Missile Defense in the Obama Budget

One of the top recommendations for the Obama administration from a recent Center report was to condition further deployment of the third missile defense site in Europe on tests that prove the system actually works. President Obama agreed during his campaign that deployment of missile defense should be postponed until proven effective. He said in 2007, " If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies, we should — but only when the system works…The Bush administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes."

In a report released yesterday, the Center's Travis Sharp predicts what this might mean for missile defense in the FY2009 budget. He predicts a loss of funding for the program, and lists missile defense among four weapons systems likely to see budget cuts in 2009. (Alongside missile defense are the F-22 Raptor, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and Future Combat Systems.)

In the absence of this year's budget release on the usual first Monday in February, we don't know, of course, what Obama's request actually is. But Travis's report – which documents the skyrocketing recent growth in defense spending, catalogs calls for budget cuts by key policymakers, and looks at the complicated procedure the fiscal year 2010 budget is set to follow - provides a good appetizer for all those who are eager to see what's on Obama's full budget plate.

Excerpt below, and full report available on the Center website.

Technical experts, budget analysts, and military strategists have debated the pros and cons of missile defense for decades. In the past few years, Congress repeatedly has reduced funding for expensive and unproven missile defense technologies aimed at countering future long-range threats and reallocated it toward higher priority systems aimed at existing short- and medium-range missiles.

The final FY 2009 base budget provided $10.5 billion for missile defense research and development, military construction, and procurement. The final appropriation rearranged funding among various ballistic missile defense program elements and was $328 million less than the Bush administration’s request. Within the $10.5 billion, Congress provided $618 million for research and development and military construction on the missile defense system in Europe, a $94 million reduction from the Bush administration’s request.

Given these preferences, Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD), Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) (funded by the Army, not the Missile Defense Agency), and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) may pass muster in 2009. These programs protect U.S. troops in the field from theater ballistic missiles, a far more realistic threat than long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Full report available here.

New Analysis on Nuclear Terrorism

The Center’s Travis Sharp and Erica Poff published a new policy briefing on November 14 titled “Understanding and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism.” Read the whole thing here.

Below are some excerpts:

Since the creation of the atomic bomb, government officials, scientists, and concerned citizens have been aware that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of dangerous terrorist groups or rogue regimes. The rise of Al Qaeda and the events of September 11, however, brought the threat of nuclear terrorism into a whole new light for the United States. Suddenly, the detonation of a crude nuclear device in a major American metropolitan area no longer seemed like something out of a science fiction movie. Indeed, as President-Elect Barack Obama said during the 2008 presidential campaign, nuclear terrorism is “the gravest danger we face.”

[snip]

It is not the odds but the consequences of such an attack that propel nuclear terrorism to the top of the U.S. national security agenda. A March 2003 report by Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom found that if a ten-kiloton nuclear weapon, approximately the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, were detonated at Manhattan’s Grand Central Station in New York, it would instantly kill over 500,000 people, injure hundreds of thousands, and cause over $1 trillion in direct damages.

[snip]

If the United States and countries around the world are serious about preventing a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, efforts to contain the threat at its source need serious attention. According to the Partnership for a Secure America, the biggest problem is the lack of coordination on counter-nuclear terrorism efforts across federal agencies. Congress tried to remedy this shortcoming in 2007 with H.R. 1, the 9/11 Commission Act, which created a White House Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose to ignore the law and never filled the position. Failures in coordination are similarly reflected at the international level, where bilateral and multilateral engagement to prevent nuclear terrorism is equally fragmented.

Read the full briefing for five key recommendations the U.S. government ought to incorporate into a comprehensive strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism.

Analysis of Senate Armed Services Committee Action on FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill (S. 3001)

The Center’s Chris Hellman and Travis Sharp put out their Analysis of Senate Armed Services Committee Action on the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill (S 3001) yesterday. The full analysis is available here, while an analysis of House action on the FY2009 Defense Authorization is here for comparison.

