June 18, By Mary Kaszynski, Derek Bolton, Daniel Painter

Transcription

1 BRIEFING NOTE: NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 A Side-by-Side Comparison of the Nuclear Provisions in the Senate and House Bills June 18, 2012 By Mary Kaszynski, Derek Bolton, Daniel Painter The U.S. Congress is in the process of developing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year The House has already passed its version of the bill by a vote of 299 to 120 in May. The Senate will likely take up the Senate Armed Services draft of the bill in July. The two bills contain a number of provisions on the New START Treaty, nuclear weapons funding, and missile defense. In some cases the restoration of funds for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility, for example the two chambers agree. In other cases notably restrictions on the implementation of the New START Treaty the two bills differ. As the NDAA process unfolds, this side-by-side comparison provides a reference for visualizing the overlapping provisions and the key differences in the Senate and House bills. SOURCE DOCUMENTS SENATE S. 3254: H.R. 4310: Senate Report : House Report : Find out more:

2 Nuclear Policy Modernization Funding Report New START, NPR Modernization Funding and Limits on Reductions 1) Requires the president to certify whether strategic delivery systems modernization is funded at the level laid out in the November 2010 update to the 1251 report (the report required by the 2010 NDAA). (Sec. 1071) If the level of funding is less, then the President must certify in the report required in section 1043 of the 2012 NDAA whether lack of full funding will result in a loss of military capability. If yes, then the president must submit a plan to preserve the capability that would be lost. The president must also certify a commitment to modernization set forth in declaration 12 of the New START Treaty. : The committee believes that the linkage between nuclear modernization and the New START Treaty s implementation is sufficiently established. ( , p 287) 1) Requires the president to certify whether plans to modernize strategic delivery systems are being executed at the level outlined in the 1251 report. Prohibits funding for implementation of New START unless the president is able to issue such a certification. (Sec. 1055) 2) If appropriations fail to meet the levels set in the 1251 report, the president is required to submit a report on: the plan to remedy the shortfall, the effects of the shortfall on the safety, security, reliability, or credibility of the US nuclear forces, and whether and why, in light of the shortfall, remaining a party to the New START Treaty is in the national interest of the United States. Prohibits funding for nuclear reductions until the resource shortfall described in the report has been addressed. (Sec. 1053) Section 1053 states the Sense of Congress regarding the linkage between the New START Treaty and modernization Page 2 of 10

3 CBO Report on Nuclear Weapons Costs 10-year costs of fielding and maintaining the current nuclear weapons and delivery systems. 10-year costs of any life extension, modernization, or replacement of any current nuclear weapons or delivery systems. (Sec. 1073) of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile in Condition 9 of the Resolution of Ratification of the Treaty. (p 235) NPR Report and Funding Limitation Prohibits funds to carry out the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study until the president has certified that: The president s budget request includes the resources required in the 1251 report, The requested level has been provided in an appropriations act, and the sequester has been repealed (or the sequester of security funds has been eliminated). (Sec. 1054) Bill language The only publicly available statements by the administration, including language from the Nuclear Posture Review, suggest the review was specifically instructed by the President and his senior political appointees to only consider reductions to the nuclear forces of the United States. (Sec. 1054) Page 3 of 10

4 1) Nuclear Weapons Council Requires a report on the feasibility of consolidating NNSA facilities to reduce costs (Sec. 3132) The Council shall certify that the NNSA budget request and congressional appropriations meet the nuclear stockpile and the stockpile stewardship requirements. (Sec. 902) Other Nuclear Policy 1) Nuclear Weapons Council Requires a report on whether the Stewardship Stockpile Management Plan meets the requirements of the US national security strategy, and whether the plan adequately meets modernization and refurbishment of the nuclear security enterprise. (Sec. 3134) 2) Prevention of asymmetry of reductions If reductions result in the U.S. arsenal being smaller than the Russian arsenal, the president may not make any reductions to the U.S. stockpile until the STRATCOM Commander reports on a potential strategic imbalance created by the reductions. (Sec.1056) 3) Reduction of warheads on ICBMs Limits the reduction of warheads on ICBMs unless Russia and China make similar reductions. (Sec. 1059) 4) CMRR, UPF and limits on reductions Requires annual certification by the president that CMRR and UPF will be completed by 2021 and operational by If not, then prohibits funds for reducing nondeployed warheads. (Sec. 1058) 5) Tactical nuclear weapons in Europe Limits funds to reduce US nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Europe unless Russia makes similar reductions in its nonstrategic forces (and other conditions). (Sec. 1060) 6) Tactical nuclear weapons to the Western Pacific Requires a report on tactical nuclear weapons to the Page 4 of 10

5 Western Pacific region. (Sec. 1064) 7) China s tunnels Requires a report on the underground tunnel network used by the People s Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States. (Sec. 1063) 8) Interagency Council on the National Laboratories Establishes an interagency council to identify,assess, and ensure adequate support for strategic capabilities at the national laboratories. (Sec. 1062) 9) Nuclear Facilities moved to Military Construction CMRR, UPF, and any nuclear facility initiated after FY12 and costing more than $1 billion will be treated as DOD Military Construction projects. (Sec. 2804) Page 5 of 10

