National Security Legislative Wrap-up

Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its mark up of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Defense Authorization bill. The marked up bill fully funds the administration’s $612.5 billion FY2009 national defense request, as did the FY2009 Budget Resolution passed by the Senate on March 13, by authorizing $542.5 billion in "base" budgetary authority and $70 billion in war funding.

Bush sent to Congress last week specifics of the $70 billion "bridge" war funding request for Fiscal Year 2009. If Congress bundles residual FY2008 funding with this advance FY2009 funding, the resulting "super supplemental" could reach $178 billion, or more.

There is still no definitive plan of attack on the residual Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, Congress approved $86 billion in FY2008 war funding. The timing, composition and procedures for the remaining funding, which President Bush has threatened to veto if over $108 billion, are still up in the air.

The supplemental may be considered in three separate parts: war funding of around $170 billion, language calling on the administration to begin bringing troops home, and a domestic spending component that could include extended unemployment benefits, energy tax credits and a new GI bill for veterans’ education.

The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to complete subcommittee mark-ups on its version of the FY2009 Defense Authorization bill this week. The full committee is scheduled to mark up the bill on May 14, with floor consideration expected the week of May 19.

Senators Urge Committee to Cut Funding for Reprocessing

In an April 24 letter, nine senators urged Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) to cut funding for the reprocessing and reuse of spent nuclear fuel.

The letter targets funding for the Department of Energy's efforts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

The non-proliferation-friendly advocates are:

• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• Tom Harkin (D-IA)
• Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
• John Kerry (D-MA)
• Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
• Charles Schumer (D-NY)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

These senators, "expressed wide-ranging concerns about the program ranging from cost, to nuclear proliferation risks, to environmental contamination dangers to past failures in this area," according to the Center's Director for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Leonor Tomero. Their concerns include the programs' $200 billion burden on taxpayers, failures of past attempts to reprocess spent fuel, and the way in which the program undermines U.S. non-proliferation efforts.

Seems reasonable to me.

The letter responds to the administration's request of over $300 million for reprocessing in FY 2009, including $302 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. (In FY 2008, DOE requested $405 million but received only $179 million.)

For the text of the letter and the Center's press release, click here.

National Security Legislative Wrap-Up

Confusion continues to reign over the remainder of the Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, Congress approved a first portion of funding at $86 billion. The timing, the composition and the procedures for the new bill are still up in the air.

In the meantime, mark-up of the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill begins this week in the Senate Armed Services Committee and next week in the House Armed Services Committee. The House and Senate both hope to complete action on the bill before the Memorial Day recess.

Arms Control in 2009: An Early Look at the 111th Congress

I recently put together an analysis on the prospects for arms control, focusing on the future of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, in the upcoming 111th Congress. Check it out below.


Arms Control in 2009: An Early Look at the 111th Congress
by Jeff Lindemyer

With the nation's eyes focused squarely on the presidential candidates, little attention has been paid to the growing list of influential members of Congress who plan to retire at the end of this year. These retirements will have important implications as committee chairs and ranking members pass their batons to successors who may or may not have the same priorities, ability, or forcefulness when it comes to arms control.

Arms control advocates scored a major victory at the end of 2007 when lawmakers eliminated all funding for the Bush administration's program to build the so-called "Reliable Replacement Warhead" or RRW. The administration, however, may continue to push for RRW funding in fiscal year 2009. With a number of key players slated to leave office and new members of Congress coming in, the 2008 congressional elections may help determine the fate of the controversial RRW program.

One prime example is Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that oversees the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons. With the Los Alamos National Lab located in his home state, Domenici has long been an ardent champion of new nuclear weapons programs. His retirement will hand the position of ranking member to Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who will certainly not be as pro-nuclear as Domenici and may instead choose to focus on other issues. New Mexico's Senate seat itself may go to an opponent of the RRW program, Democratic Rep. Tom Udall, who will run against either Rep. Heather Wilson or Rep. Steve Pearce -- two Republican supporters of the program.

The retirement of Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), ranking member of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, means the loss of a leading GOP voice against the Bush administration's efforts to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. Despite previous support for a nuclear "bunker buster," Hobson worked closely with committee chairman Pete Visclosky (D-IN) to slash the budget for new nuclear weapons in 2007. The pair was subsequently voted the Arms Control Association's "Arms Control Person of the Year" for their efforts. Unfortunately, Hobson's likely replacement as ranking member, Zach Wamp (R-TN), is unlikely to match Hobson's vigor and vision on the issue, weakening current bipartisan opposition to the program.

The unfortunate passing of Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) likely means that chairmanship of the House Foreign Affairs Committee passes to Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), who was set to take over the role next year after Lantos' announced retirement. Lantos leaves behind a generally strong record on arms control, including a number of votes opposing the development of new nuclear weapons. Berman's voting record presages a similar view, suggesting that Berman will uphold his predecessor's opposition to building new nuclear weapons.

