Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

You are here: Home / Archives for NNSA

Another short term CR hurts effort to secure/eliminate bomb grade material

Last week the Senate rejected both the long-term House-passed Continuing Resolution (CR) (HR 1) and the Senate Appropriations Committee version.  This week Congress will again consider a short-term CR extending spending to April 8.  The text of the proposed three-week measure can be found here.

The newest proposed short-term CR continues the status quo on funding for NNSA’s Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation account, the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and a host of important nonproliferation programs at the State Department.  These programs continue to be funded at the FY2010 level, as has been the case since the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2010.      

Looking for some numbers to focus on?  How about these:

  • $2.1 billion – spending level for “Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation” since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2011 that began on October 1, 2010.  This is $551 million less than the Administration’s request for Fiscal Year 2011.  The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account has been funded at or very near the FY2010 appropriated level since October 1, 2010.
  • $7.0 billion. – spending level for “National Nuclear Security Administration – Weapons Activities” (Nuclear complex modernization).  This is $624 million above the Fiscal Year 2010 level.  Unlike the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account, the Weapons Activities account has been funded at the FY2011 requested level since October 1, 2010.

Meanwhile, we’ve created a website with information about the current fight about the budget and proposed cuts to nuclear security spending over at the mothership.  My favorite resource? A handy chart on the impact of the various short and long term CRs on NNSA’s nonpro and weapons activities accounts. Check it out.

Senate Democrats Propose 7-Month Continuing Resolution

Last Friday, Senate Democrats released a summary of their version of a Continuing Resolution for the rest of FY 2011 that would cut $51 billion from the President’s FY 2011 request compared to the $100 billion that the House cut in HR 1.

The Senate CR proposes $2.327 billion for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account, which is $360 million below the FY 2011 request but nearly $300 million more than HR 1. The bill summary states that this level of funding maintains U.S. efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials in 4 years.

I have not seen a figure for the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program or the State Department’s nuclear security programs.  The draft Senate CR funds the Pentagon base budget at $513.6 billion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $157.8 billion for a total of $671.3 billion. That total is $17.3 billion less than the President’s request and $2.1 billion less than HR 1.

Also of note, the Senate CR provides $6.824 billion for NNSA’s weapons activities account, which is $185 million below the FY 2011 request but over $120 million more than HR 1.

The Senate will hold stand-alone votes on both HR 1 and the Senate Democratic alternative this week (probably tomorrow), both of which are likely to fail to achieve cloture.  Negotiations will then begin on a full year CR.  However the House and the Senate may not be able to reconcile their differences before the current two week CR expires on March 18, meaning there will likely be yet another short term CR to fund the government through the rest of March.

The Senate proposal for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account is an improvement over the House proposal, but it is still not enough. The number in the draft Senate CR is likely to be the high-water mark for NNSA’s nonproliferation budget for the next two years unless the administration and members of Congress make a strong push for the full FY2011 request.

House lays waste to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Budget

As feared, the GOP-controlled House introduced a Continuing Resolution (CR) on Friday to fund the federal government for the last seven months of the year that erases (and then some) the critical increases in NNSA’s FY 2011 budget request for threat reduction and nonproliferation programs.  The CR actually reduces funding for NNSA’s Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation account below FY 2010 appropriations, which were already far too low to achieve NNSA’s nuclear security goals.  

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Even NNSA’s weapons activities account was not exempt from cuts.

Aware of the writing on the wall, House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Visclosky (D-IN) reminded his colleagues of what’s at stake earlier this week:

I’d remind my colleagues that almost half of the monies that flow through the Energy and Water Subcommittee are defense-related. A lot of that is our nuclear programs, as well as nonproliferation. We went to war in 2003 because it asserted Saddam Hussein had materials of weapons of mass destruction.

It would be so much better for the world and our country, and so much more cost-effective, if we made an investment up front on nonproliferation so we did not face those types of draconian decisions in the future and do hope in all of our subcommittees in this committee, we do recognize we have to make that investment and we make wise choices as we do make cuts.

