Revisiting the Senate Armed Services Committee markup on Defense Authorization Bill

In late May the Dukes wrapped up some of the important non-proliferation highlights from the May 24 Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the Defense Authorization Bill, which you can find here.

Here are a couple other sweet highlights from the markup:

- Adopting provisions that would repeal all of the required annual certifications and that would expand the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union.

- With regards to missile defense, authorizing an additional $255 million for the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, with the additional funding offset by reductions to lower-priority programs.

- Directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the retirement schedule for remaining nuclear cruise missiles.

- A provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense in the next administration to conduct a new nuclear posture review.

The Dukes are particularly excited about this last part, since it could provide up to a full week of reading, analysis, and banter for us! We heart reports. You can checkout leaked excerpts from the latest Nuclear Posture Review (2002) here.

Notable Nonproliferation Quotes from the Democratic debate on June 3

The New Hampshire Democratic debate failed to address the disarmament of our current nuclear arsenal, although moderator Wolf Blitzer had me on the edge of my seat when he asked the presidential hopefuls, "are there relics of the Cold War, big tickets, military items, that you would cut [from the military budget]?" Nuclear weapons were not brought up.

Nuke issues with Iran did become part of the conversation, however, with the following notable moments:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

You know, the president's policy has been, we don't talk in this administration to people we don't agree with or that we think are bad... In my administration, diplomacy -- patient, careful diplomacy... that really gets people to stay with it over time. Are you always going to get good results? No. But you've got to start the process. However, we still have to make it clear that Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. We have to try to prevent that at all costs. But we need to start with diplomacy in order to see what we can accomplish.

When asked what she would do if diplomacy does not work, Clinton managed to avoid giving a solid answer:

I'm not going to get into hypotheticals, because we've had an administration that doesn't believe in diplomacy.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

We don't have economic leverage over the Iranians, but the Europeans do, the European banking system does. We should put two options on the table. One, carrots; we'll make the nuclear fuel available to you, the international community, but we'll control it, you can't nuclearize -- you can't weaponize it. Second, we're going to put a clear set of economic incentives on the table... And then the alternative, the stick, is if they don't do that, there are going to be serious economic sanctions.

When asked whether he would maintain the threat of a military strike, Edwards responded:

I think this is the clear path. I think no president, no responsible president, would ever take any option off the table.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

I would do away with the policy of regime change. What we're saying to everybody in Iran is, "Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you, and after that we're going to attack you. We're going to take you down." It's a bizarre notion, number one. Number two, understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They're a decade away from being able to weaponize... if they put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike. They're far away from that. Number three, in fact, we're going to -- we have to understand how weak that government is. They import almost all of their refined oil. By 2014, they're going to be importing their crude oil. There's much better ways, if we had to get to the point of being real sanctions, of doing economic sanctions on them forcefully that way. But at the end of the day, if they posed the missile, stuck it on a pad, I'd take it out.

Big Shield, Bigger Sword

With President Bush in the Czech Republic today making his case for the necessity of his proposed missile defense system, James Carroll wrote an exceptional piece in the Boston Globe today, discussing how efforts to make the U.S safer through a missile defense system could actually have the exact opposite effect.

His conclusion?

Of all the problems that are exacerbating US-Russian tensions today, none compares for destructiveness with Bush's misguided missile defense project. The irony, of course, is that this reigniting of the old tensions in the name of security leads to less security, not more. The tragedy is that it ignores the lesson that had already been so well learned four decades ago.

A consensus has lately developed that the Bush administration's worst legacy will be tied to the disastrous war in Iraq, but that may be wrong. The resuscitation of the fantasy of missile defense, and with it the raising from the dead of the arms race, may result in catastrophes in comparison to which Iraq is benign.

U.S. Under Funds, Undercuts Nuclear Test Detection System

It was reported recently that the international organization that helped confirm North Korea’s nuclear test last October might not be able to complete its global network of monitoring stations unless the U.S. pays tens of millions of dollars in arrears.

Threatening to stifle global efforts to detect and deter nuclear testing worldwide, the United States now owes $38.3 million to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). For dramatic effect, that total is the equivalent of what the U.S. spends (at a rate of $250,000 per minute) on the Iraq war in just over two and a half hours.

Tasked with administering the treaty that bans all nuclear explosions but has yet to enter force, the CTBTO has completed an International Data Center and 240 global monitoring stations designed to provide real-time data on nuclear tests worldwide, but 80 more stations still need to be built, including one that borders Iran and could potentially provide invaluable information on any testing done there.

In order for the CTBT to enter into force, it must ratified by the 44 countries identified in Annex 2 of the treaty. While 41 of these countries have signed the treaty, only 34 have ratified it, leaving the U.S. as only one of ten countries to stand in the way of its full implementation. The other countries are China, Columbia, North Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan. Oh the company we keep!

Since entering office in 2002, the Bush administration has unilaterally decided to withhold the U.S portion of approximately $800,000 per year designated for the On-Site Inspection (OSI) verification component. For both fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the administration and Congress allocated only $14.4 million for the CTBTO, approximately $7 million short of the assessed contributions for the United States for each of those years.

But the most inexplicable move came when the Bush administration never actually dispersed last year’s already allocated funds for the CTBTO, resulting in the U.S. losing its voting rights in the Preparatory Commission, the decision-making body of the Organization. Yet because the U.S. signed the treaty back in 1996, it will continue to receive data from the monitoring stations, creating a dangerous precedent that other countries might follow.

The Bush administration is now asking for $18 million in its budget request for fiscal year 2008 even though the CTBTO assessed U.S. dues at $23.4 million for the year.

Must be fuzzy math.

