“Despite a bipartisan coalition in Congress to reshape Pentagon spending, the political will to make difficult decisions about specific Defense Department programs is low,” said Heeley.
Secretary Hagel Takes on Pentagon’s Top Challenge: Reshaping Itself
“For too long Cold War ideology, special interests and a ‘this-is-the-way-we-do-things’ mentality has controlled the strategy and checkbook of the Pentagon,” said Laicie Heeley, senior policy analyst at The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “U.S. national security needs to be based on a sound strategy that meets 21st century security threats, including the threat posed by our ballooning debt.”
Key Nuclear Weapons and Related Amendments to the FY 2014 Senate Budget Resolution
Early on the morning of March 23, the Senate approved a Budget Resolution for the first time in four years by a largely partisan vote of 50-49. Final passage of the budget, which was put forward by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-WA), was preceded by a long series of amendment votes. Senators filed over 500 amendments to the Resolution, but only a small portion of those were brought to the floor for a vote.
The Resolution, also known as S.CON.RES.8, would set discretionary defense budget authority for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 at $552 billion, about $8 billion below the level in the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Over the next 10 years, Sen. Murray’s plan would cut defense spending by about $240 billion, or approximately half the reduction required by sequestration.
The House approved its version of the Budget Resolution on March 21 by a vote of 221-207. There is no expectation that there will be a House-Senate agreement on a final resolution. Both the Senate and the House passed legislation despite the fact that the President has yet to submit his federal budget request for FY 2014. The President is expected to submit his request to Congress on April 10.
Below is a list of the amendments that were filed regarding nuclear weapons and related issues. Amendments that were voted on are listed first and emphasized in bold. The amendments were primarily messaging amendments with little practical effect, since (1) the House and Senate will not agree on a final resolution, (2) even if the House and Senate were to agree on a final resolution, the resolution would be non-binding because it would not go to the President’s desk for signature, and (3) most of the amendments cover programs that will be included in the President’s budget request and dealt with during the authorization and appropriations process. However, the amendments provide a window into the thinking of Senators and may be a foretaste of similar amendments to be offered to authorization and appropriations bills.
Perhaps the most notable vote result was the Senate’s overwhelming rejection of an amendment by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to increase funding for an East Coast missile defense site.
List of amendments
Ayotte (R-NH) amendment to prohibit funding of the medium extended air defense system. (#136) Agreed to by a recorded vote. 94 – 5.
Hoeven (R-ND) amendment to support programs related to the nuclear missions of the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration. (#217) Agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Cruz (R-TX) amendment to reduce foreign assistance to Egypt and increase funding for an east coast missile defense site. (#471) Rejected by a recorded vote. 25 – 74.
Kirk (R-IL) amendment relating to sanctions with respect to Iran which may include efforts to clarify that the clearance and settlement of euro-denominated transactions through European Union financial institutions may not result in the evasion of or otherwise undermine the impact of sanctions imposed with respect to Iran by the United States and the European Union (including provisions designed to strictly limit the access of the Government of Iran to its foreign exchange reserves and the facilitation of transactions on behalf of sanctioned entities). (#671) Agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Ayotte (R-NH) amendment to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and strategic delivery systems of the United States to maintain America’s nuclear deterrent, which is critical to the security of the American people. (#163)
Udall (D-NM) amendment to strengthen and reform the National Nuclear Security Administration. (#193)
Manchin (D-WV) amendment to strengthen sanctions imposed with respect to the energy sector of Iran to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. (#210)
Hoeven (R-ND) amendment to ensure funds are available in fiscal year 2014 for the Air Force to conduct an analysis of alternatives to determine the next generation intercontinental ballistic missile and to provide an offset. (#216)
Hoeven (R-ND) amendment to ensure funds are available in fiscal year 2014 for the Air Force to develop a replacement for the air-launched cruise missile and to provide an offset. (#218)
Begich (D-AK) amendment to provide an additional element on the ground-based midcourse defense system. The element would include findings that adequate funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, including the measures outlined in the Secretary of Defense’s announcement on March 15, 2013, should remain a priority for the Department of Defense in the interest of national security. (#236)
Udall (D-NM) amendment to relating to strengthening and reforming the National Nuclear Security Administration. (#311)
Barrasso (R-WY) amendment to maintain and modernize United States nuclear forces, including nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles of all three legs of the nuclear triad (ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable bombers), at levels no lower than the maximum allowed for under the New START Treaty (#323)
Kirk (R-IL) amendment to prevent Iran from directly or indirectly accessing the Trans-European Automated Realtime Gross Settlement Express Transfer System of the European Central Bank and to prevent the Government of Iran from accessing its euro-denominated foreign exchange holdings. (#364)
Coburn (R-OK) amendment to eliminate duplication, fragmentation, and overlap within 21 nuclear nonproliferation programs. (#566)
Ayotte (R-NH) amendment for the improvement of the ground-based missile defense system of the United States to better defend against ballistic missile threats from the Middle East. (#600)
Kirk (R-IL) amendment relating to sanctions with respect to Iran, which may include efforts to ensure that the clearance and settlement of euro-denominated transactions through European Union financial institutions does not result in the evasion of or otherwise undermine the impact of sanctions imposed with respect to Iran by the United States and the European Union (including provisions designed to strictly limit the access of the Government of Iran to its foreign exchange reserves and the facilitation of transactions on behalf of sanctioned entities, thus obliging financial institutions and clearinghouses to be vigilant and take transparency measures to avoid being used for the transfer of funds to or from sanctioned entities or the holding of funds for the benefit of sanctioned entities in violation of sanctions laws. (#613)
Exchange of the Day: Gen. Kehler and further reductions edition
General Kehler, in June of 2010 as the Senate was considering the New START Treaty, your predecessor, General Chilton, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that force level under that treaty, meaning 1,550 warheads on 700 delivery vehicles, was, quote, “exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent,” close quote.
