WASHINGTON NUCLEAR UPDATE: SPECIAL EDITION

November 24, 2004

Congress Stops 2005 Funding for New U.S. Nuclear Weapons

BASIC Deputy Director, Matt Martin, Explains Why and Adds a Note of Caution

For further information contact Matt Martin, +1 202 546 8055 (mmartin at basicint.org).

Key Points:

• Congress kills President Bush's 2005 nuclear weapons funding requests:
  • Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
  • Advanced Concepts
  • Modern Pit Facility
  • Enhanced test readiness
• Cuts due to a confluence of factors
• Cuts a dramatic success for international nonproliferation efforts
• Bush Administration is likely to request a restoration of funds next budget cycle

Introduction

In a stunning blow to the U.S. Administration, Congressional appropriators have cut all funding for four contentious nuclear weapons programs that have been high on President Bush's agenda: the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Advanced Concepts, the Modern Pit Facility, and enhanced test readiness accounts. This is a startling repudiation of the president's priorities from a Republican-controlled Congress that has been nearly unwavering in their support of all Administration requests in the post-September 11 world. How did this happen?

Success, as they say, has many fathers, and that certainly applies in this case. A range of pressure from many places-moderate members of Congress, long-standing hard work from international security experts, attention in the media, and international concern-mixed with a heavy dose of sausage-making inner workings of the Congressional appropriators with their backs to the wall, resulted in a variety of outcomes that brought happiness to some and wonderment to all.

Congress and the Appropriations Process

Congress, as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution, has relatively few hard and fast duties, the primary one being to organize and fund the work of the federal government on a yearly basis. Yet somehow, for at least the last decade, this seems beyond the capacity of the regular working order. Up until last weekend, Congress had only passed four of the mandatory thirteen spending bills for 2005, even though the fiscal year started over a month and a half ago. Moreover, the continuing resolution for the remaining nine spending bills-which kept the government open while appropriators tried to come to agreement-was set to expire last Saturday. As a result, everything that the U.S. government does for the next year in every area, aside from defense, military construction, homeland security, and funding for the District of Columbia, had to be somehow worked out before the stroke of midnight on Saturday. The pressure for last minute horse-trading was immense, and on the nuclear weapons issues, at least, the differences separating the various sides were significant.

Back in June, Representative Dave Hobson, chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, showed tremendous courage, independence, and skill, and passed an energy bill that reined in Administration requests on nuclear weapons while advancing funding for nonproliferation and stockpile management programs. The House energy bill excluded funding not only for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and the advanced concepts programs, but also the modern pit facility and enhanced test readiness programs. In a forceful repudiation of Administration plans, Rep. Hobson stated that "[t]he NNSA [National Nuclear Security Administration] needs to take a "time-out" on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new stockpile plan." At a National Academies of Science conference earlier this year, Hobson expanded on his thinking, calling the Bush Administration's nuclear weapons pursuits "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons," taking a clear stand for nonproliferation efforts.

Meanwhile in the Senate, fundamental differences on funding for the Yucca Mountain waste site between Senator Pete Domenici (chair of the Energy Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee) and Ranking Member Senator Harry Reid kept the Senate energy bill bottled up in the committee without resolution all year. Many considered it possible that there would be no energy bill until next year, and that a new continuing resolution would be passed until the new Congress convened in January.

The role of Senator Stevens and the Power of Water

Into this multi-faceted struggle between Senate members as well as with the House overall, enter Senator Ted Stevens, the forceful chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Stevens is well-known for holding forth on the Senate floor wearing his Incredible Hulk tie during debates over spending bills, listening to all and yielding to none. His interest in seeing an energy bill completed in 2004 was largely due to the thousands of local and state water projects interspersed throughout the bill, which all members love to tout to their local constituencies and media to show their effectiveness back in Washington, D.C. No energy bill means fewer opportunities for happy holiday stories with the members back in their districts, and he wasn't going to let that happen.

So, with only a few days to go before the expiration of the continuing resolution last week, Senator Stevens strongly encouraged the warring factions to come to a compromise. In the end, the result was that everyone got something out of the deal. The House and Rep. Hobson won on cutting funding for new and modified nuclear weapons programs; Senator Domenici received funding for stockpile stewardship and the nuclear labs in his home state of New Mexico; and Senator Reid got his key nuclear staffer appointed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will have final decision on whether or not to allow Yucca Mountain to open.

A Victory for Opponents of New Nukes . . .

The final result is also clearly a victory for those who oppose work on new and modified nuclear weapons, and as such it is to be praised. At a time when the Bush Administration has declared the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction its highest priority, the Congressional decision to stop funding for new nuclear weapons raises the level of consistency in U.S. policy, and strengthens the U.S. hand in dealing with a number of contentious issues in the international arena, particularly Iran and North Korea. With the May 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference fast approaching and many international members skeptical of U.S. resolve and commitment to the international nonproliferation regime, this step should give heart to the international community and impel them to increase and further their own efforts.

. . . with Provisos

But we should not forget the circumstances within which this outcome occurred, and a review of other odd outcomes from the same bill is enlightening. Also wrapped up in the gargantuan, $388 billion, nine-spending-bills omnibus bill passed last Saturday were the following provisions:

• a section that gives the Appropriations Committee the right to review Americans' tax returns;
• a section barring states from enforcing laws that require health care providers, hospitals, Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) or insurers to pay for, provide or give referrals for abortion; and
• sections on overtime regulations and the outsourcing of government jobs.

Members on both sides of the aisle and in both houses admit that the budget process is in critical disarray, if not entirely broken. For two of the last three years, Congress could not reach a basic, overarching budget agreement, even though the law requires it. Clearly, in this environment, opponents of new nuclear weapons research and development cannot always count on wise and insightful policymakers to guide these spending priorities.

And what will be the Bush Administration's response? A veto is highly unlikely, both because of the enormity of the spending bill and also the rancor it would raise with members of Congress who have left D.C. for the holidays and who are already potentially faced with returning to the capitol to deal with intelligence reform-which they also were unable to complete in a timely fashion. So it is very likely that these cuts will remain, at least until the 2006 budget cycle.

On the other hand, preliminary discussions on the 2006 budget are likely already underway at the departmental level and President Bush will submit his budget formally in early April. President Bush has made new and modified nuclear weapons an important piece of his plan for U.S. strategic planning, and he is not likely to give up easily on this effort. He may renew his request for funding in next year's budget. He may attempt to redirect efforts at the national labs to continue related efforts while staying within the now Congressionally-prescribed limits. He may offer a new bargain, along the lines of proposing new cuts in the nuclear stockpile, dependent on allowing research and development on new and modified nuclear weapons to continue.

And the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is likely to fall directly in the midst of at least some of these potentialities.

Conclusion

This Congressional action-cutting funding on a host of nuclear weapons activities, from the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, to Advanced Concepts, to the modern pit facility, to enhanced test readiness-is a welcome sea change from the U.S. Congress, which will hopefully maintain this brand of assertiveness and independence from the executive branch next year and beyond. Now the challenge is to ensure that the fortunate outcomes of this year's Congressional budget debates become regularized and consistent. Those who support these actions must now build on this success and cement these outcomes so that the United States will not be the breakout state that develops new nuclear weapons and will instead choose to lead the global community toward more comprehensive nonproliferation efforts and greater international security.

Click here for a Printer-Friendly Version.