Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
5/1/2015
The National Nuclear Security Administration’s weapons program got a significant boost in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act cleared by the House Armed Services Committee this week as the bill authorizes $9.08 billion for the program, up from the $8.84 billion requested by the Obama Administration. A large chunk of the authorized increase would go toward accelerating work on deferred maintenance and physical security projects. The bill would authorize $407 million for recapitalization, a $150 million increase over the President’s request, and $251 million for maintenance, a $24 million boost over the request. The NNSA has a $3.6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance, and a $1.4 billion backlog of physical security upgrades.
Last week, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said he was “appalled” at the conditions at many NNSA sites. “I think it’s safe to say that Pakistan’s nuclear scientists have better facilities than our nuclear workforce in some circumstances,” Rogers said. “In some cases, we are one crumbling chunk of Manhattan Era roofing away from the death of a worker and the shutdown of this nation’s nuclear weapons capability.” The bill would also require the NNSA to submit a 10-year plan to Congress by Sept. 30, 2016, for recapitalizing the weapons complex’s physical security systems.
Sanchez Pushed to Reduce NNSA Funding
Led by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Democrats on the committee unsuccessfully pushed to reduce the authorized funding for the weapons program. Sanchez offered an amendment during a markup hearing that would have cut the authorized funding in the bill by $237 million, including the $150 million boost that had been targeted for recapitalization, shifting it to Army base operations support. The money was not requested by the NNSA, Sanchez noted, and is funding “quite frankly which is not needed.” She said, “Just since last year the weapons account budget request is over 10.5 percent higher than comparable FY ‘15 appropriations. These accounts have been increasing steadily and significantly for the last five years.”
Rogers, however, emphasized that funding was needed for deferred maintenance. He noted that last year, a large chunk of concrete fell from the ceiling of a 60-year-old building at the Y-12 National Security Complex. No one was hurt because no one was in the area at the time the concrete fell. “We are one chunk of Manhattan Project-era concrete away from a dead worker and the shutdown of our nuclear weapons capability,” he said.
Amendments to Cut MOX Funding Unsuccessful
Republicans also fended off two amendments that would have cut $125 million in authorized funding from the Administration’s $345 million request for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, which has been the source of significant controversy surrounding its potential cost. A recent report from The Aerospace Corporation estimated the project could cost $52 billion, or another $47 billion above what’s already been spent on the project, to build and operate, well above previous estimates.
One amendment by Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) would have shifted the funding to a host of Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management sites, while the other one, offered by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) would have shifted the money to the NNSA’s weapons program, where it would be used for recapitalizing infrastructure and safety-related projects. “Let’s prioritize the money right. Let’s not allow this ‘zombie earmark’ to come back to life again,” said Cooper, who coined the “zombie earmark” term during the markup of last year’s defense authorization bill when authorized funding for the project was successfully cut. “To embark on a $47 billion project site unseen is an extraordinary mistake for this committee.”
Cooper later called the project a “bridge to nowhere in American history,” an “extraordinary mistake,” and said it would be a “career-ending mistake for people on this committee.” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), whose district includes the Savannah River Site where MOX is being built, defended the project. “It is proceeding. It will work. It is really a copy of what has been done in France,” he said, adding that the “cost of other alternatives are either more or just not possible.”
Fixed Portal Monitor Provision Remains in Bill
Cooper also unsuccessfully attempted to remove a provision in the bill that would prohibit the NNSA from spending money on fixed radiological portal monitors, which has been a key part of the agency’s nonproliferation work. Funding for mobile monitors is still allowed, according to the bill. Republicans inserted the language in the bill because they believe the fixed portal monitors are not effective in curbing nuclear smuggling and that it would be a better idea to shift funding to higher priority work. Cooper said that where some of the fixed radiological portal monitors are located, “these mountain passes, some of these godforsaken places, the borders of Russia and Pakistan, they do not always work but it puts the fear of the Lord in the smugglers that they could be caught and at least makes them divert to other less passable ways of getting the material out.”
Rogers said the decision to prohibit the funding was part of a strategy to prioritize the most successful programs. “It’s time to set real priorities and follow through on them,” he said, noting that the bill included a funding increase of $55 million for nonproliferation and counterterrorism work. “That’s real money and can help improve on real successful ways of countering proliferation,” Rogers said.
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), however, noted that the fixed monitors should be part of a layered nonproliferation strategy. “Let’s not make it easy for them. Let’s make it as difficult as possible. Certainly putting radiological portal monitors overseas is one of the best things to do in terms of thwarting easy passage,” Langevin said.
Advanced Development of Some Nonprolif. Technologies Restricted
An amendment by Rogers also successfully restricted funding for advanced stages of technical development of some nonproliferation technologies. In particular, the bill prohibits funding for technology “beyond Technology Readiness Level 5” unless the work is for a current arms control or nonproliferation treaty or an agreement that will enter into force within two years of the request for a waiver. Such advanced work is “just a jobs program for bored scientists,” Rogers said. “Let’s set some priorities in our field. Let’s fund things that help national security.” The committee also adopted an amendment drafted by Sanchez to direct the NNSA and its contractors to use best practices for capital asset projects and nuclear weapon life extension programs.