Beyond March Madness: The Nuclear Weapons Budget after Sequestration
In elementary school, they taught us that March comes in like a lion, and this year, it’s especially true – and not just for basketball fans. This March 1st brought with it the dreaded budget sequester – the automatic, across-the-board federal budget cuts that have prompted doomsday predictions about the government not being able to function, as well as a lot of slideshows of cute animals.
So now that March 1st has rolled around and the Pentagon hasn’t yet been downsized to a square, what exactly is going on with the defense budget? The main thing you need to know is the sequester cuts approximately $48 billion from national defense (specifically the “050” budget function, covering the Department of Defense, the nuclear weapons-related spending at the Department of Energy, and a few other areas) over the next seven months. This is actually the sum total of two sequesters – one that already happened on March 1, and a smaller one set to occur on March 27, 2013.
Technically, approximately $500 billion must come out of the 050 budget function over the next ten years, or until Congress and the White House devise a replacement budget that reduces the deficit by the amounts mandated by the Budget Control Act. Alternatively, Congress could adjust or even eliminate the sequester as part of negotiations to replace the current continuing resolution set to expire on March 26. March Madness indeed.
Hopefully it won’t take ten years to come up with a bipartisan budget agreement that cuts spending in a more sensible way than the “meat-cleaver” approach of sequestration. And that brings us to the important question: as Congress looks to stop the madness and devise a workable budget, what can be cut from the Pentagon budget without compromising national security?
We’ve argued in this space and elsewhere that the nuclear weapons budget is an ideal place to look for savings. Over the next ten years, nuclear weapons and related programs will cost roughly $640 billion. Compare that to the $500 billion in savings (over the same amount of time) that we need to find to replace the automatic cuts, and it starts to seem like we could save some money on nuclear weapons.
By one estimate, maintaining and upgrading our current nuclear arsenal costs the Pentagon over $30 billion a year. In this budget climate, it makes sense to ask whether expensive nuclear weapons programs are the right place to be spending scarce defense dollars.
Consider some examples: the Navy’s plan to build a whole new fleet of ballistic missile submarines will cost about $100 billion. By reducing the size of the fleet, we could save $18 billion over the next ten years – without having to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that the submarines carry. Another $18 billion in savings could come from delaying development of a new strategic bomber – an option recommended by Republican Senator Tom Coburn in a deficit reduction plan called “Back in Black.” And we’ll spend another $10 billion alone to modernize the B61 gravity bomb, a 1950s-era weapon that numerous military officials have described as having “no military value.” The examples go on and on.
Of course, this is far from the only area where the Pentagon spends a lot. What’s doubly doable about cutting the nuclear budget is that it makes fiscal sense as well as strategic sense – as strategist Bernard Brodie famously put it, “strategy wears a dollar sign.” True, trimming the arsenal will save money, but its primary benefit is to increase U.S. national security. Nuclear reductions with Russia could promote more stable US-Russia relations and help bring more countries into the disarmament process.
I’ve digressed from the discussion of sequestration and the budget – but in some ways, that’s the point. From a strategic point of view, nuclear reductions would make sense even if they didn’t free up billions of dollars for more useful defense programs. But they do that too. And that’s why nuclear spending at Cold War levels must be on the table in the ensuing search for budget savings.
The budget crisis in general, and the sequester specifically, will force government agencies to make tough choices about what they can and can’t afford. But targeting the bloated nuclear weapons budget shouldn’t be a difficult call: in fact, given the financial and strategic benefits, it should be a no-brainer.