The Senate Armed Services Committee released its markup of S. 3001, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Defense Authorization bill, on May 1, 2008. The bill, S. 3001, as reported to the full Senate by the Armed Services Committee, fully funds the administration's $612.5 billion FY2009 National Defense request.

S. 3001 provides $542.5 billion for National Defense (function 050), plus $70 billion in "bridge" funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of $612.5 billion. Of the $70 billion in war funding, $19.9 billion is for Afghanistan, $49.6 billion is for Iraq, and $500 million is for war-related military construction. $70 billion will not be enough to fund ongoing military operations throughout all of FY2009, but it will, as the Committee's press release notes, "provide sufficient funding to allow the next administration to take office without facing an immediate financial crisis in the DOD budget."

The full Senate may take up consideration of S. 3001 as early as the week of June 16.

Included below are highlights, funding provisions, funding levels, and key policy provisions relating to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues.

BASE BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

Missile Defense – Cuts $270 million from the administration's request for the Missile Defense Agency. Includes an additional $270 million for near-term missile defense capabilities, including Aegis BMD, THAAD, Short-Range BMD, and the Arrow missile program. Places restrictions on the continued development of a third missile defense site based in Europe (see "Key Policy Provisions" below). Eliminates the $10 million request for the Space Test Bed.

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) – Retains the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration RRW request of $10 million, but eliminates the Navy's RRW request of $23.3 million slated for "Phase 3" engineering development activities.

Nonproliferation Programs – Adds $20 million to the administration's $414.1 million request for DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) ("Nunn-Lugar") program for states of the former Soviet Union. Provides $1.8 billion for the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs, $552 million above the request.

FUNDING PROVISIONS

DIVISION C
Atomic Energy Defense Activities in the Department of Energy (Budget Function 053)
Administration request: $15.9 billion
Committee: $15.9 billion

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (Missile Defense Agency only)
Administration request: $9.3 billion
Committee: $9.0 billion, $269 million below request

NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS

Department of Energy Nonproliferation Programs
Administration request: $1.247 billion
Committee: $1.799 billion ($552 million above request)

DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ("Nunn-Lugar")
Administration request: $414.1 million
Committee: $434.1 million

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED ACTIVITIES

National Nuclear Security Administration
Administration request: $9.1 billion
Committee: $9.6 billion, which includes $6.61 billion for "Weapons Activities," $7.4 million below the "Weapons Activities" request
NOTE: $552 million increase in DOE nonproliferation program funding, above, explains growth from $9.1 billion NNSA request to $9.6 billion Committee recommendation)

Defense Environmental Clean-up
Administration request: $5.3 billion
Committee: $5.3 billion

KEY POLICY PROVISIONS

Restriction on Funds for European Missile Defense – Restricts funding for the third missile defense site in Europe until the Polish and Czech governments give final approval. The bill also restricts funding from being obligated until the system has demonstrated through "successful, operationally realistic flight testing, that it has a high probability of accomplishing its mission in an operationally effective manner."

Review of U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense – Requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the United States. The review must be submitted to Congress no later than January 31, 2010. The bill also requires an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of boost phase missile defense. The study would be responsible for examining the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs, among others.

Nuke and Nonpro Highlights of House Armed Services Committee Action on the FY09 Defense Authorization Bill

The Center’s Chris Hellman and Travis Sharp put out their Analysis of House Armed Services Committee Action on the FY2009 Defense Authorization Bill (HR 5658) yesterday. The full analysis is available online and the press release is here.

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) completed its markup of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Defense Authorization bill (HR 5658) on May 15, 2008. HASC's marked up bill recommends an overall FY2009 authorization level of $601.4 billion, the amount requested by the administration. This $601.4 billion total includes $70 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $531.4 billion for National Defense (function 050). Of the $531.4 billion slated for National Defense, $515.2 billion is for the Department of Defense (DOD) and $16.2 billion is for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons activities.