The House State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee is expected to mark-up or write its version of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which includes funding for the CTBTO on June 5. The bill is expected to be considered by the full Appropriations Committee the same day and then by the full House on June 20.

Congress needs to not only approve the $18 million request, but also up the ante by adding an additional $10 million in order for the U.S. to regain its voting rights in the Preparatory Commission and to ensure that the CTBTO can complete the remaining 80 monitoring stations.

John Edwards Aspires for a Nuclear Free World

John Edwards won some fans in the arms control community this week. During a Q&A session at the Council on Foreign Relations, the presidential candidate said he does not support building new nuclear weapons and wants to see a nuclear weapons free world. This is in stark contrast to the Bush administration, which is pushing for the development of new nuclear weapons through the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program and Complex 2030.

Here is what Edwards said:

... we should aspire to a nuclear-free world. I agree with that. Now, there are a lot of steps that have to go between here and there. Some of them are pretty obvious, which is America should not be building new nuclear weapons. And then I think America should be doing things like leading an international effort to close the holes in the NPT. There are clearly serious flaws in the NPT.

As I reported here, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee axed all funding for the RRW program last week. The Senate is next to look at RRW in June, and is expected to increase funding beyond the requested $88.8 million.

We, your faithful bloggers, will continue to provide in-depth analysis on the national security positions of the candidates as we move toward the 2008 elections. Stay tuned.

Better Late Than Never

Thirteen years ago today, the United States and Russia completed the de-targeting of their strategic nuclear missiles, two and a half years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The de-targeting followed an agreement accompanying the January 14, 1994 Tripartite Declaration signed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin that no later than May 30, 1994 neither country would target its strategic nuclear missiles on the other. Britain also de-targeted its missiles under a separate agreement with Russia. Slowly.... slowly...

Bush to let START I expire in 2009

In a not so surprising but nevertheless disappointing move, a senior Bush administration official announced last week that the United States will let the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) expire when it runs out at the end of 2009. Apparently, the administration instead plans on replacing it with a less formal agreement that doesn’t have the strict verification requirements and weapons limits that START I does.

The move is just the latest example of President Bush’s nose-thumbing towards arms control as a method of limiting the potential development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Congress has notably shown little interest in the treaty and has instead opted to defer to the next president, with the hope that that person will act upon arriving in the White House in January 2009.

Signed in July 1991 by the United States and the USSR (subsequently including Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan upon the collapse of the Soviet Union five months later), START I is the most ambitious arms control treaty in history.

The treaty barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 “countable” nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers.

By the end of its implementation deadline in late 2001, the treaty had resulted in the elimination of approximately 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence.

While both the United States and Russia are still well-below the limitations agreed upon in START I, repudiating the treaty sends mixed signals to both Russia and the world that while the U.S. is seeking to halt the development and spread of nuclear weapons by other countries, it is not willing to continue with a treaty that limits its own arsenal, or make further reductions in its stockpile.

At a time when the United States is seeing a resurgent Russia increasingly comfortable flexing its muscle on the international scene, now is not the time to pour more gas on the fire and revert to our old Cold War ways. This is especially true given that Russia is already alarmed over the expansion of NATO to its boundaries and the deployment of a missile defense system at its doorstep, over which it has been increasingly vocal in its criticism. And matching their rhetoric with action, the country recently issued a moratorium on the application of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty and also only yesterday tested a new inter-continental ballistic missile that Russian officials claim can defeat current or future missile defense systems.

President Bush needs to get serious about arms control and either extend START I or begin new negotiations towards another legally binding treaty that makes further cuts in strategic forces. If not, extension of the treaty should be an early priority of the successor Administration. Likewise, the Senate should hold Foreign Relations hearings on the treaty with the goal of not only pressuring Bush, but also to raise awareness of the issue to the presidential candidates, whom he might be passing the START baton to in less than two years time. The clock is ticking.

National Security Legislative Wrap-up, May 21-25 2007

This past week Congress brought some big wins for the nonproliferation agenda, though they have been largely overshadowed by Congress' decision to fund the 2007 Supplemental Appropriations bill, a measure that funds the Iraq war through September 30 but has no timetable for exiting the war.

Congress is in recess this week for the Memorial Day holiday.


KEY NATIONAL SECURITY BILLS IN 2007

- Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill:

The Pentagon requested $93.4 billion in supplemental funding for combat operations for Fiscal Year 2007, which is in addition to $70 billion in Fiscal Year 2007 supplemental funding approved by Congress as part of its regular 2007 budget work.

On May 24, the House approved the latest version of the Supplemental bill without any deadlines for troop withdrawal by a vote of 280 - 142. Democrats split 86 for and 140 against. On the same day, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 80 - 14.

- Defense Authorization Bill:

On May 24, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its mark-up of the bill. In some highlights, the Committee:
* added $100 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
* added $87 million for the Department of Energy non-proliferation programs
* cut $43 million from the Administration's request for $238 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, (note: the Senate is using a different number for this program than the House).
* while approving $10.1 billion for missile defense, the committee cut $85 million from the request of $310.4 million for the third missile defense site in Europe and cut $200 million from the airborne laser program.

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

- Energy and Water Appropriations Bill:

On May 23, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee voted to:
* eliminate all $88.8 million of funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons (the Reliable Replacement Warhead program)
* cut out all $24.9 million for a new plant to build plutonium pits (consolidated plutonium program)
* added $878 million for nuclear non-proliferation programs to bring the total to $1.7 billion
* cut funds for the plutonium reprocessing program (the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) to extract nuclear weapons-usable material from nuclear waste from $405 million to $120 million.