We’ll have more to say about this in the coming days and weeks as the CR moves through the House floor and ultimately to the Senate.

It’s now up to Senate Democrats and Republicans, primed by a strong, strong push from the administration, to ensure that the effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years doesn’t get derailed.

A Look at the New House Republican Leadership on National Security and Nuclear Weapons

By Kingston Reif and Jessica Estanislau

The November 2010 elections saw the Republicans take back the House of Representatives.  The change in power means that there are new Sheriffs in town calling the shots on the key House Committees dealing with nuclear weapons.  Below are brief profiles of the new leaders of three key Committees and Subcommittees: Foreign Affairs, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairwoman, Committee on Foreign Affairs

New House International Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen intends to play a very active role on nuclear policy-related issues.  Two areas in particular are likely to come under her close scrutiny.  First, Ros-Lehtinen has long been a skeptic of U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries.  She opposed the U.S.-Russia 123 agreement, which entered into force last December, and has taken a hard line on administration plans to negotiate similar such deals with Jordan, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia.  Ros-Lehtinen also raised questions about deals negotiated by the George W. Bush administration.  For example, she was one of the few members of Congress to express reservations about the U.S.-UAE 123 agreement.  And although she ultimately supported the U.S.-India Nuclear deal, she co-sponsored a bill to strengthen the agreement which caused unease in India.  Look for her to introduce legislation in the 112th Congress to revamp Congressional procedures for considering civilian nuclear cooperation agreements.  Second, Ros-Lehtinen is an advocate of tougher punitive measures against and Iran and North Korea.  Instead of pursuing a strategy of engagement toward these regimes, she believes that the U.S. must impose tougher sanctions than the Obama administration seems willing to pursue.

Michael Turner (R-OH), Chairman, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Armed Services Committee

As Ranking Member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee in the 111th Congress, Michael Turner was a thorn in the side of the President’s nuclear risk reduction agenda.  During the House Armed Services Committee’s consideration of the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act last May, Turner offered a sense of congress amendment proclaiming that the Nuclear Posture Review weakens U.S. national security by taking options off the table to respond to a catastrophic nuclear, chemical, biological, or conventional attack.  The amendment was included in the House version of the bill but was expunged from the final bill that passed in the lame duck session of the Congress.  Turner is also a strong advocate of U.S. missile defense programs.  He was skeptical of the Obama administration’s September 2009 decision to cancel the Bush-planned system for establishing a third site for National Missile Defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.  He also accused the administration of slashing funding for missile defense systems and offered amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill to restore that funding.  In March 2010, Tuner released letters from each of the three directors of the U.S. national nuclear weapons laboratories questioning the conclusion drawn by the JASON defense advisory group that “[l]ifetimes of today’s nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in LEPs [Life Extension Programs] to date.”  Finally, last December Turner organized a letter with Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and 14 other House Republicans urging the Senate to delay consideration of the New START treaty until 2011. Expect Turner to continue to cast doubt on the Obama administration’s initiatives on nuclear issues in the 112th Congress.

(Note: for an earlier profile of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, see here.)

Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Chairman, Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee

As the new Chairman of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Rep. Freylinghuysen will have an enormous say over funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear weapons activities and defense nuclear nonproliferation accounts.  Freylinghuysen was a strong supporter of the administration’s FY 2011 budget increases for life extension programs and the construction of new nuclear facilities in Tennessee and New Mexico.  However, Freylinghuysen cast doubt on the merits of the administration’s request for an additional $320 million for nuclear security programs, noting in March 2010 that while the President’s goal to secure all vulnerable materials was “laudable”, it is “not well defined and I’m worried about implementation.” Addressing the overall increase in the energy and water appropriations bill, Frelinghuysen said “My constituents are increasingly concerned about the country’s growing budget deficit and are calling for budget cuts, not budget increases,” he said.  Despite these concerns, the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee fully funded the administration’s FY 2011 request for nonproliferation programs, with his support.