The FY2009 Defense Authorization bill is expected to come up for floor consideration in the House on May 22. The Senate Armed Services Committee completed its markup of its version of the FY2009 Defense Authorization bill on May 1. The full Senate is expected to consider its version of the bill sometime in June.

Included below are highlights, funding provisions, and legislative provisions relating to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues.

BASE BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

Prompt Global Strike – Fully funds the $118 million request for the "Prompt Global Strike" program, plus provides an additional $7 million under the program for the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.

Missile Defenses in Europe – The bill includes $341.2 million for Research & Development and Military Construction for long-range missile defense sites in Europe, $371 million below the request. The bill also restricts funding from being obligated until the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland have agreed to basing and status of forces agreements, and DOD certifies that the system has demonstrated a "high probability of working" through "operationally realistic flight testing." (For more information, see this and this Center analysis)

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) – The bill does not authorize any of the Navy's $23.3 million request for RRW, but does redirect $13.3 million of the request for Arming, Fuzing, and Firing (AF&F) systems that could be used either for RRW or for an existing weapon refurbished through the Life Extension Program. The bill does not authorize any of the NNSA's $10 million request for RRW within Directed Stockpile Work, but it does add $10 million within Advanced Certification to address questions raised by the JASON review of RRW.

Nonproliferation Programs and Cooperative Threat Reduction – The bill includes $1.5 billion in funding for Department of Energy nonproliferation programs, $208 million above the request. The bill also includes $445.1 million in funding for DOD's CTR "Nunn-Lugar" program, $31 million above the request.

Global Threat Reduction Initiative – The bill includes $389.6 million in Department of Energy funding, $170 million above the request, for GTRI, a program that strengthens nuclear and radioactive material security worldwide.

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS

Ballistic Missile Defense
Request: $10.2 billion
Committee: $9.5 billion ($719 million below request)

NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS

Department of Energy Nonproliferation Programs
Request: $1.247 billion
Committee: $1.455 billion ($208 million above request)

DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ("Nunn-Lugar")
Request: $414.1 million
Committee: $445.1 million

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED ACTIVITIES

National Nuclear Security Administration
Request: $9.1 billion
Committee: $9.3 billion ($205 million above request)

Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Request: $6.9 billion
Committee: $6.9 billion ($28 million above request)

KEY POLICY PROVISIONS

Missile Defense Force Structure – The committee records that it "does not believe that the Missile Defense Agency has the appropriate expertise to set missile defense force structure requirements," adding that there is a "general lack of transparency and methodology." The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for setting missile defense force structure and inventory requirements. The plan must include a clearer delineation of responsibilities within MDA as well as separate program element budget request numbers for each specific element within the Terminal Defense Segment and Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors.

Study of Boost Phase Missile Defense – Requires the Secretary of Defense to commission an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of boost phase missile defense. The study would be responsible for examining the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs, amongst others.

Report on Nuclear Weapons Inventory Control – Noting concerns over the inadvertent transfer of nuclear weapons from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB in August 2007, and the discovery in March 2008 that nose cones for Minuteman III missiles were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan in 2006, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to jointly prepare a report on the steps the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy plan to take to address nuclear weapons inventory deficiencies.

Analysis of FY09 Pentagon Spending Request

The Center’s Chris Hellman and Travis Sharp released their Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2009 Pentagon Spending Request today. They note that the total “top line” funding request by the Bush administration for the Defense Department in FY09 is $515.4 billion, an increase of $35.9 billion over current levels.

Of special interest, the Bush administration request increases funding for the Missile Defense Agency by approximately 4 percent over current levels to a total of $8.9 billion. It also increases funding for the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy by 5.1 percent to $6.6 billion, while decreasing DoE’s nuclear nonproliferation work by 6.7 percent to a total of $1.2 billion. The request similarly decreases funding for Cooperative Threat Reduction (“Nunn-Lugar”) by 2.8 percent to $414.1 million.

See a pattern?

Included below are the sections of Hellman and Sharp’s terrific analysis that are especially relevant to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues. Click here for the full analysis.