But retirements alone will not decide the future of the "Reliable Replacement Warhead" program; incoming members will also play a significant role. For example, the Democrat challenging Republican Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon, Jeff Merkley, is an expert on nuclear weapons and could easily become a leader on the issue. He previously worked on nuclear arms agreements in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and then moved on to the Congressional Budget Office where he prepared reports on Trident II missiles and the B-1B bomber. Merkley opposes building a new generation of nuclear weapons and endorses the Shultz-Kissinger-Perry-Nunn vision of moving toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

Another candidate who strongly opposes new nuclear weapons is Democratic Rep. Mark Udall, who is vying with former Republican Rep. Bob Schaffer for Sen. Wayne Allard's open seat in Colorado. Along with retiring Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Allard is a supporter of RRW who sits on the powerful Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees funding for the program. Even if the retirements of Allard and Craig do not result in Democrats taking over their seats, it will at least give new Republicans a seat at the table.

An additional wild card, of course, will be who gets sworn in as the next president in January 2009. Any Democratic president is unlikely to pursue RRW, but it is unclear what a Republican would do, especially if they faced a Democratic Congressional majority.

The upcoming congressional elections will prove tremendously important in the ongoing battle over whether to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. While Hobson's presence in the House will be sorely missed, the subtractions in the Senate of Sens. Domenici, Allard, and Craig, combined with the possible additions of Udall, Merkley, and other opponents of new nuclear weapons like Tom Allen in Maine and Al Franken in Minnesota, could radically improve the prospects for arms control in 2009 and beyond. These new candidates' elections and leadership may help bury some of the Bush administration's more provocative nuclear weapons policies once and for all.

Congressional Briefings on North Korean Aid to Syrian Nuclear Facility

If you've been reading the news today, you've seen that Congress has been briefed by high ranking intelligence officials on the facility in Syria that was bombed by the Israeli's in September of last year. It seems that they have clear information on the nuclear nature of this facility. For the quickest top analysis on this new development, I will direct readers to the people over at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). These are the people who originally found the facility using satellite data and broke the story along with the Washington Post. Below are two relevant paragraphs from their release.

Today, the United States is releasing new information which provides dramatic confirmation that the Syrian site attacked by Israel on September 6, 2007 was a nuclear reactor. The information, including images taken inside the reactor building before it was attacked, also indicates that North Korea helped to build the reactor, which resembles closely the one at the Yongbyon nuclear center in North Korea. ISIS first identified the site in a series of reports beginning October 24, 2007 and continuing on the 25th and 26th., which showed the razing of the site following Israel’s attack. Commercial satellite imagery of the site is available in these reports and subsequent ones.

The release of this information is likely to prompt a fresh wave of questions about North Korea’s commitment to verifiably dismantle its nuclear arsenal and halt its proliferation activities. This new information confirms the need to be concerned about Syrian and North Korean actions, including their nuclear cooperation which dates back many years. However, it should not be seen as a casus belli against Syria or a reason to scuttle the progress being made at the Six Party Talks in disabling and dismantling North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

For more information on questions regarding fueling the reactor and why progress should continue with North Korea negotiations, see the document found here.

Question for Readers

During last Thursday's housing hearing on missile defense (a summary can be found here), witness Philip E. Coyle III. made the following claim:

Different missile defense systems prompt the use of different sorts of decoys or countermeasures by the offense. For example, the laser being developed for missile defense, the Airborne Laser, is to be a high power laser carried in a jumbo 747 aircraft. But if the enemy paints their missiles with an ordinary white paint, a white paint that is 90% reflective to the laser, then 90% of the laser energy bounces off. To compensate for this the Airborne Laser would need to be ten times more powerful and would need an aircraft bigger than a Boeing 747.

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) spokesman Richard Lehner rejected the charge:

Regarding the paint, not true....That the U.S. would spend more than 4 billion on a weapon system that could be defeated by a coat of paint might make a good sitcom but has no basis in fact.

Anyone care to weigh in on this? Who is correct?

Highlights of Second House Hearing on Missile Defense

Last Thursday (April 16), the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held a hearing entitled, “What are the Prospects, What are the Costs?: Oversight of Missile Defense (Part 2)” (A summary of Part 1 can be found here). In his opening statement, committee Chairman John Tierney (D-MA) described the purpose of the hearing as an effort to “tackle head-on the questions of what are the prospects of our current missile defense efforts and at what are the costs.”

The witness list for the hearing included Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund (Senior Scientist and Co-Director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists), Dr. Richard Garwin (Fellow Emeritus at IBM Corporation’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center), Jeff Kueter (President of the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC), and Philip E. Coyle, III. (Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense from 1994-2001). Their testimony’s can be found here, here, here, and here, respectively.

