also suggest another possible connection between Iran’s nuclear program and AQ Khan, since the same rare material was used by Pakistan.

Overall, “The agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities … including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” said the IAEA. The report states that the agency cannot “conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

The Good

1) Syria’s facility is gone:

Intelligence services have ruled that the Israeli bombing effectively ended Syria’s covert nuclear activities and, at the moment, Syria has other things to worry about.

Glyn Davies, the US ambassador to the IAEA, said that the US plans to use the IAEA’s report to press the agency’s board of governors to refer the issue to the Security Council for possible sanctions.  But, as the New York Times notes, “at a moment when the Syrian government is struggling to stay in power amid uprisings, the shooting of protesters in Syrian towns will almost certainly seem like a more urgent matter for the United Nations to address.”

2) Iran’s work may have slowed down:

Although the IAEA’s report points to “indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004,” a “senior official” told The Associated Press that “while intelligence up to 2004 had indicated a concerted effort at developing weapons, the more recent information had pointed only to ‘bits and pieces’ of work that seemed weapons related.”

Update: ISIS has the reports on Iran (PDF) and Syria (PDF) posted now.

Earlier today the Office of Management and Budget released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House version of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540), which is being debated on the House floor this week.  The SAP supports passage of the bill, but express serious reservations about a number of provisions, including four ugly sections on nuclear policy.  The White House threatens to veto the bill if two of these sections are included in the final version:

Limitations on Nuclear Force Reductions and Nuclear Employment Strategy: The Administration strongly objects to sections 1055 and 1056, which impinge on the President’s authority to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy. In particular, section 1055 would set onerous conditions on the Administration’s ability to implement the Treaty, as well as to retire, dismantle, or eliminate non-deployed nuclear weapons. Among these conditions is the completion and operation of the next generation of nuclear facilities, which is not expected until the mid-2020s. The effect of this section would be to preclude dismantlement of weapons in excess of military needs. Additionally, it would significantly increase stewardship and management costs and divert key resources from our critical stockpile sustainment efforts and delay completion of programs necessary to support the long-term safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear deterrent. Further, section 1056 raises constitutional concerns as it appears to encroach on the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to set nuclear employment policy – a right exercised by every president in the nuclear age from both parties. If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

Them’s fighting words! For more information on these two sections, see here and here. The White House also objects to the sections of the bill on missile defense cooperation with Russia and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.  

Nick Roth and Stephen Young note over at All Things Nuclear that Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), the Dr. Strangelove behind the effort to undermine U.S. nuclear security, has offered a floor amendment that would alter Section 1055 to permit the retirement/dismantlement of warheads if it is “determined by the Secretary of Defense to be necessary to ensure the continued safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.”  This shouldn’t change anyone’s negative opinion of the amendment, but at least Turner agrees that it was poorly written.