HIGHLIGHTS

“Top Line” Funding -- The Bush Administration is requesting $515.4 billion for the Department of Defense in Fiscal Year 2009, which begins on October 1, 2008. This is $35.9 billion more than the current levels, an increase of 7.5 percent, and inflation-adjust (“real”) increase of 5.4 percent. This figure does not include funding for the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy, which is considered part of total “National Defense” spending (Function 050). Nor does this figure include the costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Office of Management and Budget estimates that total annual funding for the Defense Department alone will grow to $546 billion by Fiscal Year 2013, a figure which is undoubtedly low. Total Pentagon spending, not including funding for the Department of Energy or for actual combat operations for the period FY’09 through FY’13 will reach $2.6 trillion.

Meanwhile, in January the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deficit for FY’09 will be $198 billion. This estimate assumes that only $70 billion will be appropriated for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and does not include the additional supplemental funding that will be requested later in the year.

Funding for Contingency Operations (Supplemental Appropriations) – In addition to its annual budget request, the Pentagon is also requesting $70 billion in supplemental funding for combat operations for Fiscal Year 2009. According to the Pentagon, this is only a partial figure, and additional funds will be requested later in the year. Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY’08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.

Missile Defense – The Administration is requesting $8.9 billion for the Missile Defense Agency in FY’09, up roughly $350 million from the current $8.6 billion. Missile defense continues to receive more funding than any other weapons program in the annual Pentagon budget. This total does not include $2.3 billion for the SBIRS-High satellite program and a further $1 billion for programs such as Patriot and MEADS that are being funded directly by the services.

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) -- The Administration is requesting $414.1 million for the CTR (also known as “Nunn-Lugar”) program, 2.8 percent below the current level of $425.9 million. The CTR program assists Russia and the former Soviet republics safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related technologies.

Department of Energy Activities – The request includes $6.6 billion for the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy (a 5.1 percent increase), and $1.2 billion for DoE’s nuclear nonproliferation work (a 6.7 percent decrease). It includes $10 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and $302 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative – the Research & Development portion of the nuclear spent fuel reprocessing program under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

TOTAL REQUESTED FUNDING - Future Year’s Defense Plan (FYDP) DoD Military (Function 050, including weapons activities of the Department of Energy and funding from other miscellaneous accounts.)

FY'08 $566.2 billion estimated*
FY’09 $540.9 billion requested
FY'10 $530.9 billion projected
FY'11 $544.8 billion projected
FY’12 $559.2 billion projected
FY'13 $573.9 billion projected
Total, FY’09-'13 $2,749.7 billion projected

* This figure likely includes a portion of the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but does not appear to include an estimated $126 billion in emergency war funding still pending before Congress

FY’09 FUNDING REQUEST FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Ballistic Missile Defense Agency
$8,605.6 million -- FY’08 Total
$8,946.1 million -- FY’09 Request

SELECTED FUNCTIONS

Terminal Defense
$1,045.3 million -- FY’08 Total
$1,019.1 million -- FY’09 Request

Boost Defense
$510.2 million -- FY’08 Total
$421.2 million -- FY’09 Request

Midcourse Defense
$2,243.2 million -- FY’08 Total
$2,076.7 million -- FY’09 Request

AEGIS BMD
$1,126.3 million -- FY’08 Total
$1,157.8 million -- FY’09 Request

BMD Sensors
$585.1 million -- FY’08 Total
$1,077.0 million -- FY’09 Request

Space Tracking & Surveillance
$231.5 million – FY’08 Total
$242.4 million – FY’09 Request

BMD Technologies
$108.4 million -- FY’08 Total
$118.7 million -- FY’09 Request

Advanced Concepts
$196.9 million -- FY’08 Total
$288.3 million -- FY’09 Request

BMD System Interceptors
$340.1 million -- FY’08 Total
$386.8 million -- FY’09 Request

