House Appropriations Bill Delayed, Bush Threatens Veto

Word from the Hill is that the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which includes nonproliferation and nuclear programs, may not go to the House floor until after the Independence Day recess, or at the earliest next week. The House was previously expected to take action on the bill this week. Info on the Energy and Water Subcommittee markup and House Appropriations Committee markup is here, here, and here.

The Bush administration released a Statement of Administration Policy today with regards to H.R. 2641, the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill. According to the letter, Bush would veto the bill as it stands:

H.R. 2641 exceeds the President’s requests for programs funded in this bill by $1.1 billion... [If H.R. 2641 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill. (emphasis in original statement)

As it stands, the bill cuts funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program and reduces Weapons Activities by approximately $600 million from the President’s request. The veto threat is not related to these actions, although the President expressed disappointment that his push to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons is opposed by Congress:

The Administration understands the need to work with the Committee on a plan for transforming the nuclear weapons stockpile and complex that is aimed at assuring bipartisan support. However, the Administration strongly opposes the Committee’s decision to eliminate funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Congress has consistently supported this vital effort to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile. Failure to continue the program will contribute to increasing concern about weapon performance/reliability and may in turn require the maintenance of a larger size stockpile than was contemplated with RRWs.

For Bush to say Congress has “consistently supported this vital effort to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile” is a bit of a stretch. While the RRW program has received funding the past three years from a Republican dominated Congress, the funding has been limited to research activities with Congress repeatedly expressing strong hesitation to move into the production phase for new nuclear weapons. Both the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and House Appropriations Committee have zeroed out funding for RRW in the past month, sending the President a clear signal that Congress is not ready to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. More analysis on current RRW funding here.

Overall, Congress has been at odds with the administration about the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security. The administration’s push to develop new tactical delivery systems through the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (“bunker buster”) program was rebuked two years in a row by Congress, and has now been dropped from the President’s budget request completely. This was a clear indication that Congress is nervous about the administration's view on the utility of nuclear weapons.

The letter also said:

The Administration strongly opposes the reduction for Weapons Activities of approximately $600 million from the President’s request. At the lower funding level, activities and programs critical to transform the nuclear weapons complex and allow it to become more cost-effective and responsive to rapidly changing requirements will be severely curtailed.

Feeling like Congress may be undercutting the administration? Then consider this: on average, the administration is putting more money into our nuclear arsenal today (about $6 billion in 2007) than went in during the Cold War. It would like to increase that spending to $7.4 billion by 2012.

SIPRI: Nuclear Weapons To Continue Past 2050

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released its annual report on military forces around the globe on Monday, which included some alarming information and analysis on nuclear arms control and non-proliferation.

Among their findings, the Swedish organization reports that…

At the beginning of 2007, the five nuclear weapon states recognized under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the USA—possessed a total of more than 26 000 nuclear warheads, including deployed weapons, spares and those in both active and inactive storage. All of these states, with the exception of the UK, had significant nuclear weapon modernization programmes under way. …

Today, there are roughly 1700 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 500 tonnes of separated plutonium in the world, sufficient to produce over 100 000 nuclear weapons. Access to these fissile materials is the main technical barrier determining whether a state can acquire nuclear weapons. Russia and the USA possess more than 90 per cent of the fissile materials produced for weapons, but half of the separated plutonium has been produced for civilian purposes. While the five NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states have all stopped producing fissile materials for weapons, India, Pakistan and perhaps Israel and North Korea continue to do so.

“The decisions taken by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will keep nuclear weapons in their arsenals beyond 2050,” says Ian Anthony, head of SIPRI’s Nonproliferation and Export Control Project.

I am reminded of Albert Einstein’s famous remark: You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

For what should be done, make sure to read the article, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” by the unlikely foursome of George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn if you haven’t already done so.

Senate Committee Boosts R&D of New Nukes, No Production

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) released its markup of the Defense Authorization Bill yesterday. I spent the morning pouring over the nonproliferation related-language of the bill and found the numbers for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) to be disappointing.

The SASC allotted just over $195 million for the RRW program. This is a big difference from the House Appropriations Committee, which, as Jeff reported earlier, put the brakes on RRW by eliminating all funding for the program.

