Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

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.

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.