Multiple Kill Vehicle
$229.9 million -- FY’08 Total
$354.5 million -- FY’09 Request

Other MDA Programs
$1,934.0 million -- FY’08 Total
$1,748.3 million -- FY’09 Request

Joint Theater Air Missile Defense Org. (Joint Staff)
$53.7 million -- FY’08 Total
$55.3 million -- FY’09 Request

GRAND TOTAL Ballistic Missile Defense
$10,438.7 million -- FY’08 Total
$12,259.9 million -- FY’09 Request

New Report: $20 Billion U.S. Arms Deal to Contain Iran No Substitute for Diplomacy

The Center’s Travis Sharp and Katie Mounts today released a tremendous report which examines the Bush administration’s decision to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other GCC states as an effort largely designed to contain Iran. They argue that the sale is another example of how the U.S. continues to use deadly technologies as the flawed currency of friendship with foreign nations.

Click here to read the online version of the report, here to read the PDF version with footnotes, or here for the press release.

The executive summary of the report follows:

In July 2007, the United States announced the sale of $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are slated to receive advanced satellite-guided bomb technology known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates will receive, inter alia, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and -2 (PAC-3 and PAC-2) missiles.

Bush administration officials have indicated that the $20 billion arms deal is primarily aimed at containing Iran. Supplementary rationales for the deal include the fortification of American influence vis-à-vis peer competitors in the Middle East, future business for the United States providing spare parts, and reassurance of Gulf allies in advance of the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

From 1999 to 2006, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia ranked in the top five in the Middle East for the total value of their arms transfer agreements with the United States (Egypt and Israel ranked 1st and 2nd, respectively). The United Arab Emirates received $7 billion in arms transfer agreements ($892 million annual average), Saudi Arabia received $6.5 billion ($815 million annual average), and Kuwait received $3 billion ($334 million annual average) during this period in inflation-adjusted Fiscal Year 2006 dollars.

The United States has consistently used deadly technologies as the currency of friendship with foreign nations. From 1999 to 2006, the value of all U.S. arms transfer agreements worldwide was slightly less than the next five highest suppliers combined (Russia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, China). The United States supplied 56% of all arms transfer agreements with the Middle East during the same period. That is five times greater than Russia's proportion, the second highest supplier, and almost twenty times greater than China's proportion.

Previous experiences with Iran and Iraq illustrate that selling arms to strategic allies can backfire if the regime or relationship changes. The United States supplied Iraq with cluster bombs and chemical weapons in the 1980s, only to fight the Iraqi military in 1991 and again in 2003 and watch helplessly in the 1980s as Saddam Hussein brutally murdered thousands of Kurds. Iran made one-third of its defense purchases from the United States during the 1970s, but the two countries are now approaching their third decade of always chilly and sometimes hostile relations.

Instead of working with countries to improve political freedom, the $20 billion sale rewards an oppressive Saudi monarchy whose human rights record has not met expectations of improvement following the accession to the throne of King Abdullah in August 2005. Moderate Muslims throughout the world resent American involvement in the perpetuation of oppressive regimes through the sale of advanced weaponry.

Travis Sharp and Max Postman: Pressure Pakistan over Khan

The Center’s Travis Sharp and Max Postman wrote an excellent commentary for United Press International last week, arguing that “The United States must pressure Pakistan to deal appropriately with A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist and weapons smuggler former CIA Director George Tenet labeled at least as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden.”

Sharp and Postman explain:

The United States has been reluctant to rock the boat over Khan these past few years, refraining from criticizing Musharraf for fear of alienating a key ally against terrorism. But now, alarmed by the clustering of terrorist camps in Pakistan's tribal areas and frustrated by ongoing nuclear disputes with Khan customers like Iran and North Korea, some American officials are starting to voice their displeasure over Khan's legal limbo.

[snip]

American officials' dissatisfaction is well-founded. Unraveling and preventing nuclear smuggling operations allows the international community to halt the process through which hostile nations and terrorists might acquire the bomb. The ineffective punishment handed down to Khan continues to be a burr in the saddle of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime for several key reasons.