Wide-ranging in its scope and depth, the hearing covered many issues that will be familiar to observers of the missile defense debate: the nature of the threat, how to define operational criteria for success, the issues and challenges posed by decoys and countermeasures, the performance of GMD flight intercept tests, the (in)accuracy of MDA and DoD statements about GMD effectiveness and capability, the monetary costs of missile defense, and the costs of missile defense for U.S. strategic interests and international security.

Here I want to focus primarily on the portions of the hearing that dealt with the costs of missile defense (in particular the GMD element) for U.S. strategic interests and international security. Other than Kueter, who spent most of the hearing diligently parroting MDA and DoD talking points, all of the witnesses agreed that missile defense is likely to have many dangerous consequences.

First, as Dr. Gronlund observed in her submitted testimony, “It is dangerous if military and political leaders believe the GMD system is effective.” Specifically, such a belief could make U.S. decision makers “less motivated to pursue diplomatic means to address the North Korean [and Iranian] missile program.” Coyle also emphasized the pitfalls of an overreliance on technology at the expense of diplomacy. Noting the gains made by Ambassador Christopher Hill in achieving diplomatic success with North Korea, Coyle maintained that diplomacy “is the most cost-effective missile defense system.”

Second, Dr. Gronlund was keen to point out that so long as Russia and China fear that U.S. interceptors could threaten their deterrent capability, “worst-case analyses by political and military leaders, as well as a desire to have a visible response for both domestic and international audiences, may prompt both China and Russia to build or retain larger nuclear forces than they otherwise would, and may lead Russia to retain its missiles on high alert.”

Advocates of U.S. missile defense plans claim that the system would be directed against developing states such as North Korea and Iran, and would be powerless against a massive Russian or Chinese missile attack. Yet Russia and China’s perception that a U.S. missile defense system might compromise their ability to retaliate can’t be attributed to paranoia or political posturing alone. The U.S. is planning to increase the number of GBIs and Aegis interceptors that are capable of defending against ICBMs. Before long, Russia and China could face some 200 U.S. anti-missile interceptors, and in Russia’s case, some of these missiles would be stationed in Poland, very close to Moscow’s European-based ICBM installations. Russian defense analysts are undoubtedly questioning the purpose of a system that would (1) be in a position to target Russian ICBMs but would not be able to protect a large swath of Europe from an Iranian missile attack, (2) entail interceptors that, despite MDA claims to the contrary, would be fast enough to catch Russian ICBMs launched west of the Ural Mountains toward the U.S., and (3) eventually require far more interceptors than the 10 interceptors the Bush administration is initially planning to deploy to Poland, since, according to the way in which the Bush administration defines the nature of the Iranian threat, Tehran would have the knowledge, capacity, and incentive to build more than 10 ICBMs.

Third, according to Dr. Gawin:

A state wishing to deliver nuclear weapons to injure the United States homeland would far more likely use short-range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles launched from a ship to attack U.S. coastal cities with nuclear weapons than use an ICBM for that purpose.

Currently, the U.S. has no defense against an attack delivered via such means. At the March 5 hearing, homeland security expert Stephen Flynn also emphasized the opportunity costs of spending ridiculous amounts on ballistic missile defense, noting that the U.S. is far more likely to be attacked by weapons of mass destruction (WMD) transferred via non-missile means (such as through our ports with containers containing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) than by ICBMs.

Commenting on the incoherence of the Bush administration’s priorities in this regard, Coyle testified that:

By spending such colossal sums on ballistic missile defense, it is as if we have defined how our adversaries will attack us. We have declared that our adversaries will use ballistic missiles first and foremost – not cruise missiles, not cargo shipments, not terrorism – even though our ballistic missile defenses are not effective against realistic ballistic missile threats. And we are choosing to ignore the international consequences of that choice, as well as the budgetary and technical consequences.

National Security Legislative Wrap-Up

Confusion reigns over the remainder of the Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, Congress approved a first portion of funding: $86 billion. The timing, the composition and the procedures for the new bill are all up in the air.

Some major questions about the bill:

- While the new supplemental was supposed to be about $108 billion, will Congress add another $70 billion to fund the wars into Fiscal Year 2009 in order to avoid new votes on war funding in the fall just before the election and early next year while the President is setting up the new Administration?

- Will the bill include many non-defense add-ons? As this bill is one of the few expected to be enacted into law during calendar 2008, there are hopes to attach an economic stimulus package, as well as funding for shortfalls in 2010 census funding shortfall, fighting wildfires, Head Start and creating a summer jobs program.

- Will the bill move directly to the House or Senate floors for consideration or will the Appropriations Committees take up the bill first?

- Will the bill include provisions setting a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, mandates for training and equipping troops, longer rest time between deployments, blocking a long-term commitment to the Iraqi government, requiring U.S. reconstruction assistance to be designated as loans to Iraq and increasing education benefits for veterans?

- Will the measure be considered as one bill or be split into two or three parts so anti-war Members of Congress can vote for provisions they like while opposing funding for the war in Iraq.

Stay tuned.