“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)
Lather, Rinse, Repeat
The Pentagon’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 annual report. The Director, Dr. Michael Gilmore, is the principal staff assistant and senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense on operational…
The Fiscal Cliff Deal and Nuclear Reductions
On January 1, as I was psychologically preparing for the Rose Bowl (sadly my Wisconsin Badgers lost for the third year in a row), I was shocked to find that the text of the Biden-McConnell fiscal cliff deal (H.R. 8) included a section on strategic delivery systems. Obviously intrigued, I had a look at the text and found that the provision amended Section 1035 of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) “(1) by striking ‘‘that’’ before ‘‘the Russian Federation’’ and inserting ‘‘whether’’; and (2) by inserting ‘‘strategic’’ before ‘‘arms control obligations’’.”
Now doubly intrigued, I went back and had a look at the original text of Section 1035 in the NDAA. The specific language in question stated:
`(c) Prior Notification- Not later than 60 days before the date on which the President carries out any reduction to the number of strategic delivery systems, the President shall–
`(1) make the certification under subsection (a) for the fiscal year for which the reductions are proposed to be carried out;
`(2) transmit the additional report matters under subsection (b) for such fiscal year, if such additional report matters are so required; and
`(3) certify to the congressional defense committees that the Russian Federation is in compliance with its arms control obligations with the United States and is not engaged in activity in violation of, or inconsistent with, such obligations.
It turns out that the President would be unable to certify that Russia is in compliance with all of its arms control obligations since Russia is in fact not in compliance with all of its arms control obligations if said obligations are defined to include the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), the Chemical Weapons Conventions (CWC), etc. Given the President’s inability to certify “that the Russia Federation is in compliance…” the provision could prevent the reduction of strategic delivery systems under the New START treaty (and beyond). By adding “whether” in place of “that” and “strategic” before “arms control obligations”, the language cannot stop reductions required by New START and is consistent with the rest of the provision.
I missed this subtle wording during my first run through of the NDAA, but thankfully better minds in the administration did not. Indeed, the administration issued a signing statement with the bill which included this:
Section 1035, which adds a new section 495(c) to title 10, is deeply problematic, as it would impede the fulfillment of future U.S. obligations agreed to in the New START Treaty, which the Senate provided its advice and consent to in 2010, and hinder the Executive’s ability to determine an appropriate nuclear force structure. I am therefore pleased that the Congress has included a provision to adequately amend this provision in H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which I will be signing into law today.
Clearly this was a very big deal behind the scenes (it has also generated a surprising amount of media coverage) and the language of the statement suggests the President may not have signed the NDAA if this provision wasn’t fixed. What’s less clear is whether the House authors of this conference provision, which was a compromise version of two differing provisions on strategic delivery system reductions in the original House and Senate version of the defense bill, deliberately worded Section 1035 to prevent implementation of New START, made a drafting error, or something in between.
In any event, it’s obviously a good news that the problem was fixed (reportedly there was bipartisan agreement on the need for the fix). As our friends at the Arms Control Association point out, New START shouldn’t be “held hostage to longstanding disagreements with Russia on other issues.”
I’d go a step further and argue that even the amended version of Section 1035 is unnecessary and redundant because the issues it raises re: nuclear weapons spending and Russian compliance with New START are already adequately addressed in the New START resolution of ratification and the FY 2012 NDAA.
While Section 1035 may not initially have been deliberately worded to impede New START, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee have been on a mission the last two years to delay and even block implementation of the treaty and further changes to US nuclear posture via the NDAA. As we’ve tried to regularly remind readers, doing so defies the bipartisan counsel of former government officials and military leaders and would be a major setback for US national security.
Boehner scraps "Plan B," lemmings might want to take note.
Those gearing up to oppose House Republicans’ “Plan B” budget solution received a welcome surprise last night, when Speaker Boehner announced that the plan would not come to the floor. The measure failed to garner enough Republican support to make even a viable statement.
But what does this mean for the fiscal cliff? Should the lemmings prepare? The President and Congress now have just over a week to strike a deal, and as of yet things aren’t looking good, at least for any hope of a grand bargain.
Reports now indicate that the White House will push for an interim measure that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts on income below $250,000, pause sequestration, and renew unemployment insurance benefits. This means a large number of tax provisions would expire, bringing in new revenue, and budget cuts would be left to another day.
A cynical mind might begin to wonder if this could signal the quiet death of sequestration cuts, given that at its outset the mechanism was meant to force Republican members of Congress into a deal on tax cuts. With the larger goal accomplished, the budget could gently slip back into its old routine, Republicans having dodged the defense budget bullet and Democrats having succeeded in raising taxes on the wealthy.
There’s still a chance for the two sides to come together after Christmas, and who knows, maybe the spirit of the season will take hold. But just days from the deadline, when any agreement will have to contend with what could be a tough fight in the House, the cliff is beginning to look more and more realistic.
Merry Christmas! Hope you’re not afraid of heights.