The Senate did thankfully include a provision that these funds can only be used for “2A activities,” meaning that the funds are only for research and design and cannot move into the production stage.

Adding nearly $200 million more than doubles the combined spending on RRW programs since FY'05, and is a dangerous and slippery proliferation slope: while funding may be limited to 2A activities now, scientists will want to build their new designs and then they are going to want to test their new toys.

A quick funding history of RRW shows the mercury rising…

FY’05: $9 million
FY'06: $25 million
FY'07: $52 million
FY'08: bill in progress, with Senate markup of $195 million

RRW legislation will next hit the House floor this week where it will be considered as part of the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. On the Senate side, we can expect to see the Senate Armed Services Bill next at the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration. My guess is that the House will keep funding low, the Senate will keep funding high, and a middle ground will be hashed out in the joint committee.

Yes, Charlotte, Our Nuclear Weapons Still Are On Hair-Trigger Status

An interesting story by NPR last week reported that while the U.S. recently announced it has increased the rate at which it is dismantling its nuclear warheads, the actual number of weapons dismantled and other figures involving the nuclear arsenal remain secret.

The NRDC estimates that as of January this year the U.S. stockpile contained nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, including 5,736 active/operational warheads and 4,226 inactive/responsive warheads held in reserve or awaiting dismantlement.

Significantly, however, fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia still have approximately 4,000 nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert that could be launched within minutes. These warheads alone have the combined destructive power nearly 100,000 times that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

For contrast, China has since de-alerted its nuclear forces and Britain and France now maintain far lower levels of alert. While their alert status is unknown, India, Pakistan and Israel are believed to be near hair-trigger status.

Enter Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA-29).

Schiff sent out a Dear Colleague letter last week asking his fellow Members to sign on to his not-yet-submitted “Reduce the Risk of Accidental Nuclear Launch Act.” According to the Letter,

The Reduce the Risk of Accidental Nuclear Launch Act would call on the President to pursue a bilateral agreement with Russia to remove both nations' nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert. It would call on military and defense experts from our two countries to outline steps that can be taken to eliminate any perceived threat that is used to provide continuing justification for the self-defeating and dangerous practice of deploying nuclear weapons on such status. And finally, it would require a Presidential report on any impediments to achieving this goal and the steps being taken to overcome these challenges.

Just over seven years ago, in order to make his plan for an expansive national missile defense system more palatable, candidate-turn-president George W. Bush proposed removing “as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status" and inviting the Russians to do the same.

Now that President Bush has recklessly sped ahead with the missile defense system, it’s high time for him to initiate a dialogue with Russia to remove both countries’ nuclear arsenals from hair-trigger alert. While clearly not exclusively enough to ameliorate the current standoff, the move would go a long ways in improving the frosty relations between the U.S. and Russia. Representative Schiff’s proposed legislation is a major step in the right direction.

Barack Obama quotes on Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation

The most recent issue of Foreign Affairs had articles by both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney laying out their foreign policy perspectives. I was planning to read these articles and provide nonproliferation quote highlights, but our friend Terri Lodge over at Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative beat me to it for the Obama article. She sent me the following quotes outlining Obama's nonproliferation plans, as well as issues with Iran and North Korea:

America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years... This will require the active
cooperation of Russia... We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads. And we should take advantage of recent technological advances to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty... I will work to
negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.

[W]e should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.

[W]e must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program... I will not take the military option off the table.

Personally, I was hoping for more details. Unfortunately, important nuclear weapons issues are likely going to continue to be crowded out by the Iraq debate through November 2008.

National Security Legislative Wrap-up, June 4-8 2007

The full House is expected to consider the Fiscal Year 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill next week and the State, Foreign Operations bill the week after that. The Senate is not expected to consider the Defense Authorization bill for three more weeks, but the Senate's schedule is always uncertain.

KEY NATIONAL SECURITY BILLS IN 2007

- ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL:

On June 6, the full Appropriations Committee approved the Subcommittee's bill with no change. The bill is expected to go to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 13.

- STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS BILL:

On June 5, the House State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee marked-up or wrote its version of the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations. At $34.2 billion, the level of funding is 2 percent less than the level requested by President Bush but 10 percent more than Fiscal Year 2007. The bill eliminates all $391 million requested for Iraq assistance and cut the Millennium Challenge Corporation from $3 billion to $1.8 billion. It funds the $1 billion plus request for Afghanistan assistance and provides $2.7 billion for economic assistance, $4.5 billion for military assistance overseas and $4.2 billion for the HIV/AIDS initiative.

The bill is then expected to be considered by the full Appropriations Committee on June 5 and the full House on June 20.

- DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL:

The full Senate is scheduled to consider the bill in late June.

House Appropriations Committee Puts Brakes on New Nukes

In another major victory, the full House Appropriations Committee yesterday ran with the baton handed to them two weeks ago by the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and cut all funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons (the Reliable Replacement Warhead, or RRW) and a new plant to build plutonium pits for nuclear bombs.

(As I reported earlier, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee eliminated all $88.8 million of proposed funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead and all $24.9 million for a new plant to build plutonium pits.)

In all, the nuclear weapons activities budget was cut by $630 million from the president's request. The cuts were made on a bipartisan basis, with no amendments and without dissent.

A big tip of the hat goes to Chairman Pete Visclosky (D-IN) and Ranking Member David Hobson (R-OH), who, when discussing RRW, said that “we are still in a Cold War complex mode.”

Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) also had some harsh words, saying that the national labs should get out of the weapons business and into the alternative energy and science business but that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) keeps getting in the way.

The Energy and Water Appropriations bill is scheduled to go to the House floor on June 13.

The House Appropriations Committee also included massive increases to DoE nuclear nonproliferation programs, including…

* $219 million for nonproliferation and verification R&D
* $20 million for nonproliferation and international security
* $460 million for international nuclear material protection and cooperation
* $10 million for elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program
* $131.6 million for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI)
* $100 million towards an international nuclear fuel bank

…for a total increase of $940.7 million in selected DoE nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Underscoring their significance, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) promptly issued a press release saying that he was “stunned by the drastic funding cuts recommended for the national laboratories in New Mexico,” referring to the cuts as “stunningly punitive in its treatment of Los Alamos.”

The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee is expected to markup or write its FY2008 appropriations bill during the last week of June.

Notable non-nonproliferation quotes from the Republican debate on June 5 - Nuclear table piece

A couple days ago we highlighted the salient nonproliferation quotes from the June 3 Democratic debates in New Hampshire, here. There was nothing exceptional.

The Republican debate from June 5 was a bit spicier: Wolf Blitzer directly asked the candidates: "If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?"

This is a notable difference from the Democratic debates, where Wolf asked the candidates if they would attack Iran, but never specified whether such an attack would use nuclear or conventional weaponry. Here is what the Republican's had to say:

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA):

I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges. When the Osirak reactor that was hit `86, when the six F-18s came over the horizon and knocked that out, they didn’t need anything but conventional weapons. Probably it’s going to take a little more than that. I don’t think it’s going to take tactical nukes.

Making a comparison between the 1980 Osirak strike in Iraq and taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure today is a long stretch: the Osirak reactor was a single open target, while Iran's nuclear sites today are dispersed throughout the country, often buried, and often located in populated areas. The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would have incredibly harmful ramifications in that it would endanger civilian populations, without guaranteeing any significant impact against Iran's nuclear progress.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R):

Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table.

Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R-VA):

With respect to Iran, the policy I would follow would be dual. Number one, we need to work with our European allies in order to put in appropriate sanctions. We need to communicate directly with the Iranians that we are going to offer them an opportunity to work with us. But we’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance.

Ultimately these three candidates pretty much gave the party line: we could mess you up with conventional weapons, but if you really piss us off we may just pull out the big guns. With regards to the potential of Giuliani, Gilmore, or Hunter ever actually using nukes, it is doubtful; they all say they want to keep nukes on the table, but much like a decorative table piece: while it looks good and is nice to talk about, nobody is ever actually going to bite into that plastic fruit.

There was a moment to relax toward the end when Congressman Paul was asked, "what’s the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?"

I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just- war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security.

Hrm.