First, Pakistan's unwillingness to provide other countries access to Khan limits the vital intelligence that can be extracted from him. Unless Pakistan vigorously interrogates Khan or allows other countries to question him, much of his nuclear network will remain unidentified and undocumented.

Second, Khan's punishment -- or lack thereof -- signals that future nuclear perpetrators will get off scot-free. Earlier this year a maintenance worker at a nuclear cleanup site in Tennessee was arrested for attempting to sell centrifuge components to an undercover agent posing as a French official. Wherever there is nuclear technology, there is the risk that someone will attempt to proliferate for profit, but the Khan saga has done little to deter would-be smugglers.

Third, nuclear proliferators like Khan could enable terrorists like bin Laden to carry out their ultimate ambition: detonating a nuclear device in an American city, a tactic the National Intelligence Council recently declared a resurgent al-Qaida "would not hesitate to use." The less capable the United States appears at apprehending nuclear proliferators, the more terrorist groups will see nuclear weapons as acquirable and worth pursing.

Sharp and Postman conclude:

With Musharraf vulnerable and looking for support, now is the time for U.S. officials to ask for access to Khan and a clarification and strengthening of his murky legal status. Agreement on dealing with Khan would be a good first step toward negotiating the thornier issue of eliminating terrorist encampments in Pakistan's tribal areas, an issue that will figure prominently in U.S.-Pakistani relations regardless of whether Musharraf, Bhutto, Sharif or some combination of the three is leading Pakistan.

Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Highlights From House Appropriations Committee Action on the FY 08 Defense Appropriations Bill

The Center’s Travis Sharp released his Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Highlights From House Appropriations Committee Action on the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3222) today. It includes a more thorough scrubbing of numbers from an earlier post, expands on a follow-up post, and also includes additional fresh details on the bill.

The House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3222) on July 25. The bill includes $459.6 billion for the Department of Defense, $3.5 billion below the Bush Administration’s request of $463.1 billion and $39.7 billion above FY 2007 levels (excluding supplemental war funding). H.R. 3222 does NOT fund the Administration’s request of $141.7 billion for FY 2008 military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides inserting 1,791 individual member earmarks, the House Appropriations Committee took noteworthy action on Conventional Trident Modification, Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar), Missile Defense, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Space Programs, and Strategic Nuclear Forces and Delivery Systems.

The full House is expected to consider the Defense Appropriations bill on Friday, August 3. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet scheduled action on the bill.

CONVENTIONAL TRIDENT MODIFICATION (CTM)

Zeroes out the Navy’s combined procurement and research and development request of $175 million, but provides $100 million in defense-wide research and development funding for prompt global strike technologies such as “propulsion and guidance systems, mission planning, re-entry vehicle design, modeling and simulation efforts, and launch system infrastructure.” DoD must also submit a report on CTM initiatives by January 31, 2008. (pp. 216, 379)

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION (NUNN-LUGAR)

Provides $398 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction nonproliferation program in DoD’s operation and maintenance funding, $50 million above the request and $26 million above FY 2007 funding levels. (pp. 74, 156-58)

Of this $398 million, $172 million goes to Russia ($34 million above request), $201 million goes to other states of the former Soviet Union ($10 million above request), $19 million goes to assessments and administrative costs (meets request), and $7 million goes to new initiatives (not requested). (pp. 156-58)

Of the $172 million in funding for Russia, $93 million is for strategic offensive arms elimination ($15 million above request, will go to eliminating two Delta III submarines and associated SS-N-18 missiles), $40 million is for nuclear weapons storage security ($17 million above request, will go to accelerating nuclear warhead security work pursuant to the Bratislava agreement), $38 million is for nuclear weapons transportation security (meets request), and $1 million is for chemical weapons destruction (not requested, will go to completing the Shchuch’ye chemical weapons destruction project). (pp. 156-58)

