Of Money and Bombs

Over the past three weeks, members of Congress have been wielding the power of the purse. Happily for many of us, deliberations raised concerns about fiscal oversight of the nuclear weapons budget.

The debate over transparency and accountability reflects a broader policy discussion and increased scrutiny of defense spending. Partisan rancor over New START and the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship surfaced in the process, echoes of which are sure to find their way into national security talking points as election season gets underway.

Appropriations bills are notoriously hard to follow. For those who are not following every move: here’s a rundown of what’s happening and what it means for the larger debate around nuclear weapons.

This week, the House of Representatives marked up its version of the Defense Appropriations bill. The Senate is not far behind: Tuesday the Senate Armed Services Committee offered its own draft Defense Authorization bill.

 

Authorizing Spending

Authorization bills set allowed spending levels, while separate appropriations bills fix actual funding amounts. The House wrapped up its authorization process, and now the Senate takes its turn setting levels for nuclear weapons-related spending. After the full Senate votes on its final product, both bills must be reconciled and delivered to the President.

The House Defense Authorization Bill amendments of note:

·         In a bid to rein in gains made by New START ratification, an amendment passed to delay force reductions under New START until the Secretaries of Defense and Energy certify that the plan to modernize the nuclear weapons complex and delivery systems is being carried out. Further hindering cuts to the U.S. arsenal, the provision also limits reductions in U.S. warheads held in reserve until several conditions are met. In particular, two new facilities—the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility and Uranium Processing Facility—must be operational, which will not be until at least 2024.

·         Another provision passed to prevent unilateral reductions below New START limits.

The Administration responded with the following statement on the New START conditions: If the final bill presented to the President includes these provisions, the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.

Meanwhile the Senate is considering its fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill which covers Defense Department spending and the Energy Department's national security activities.

·         Raising concerns over wasteful spending, the Armed Services Committee requested congressional auditors assess "external oversight options" for the Energy Department's nuclear weapons sites.

·          It slated $1.1 billion for ongoing work to replace the nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines.

·         Unlike the House bill, the Committee draft would not put conditions on New START implementation.

 

Appropriating the Dollars

Nailing down specific dollar amounts, last week the House Appropriations Committee marked up its Energy and Water Appropriations bill, recommending $7 billion for nuclear weapons activities. That amount is $195 million above fiscal year 2011 levels but $497 million below the President’s request. Nukes of Hazard notes Chairman Rep. Freylinghuysen’s (R-NJ) remarked at full Committee mark up that:

Yes, Weapons Activities is below the President’s request but his request included hundreds of millions of dollars for construction projects that are not ready to move forward, capabilities that are secondary to the primary mission of keeping our stockpile ready and, yes, slush funds that the administration has historically used to address its needs.

The committee’s language also asserted need for transparency and accountability and concern among members over altering warheads through funds to the Life Extension Programs (LEP) for the B61 warhead. The report calls for a “cost-benefit analysis of warhead enhancements and concerns about the growing footprint of the nuclear weapons complex.” Additional language addressed chronic cost overruns of nuclear weapons facility construction projects and noted, “the Committee also has a commitment to ensure that all taxpayer funds are used responsibly and that only the most cost-effective opportunities are being pursued to meet defense imperatives.”

 

Read more about nuclear weapons cuts from Ploughshares Fund grantees:

Union of Concerned Scientists – All Things Nuclear

Center for Nonproliferation and Arms Control – Nukes of Hazard

For weapons lab-based budget analysis see TriValley CAREs

and Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

Peace Action West and the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World offer tips and scripts for engaging your members of Congress on the nuclear weapons-related budget:

See also “Getting Control of the Nuclear Budget”

 

 

Photo courtesy of anadelmann on Flickr.com