6 DOD Nuclear Programs 1) Funding increase Authorizes a $38 million increase over the request for the Ohio replacement reactor systems development. The committee remains concerned by the 2-year delay of the Ohio-class replacement program, and directs Naval Reactors to deviate as little as possible from the schedule identified in the fiscal year 2012 budget. ( p 285) New Bomber Nuclear Certification Requirement Requires that the bomber be: capable of carrying nuclear weapons as of the date when the bomber achieves initial operating capability, and nuclear certified no later than two years after initial operating capability. (Sec. 211) Ohio-class Submarine 1) Funding increase Authorizes a $97 million increase over the request for the Ohio replacement reactor systems and a $347 million increase for sub R&D. 2) Requires the Navy to maintain a minimum of 12 nuclearpowered ballistic missile submarines. (Sec. 121) The committee recommends restoring the research and development funding that was reduced in the fiscal year 2013 budget request to allow the Department of Defense time to determine how to keep the program on track. ( p 35) The committee disagrees with this decision [to delay procurement by 2 years], and supports procurement of the Ohio-class replacement submarines on the original schedule ( p 328) Page 6 of 10

7 DOE Nuclear Programs 1) Funding Restored Requires NNSA to use $150 million of 2013 authorized funds for CMRR Prior year funding shall be made available Construction costs must not exceed $3.7 billion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility 1) Funding Restored Authorizes $100 million in 2013 Prior year funding of up to $160 million made available Treated as a Military Construction project and authorized at $3.5 billion 2) Timeline must be operational by ) Report requirement Prohibits funds on start of construction of CMRR and UPF until the Nuclear Weapons Council reports on the feasibility of consolidation in NNSA. (Sec. 3132) The committee is strongly concerned with the budget proposal to defer by at least 5 years [which] appears to be a cancellation. Based on the analysis the committee has received to date, it appears that such a cancellation would have an adverse impact on nuclear modernization programs ( p 288) 2) Timeline construction must be completed by 2021; operational by ) Report requirement Requires annual certification by the president that CMRR and UPF will be completed by 2021 and operational by If not, then prohibits funds for reducing nondeployed warheads. (Sec , 4701) Page 7 of 10

8 1) Cost containment Caps total costs for Phase I (processes associated with building 9212) at $4.2 billion. (Sec. 3120) 2) Report requirement Prohibits funds on start of construction of CMRR and UPF until the Nuclear Weapons Council reports on the feasibility of consolidation in NNSA. (Sec. 3132) The committee is fully supportive of replacing building 9212 and building a Uranium Processing Facility The way the NNSA announced this decision leads the committee to believe that this additional funding was made in haste... Uranium Processing Facility 1) Timeline The facility must be completed by 2021 and operational by (Sec. 1058) 2) Transfer to DOD Moves the project to DOD MilCon and authorizes it at $4.2 billion (Sec. 2804) 3) Report requirement Requires annual certification by the president that CMRR and UPF will be completed by 2021 and operational by If not, then prohibits funds for reducing nondeployed warheads. Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Authorizes $389 million (no change from request) Authorizes $389 million (no change from request) The committee continues to be concerned about the significant cost escalation, delays and planning [and that] the projected operating costs for the plant have doubled [and that] almost five years after construction began, the Department of Energy has not yet confirmed any buyer for the MOX fuel. Page 8 of 10

9 NNSA: $11.57 billion ($38.0 million above the request) Weapons activities: $7.60 billion ($25 million above the request Defense nuclear nonproliferation: $2.46 billion (no change from the request) Other: Authorizes the transfer of $150 million from DOD to NNSA if 2013 authorization and appropriations level is lower than $7.9 billion, the level outlined in the Topline NNSA funding NNSA: $11.9 billion ($402 million above the request) Weapons activities: $7.90 billion ($324 million above the request) Defense nuclear nonproliferation: $2.49 billion ($27 million above the request) Page 9 of 10

10 Missile Defense Elements Funding MEADS prohibits funding, a reduction of $401 million THAAD funded at $571 million, a $100 million increase PTSS funded at the request of $297 million Missile Defense Missile Defense Elements Funding MEADS prohibits funding, a reduction of $401 million THAAD funded at $589 million, a $127 million increase PTSS funded at $50 million, a $247 million reduction from funds requested; funds limited until an analysis of alternatives is begun. Regional Ballistic Missile Defense Supports regional ballistic missile defense plans Requires a report on EPAA status and progress, and the planned contributions of NATO members (Sec. 232) Ground-based Midcourse Defense System Funded at the request, $903 million MDA should continue robust, rigorous, and realistic testing of GMD system at pace of one test flight per year. DOD should continue to enhance performance and reliability of GMD system. (Sec. 231) Missile Defense Cooperation with Russia Supports efforts to pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia The United States should pursue such cooperation in a manner that does not in any way limit United States missile defenses and that ensures the protection of United States classified information. (Sec. 233) Regional Ballistic Missile Defense cost-sharing report Requires a report on sharing EPAA costs with NATO (Sec. 230) Ground-based Midcourse Defense System Funded at $1.36 billion, a $460 million increase (incl. $100 million for East Coast missile defense) Develop a plan to increase the rate of flight tests and ground tests of the ground based midcourse defense system ensure that there are at least three flight tests conducted during every two-year period. (Sec. 233) Limitation on Sharing Missile Defense Information with Russia No funds made available for fiscal years 2012 or 2013 may be used to provide the Russian Federation with access to missile defense information that is or was classified as of January 2, (Sec. 1236) East Coast Missile Defense Authorizes $100 million to develop a plan for East Coast missile defense Must be operational by (Sec. 223) Page 10 of 10