Of the $201 million in funding for other states of the former Soviet Union, $145 million is for biological threat reduction (meets request), $48 million is for weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention ($10 million above request, will go to completing the Kazakhstan infrastructure project), and $8 million is for defense and military contacts (meets request). (pp. 156-58)

The $7 million in new initiatives is for DoD “to work closely with the relevant congressional committees in identifying and determining new avenues to pursue,” and includes $348,000 to upgrade Cooperative Threat Reduction staff and resources. (pp. 156-58)

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY PROGRAMS

Provides $8.5 billion for research and development on missile defense programs, $298 million below the request and $883 million below FY 2007 levels. The Committee includes a $139 million cut from the $310 million defense-wide research and development request for the Ballistic Missile Defense European Component due to the Committee’s belief “that it is premature to provide full funding for the European Component given the uncertainty surrounding the program.” (pp. 17, 382-83)

The Ballistic Missile Defense European Component would consist of a European Interceptor site in Poland, a Midcourse Radar in the Czech Republic, and the fielding of a Forward Based Radar (AN-TPY-2). The projected cost exceeds $4 billion through FY 2013 just for the tactical portion of the proposal, but this estimate leaves out costs for barracks, family housing, personnel costs for manning the facilities, and other costs associated with infrastructure at a military facility. (pp. 382-83)

The Committee adds $57 million to the $1 billion defense-wide research and development request for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, commending the program “for showing progress and promise” and instructing the Missile Defense Agency to “fully fund and execute the Aegis program as Congress intends.” $22 million of the additional Aegis funding is for ballistic signal processor and open architecture, $20 million is for upgrading two additional Aegis destroyers (Arleigh Burke Class), and $15 million is for pursuing “asymmetric” missile defense issues like cruise missile defense, which raised Committee concerns “about the lack of an integrated defense of the homeland against cruise missile, other low altitude aircraft and short range missile attacks.” The Committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress within 90 days of enactment “to ensure progress toward fielding this [cruise missile defense] critical capability.” (pp. 5, 17, 289, 379, 385)

An increase of $70 million above the request is provided for missile defense programs in cooperation with Israel and an increase of $145 million above the defense-wide research and development request is provided for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI). The Missile Defense Agency reduced its FY 2008 request for KEI by $178 million to $228 million and “de-scoped” it to “a booster program aimed at replacing the Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor.” The Committee “disagrees with this change and has provided additional funding in an effort to accelerate this much-needed capability.” (pp. 383-84)

Provides $274 million for the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program, $3 million above the defense-wide research and development request, and encourages the Missile Defense Agency to “accelerate development and delivery of the MKV capability.” The Committee designates the MKV program as a congressional special interest item subject to prior approval reprogramming. (pp. 379, 385)

Requires the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to develop a system-wide reporting plan in order to improve the accountability and transparency of its programs. This new plan must be delivered to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the FY 2009 budget and updated semi-annually thereafter. (pp. 382)

Finally, language is included in the bill’s General Provisions mandating that National Guard personnel serving on full-time duty may perform duties in support of the ground-based elements of the National Ballistic Missile Defense System. Another provision prohibits funds from being used “for the research, development, test, evaluation, procurement, or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system.” (pp. 416, 417)

RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD (RRW)

Zeroes out the Administration’s $30 million request for Navy research and development on Reliable Replacement Warhead. Additional RRW funding was requested for the Department of Energy in the House FY 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, but the Committee zeroed out that funding as well. (pp. 340)

SPACE PROGRAMS (NOTE: Some programs below are administered by MDA)

Concluding that “funding for some of these follow-on systems is requested ahead of need,” the Committee cut Air Force research and development requests for the Alternative Infrared Satellite System by $155 million and Global Positioning III by $80 million.

The Committee funds the Space Radar program at the FY 2007 level of $186 million even though the Administration requested no funding for it in FY 2008. (pp. 355, 356, 361, 363)

For Air Force research and development on Space Situational Awareness, the Committee provides $198 million, including adding to the request $10 million for Space Fence upgrades, $25 million for Space Control Technology, and $20 million for Operationally Responsive Space. These efforts, associated with “responsive launch, payload, and bus development,” were added by the Committee “in light of the recent Chinese anti-satellite test.” (pp. 355, 356, 362-63)

Provides $31 million for defense-wide research and development on the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) proposed follow-on space system, the same amount as in FY 2007 adjusted for inflation. This is $75 million below the request of $106 million. The Committee expressed a desire to see the results of two demonstration satellite test launches in 2008 that “will allow the Missile Defense Agency to develop sensor requirements and a concept of operations that will drive the follow-on space system.” (pp. 378, 383)

The Committee zeroed out the Administration’s $10 million defense-wide research and development request for the Space Test Bed. This program is intended to add a “space-based defensive layer” to complement other ballistic missile defense systems. (pp. 379)

The Committee also cancelled the $7 million defense-wide research and development request for the Micro Electric Propulsion (MEP) program intended to develop new propulsion technologies for small satellites and spacecraft. (pp. 375)

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS

Maintains 14 fleet ballistic missile submarines and nine strategic bomber squadrons in FY 2008, the same numbers as in FY 2007. The bill maintains 495 ICBM launch facilities and control centers and 450 Minuteman missiles in FY 2008, the same numbers as in FY 2007. (pp. 20-21)

The complete analysis can be found here.

Analysis of SASC Action on the FY08 Defense Authorization Bill

The Center’s Chris Hellman and Travis Sharp released their Analysis of Senate Armed Services Committee Action on the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill (S. 1547) today.

Included below are some highlights relating to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation issues.

Missile Defense in Europe – Cuts $85 million from the Administration’s $310.4 million request for the proposed deployment of a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense system in Europe. Limits the availability of authorized funding until two conditions have been met: 1) approval is given by the countries in which missile defense components are to be located; and 2) 45 days have elapsed since Congress receives a report from the Secretary of Defense on the proposed deployment. [Note: The funding for the GMD system in Europe is part of the Administration’s larger request of $10.1 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense, which the Committee cut $231 million.]

Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) – For RRW funding in the Department of Energy, the bill cuts $43 million from the Administration’s $238.1 million RRW request, limits the funding that can be used for RRW in FY2008 to $195.1 million, and limits RRW program activities to Phase 2A and below. The Committee also zeroed out the Administration’s $15 million RRW request for Navy research and development.

DoD Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) [“Nunn-Lugar”] – Adds $100 million to the Administration’s $348 million request for CTR for states of the former Soviet Union.

DoE Nonproliferation Programs – Adds $87 million to DoE nonproliferation programs. Included in the $87 million increase are $50.0 million for next generation nuclear detection technologies, the nuclear explosion monitoring program, and technologies to support improved nuclear material forensic capabilities; $14.0 million to accelerate shutdown of the plutonium producing reactor at Zheleznogorsk, Russia; $10.0 million for the second line of defense core program; $8.0 million for global initiatives for proliferation prevention; and $5.0 million for international regimes including technical assistance to IAEA for enhanced safeguards activities.

The SASC markup also contains a number of key policy provisions, including:

Space Posture Review – Directs the Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence to conduct a comprehensive review of the space posture of the U.S. The review would cover a 10-year period beginning February 1, 2009 and the report would be due on December 1, 2009.

Nuclear Posture Review – Directs the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy to conduct a review of the nuclear posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10 years. The new nuclear posture review (NPR) would be submitted to Congress in December 2009.

Policy Report on Iran – Prohibits the Secretary of Defense from obligating more than 75 percent of the funds available for FY2008 to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy until the report on United States policy for Iran, mandated by the FY2007 Defense Authorization bill, is submitted to Congress.

If you’re interested in more information on SASC’s markup of the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, including funding levels for other defense-related programs and the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the complete analysis by Hellman and Sharp can be found here.