By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Friday approved a major bill that would, among other things, bar the Bush administration from developing or modifying new nuclear weapons for earth penetration missions and cut $812 million from the administration’s $7.8 billion missile defense programs.

The committee version of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill, which has yet to reach the Senate floor, differs distinctly in those areas from a version of the bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, also on Friday, perhaps foreshadowing a conference showdown over those two elements of administration strategic posture.

The House fully authorized the administration’s layered missile defense effort and, with bipartisan support, repealed a 1995 law barring research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons for earth penetration, adding a restriction that bars development only.

“I think we’re facing close votes on the Senate floor for both missile defense funding and the new nuclear bunker buster,” John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World said.

Jon Wolfsthal, an associate at the Nonproliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, does not believe there will be a big fight when members of both houses try to reconcile differences over nuclear policy in conference.

“Nuclear policy issues tend to take a back seat to hardware issues,” he said.   “There will be some debates, there will be some constraints placed, there will be some modifications, but it’s going to be at the margin.”

The two houses also differed on funding for Energy Department nonproliferation programs and on whether to extend the Pentagon’s nonproliferation work beyond the former Soviet states, as has been proposed by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) (see GSN, April 29).  The Senate version would allow it, the House version would prohibit it.

Earth Penetrator Dispute

Funding for the earth penetrator, or “bunker buster” bomb, was opposed by the Senate committee “as a result of growing uncertainty about the administration's plans for the nuclear weapons employment policy and future nuclear weapons development,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in a press release after the vote.

In addition, the energy secretary would be directed to “clearly and specifically identify any funds requested in the future for new or modified nuclear weapons,” Levin said.

The administration, in its annual budget, had requested $15.5 million for studies of options for improving U.S. capabilities for destroying deep and hardened targets, including modifying a previously developed nuclear earth penetrator (see GSN, March 19).  That weapon is said to have insufficient penetrating capabilities and would carry a warhead above five kilotons, which experts expect could create massive civilian casualties depending on where it is used.

The House bill would allow research and “design of a testing device” on low-yield nuclear weapons, which produce an explosion less than five kilotons and theoretically would cause fewer casualties, possibly making such a weapon more usable, although some experts say the numbers still would be massive.

“No president should have their hands tied by outdated laws that stifle research and development into new technologies that will safeguard us in the future,” Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), the amendment’s author, said in a statement after the vote. 

“Without research and development in bunker-busting capabilities, America’s only option in a world of chemical and biological weapons is to focus on responding to an attack, rather than preventing one,” he said.

Weldon’s amendment won bipartisan support after significant compromise on the original language.  It originally proposed conditions under which the ban on low-yield deployment could be repealed and proposed joint U.S-Russia collaboration on the development of conventional nuclear penetrating weapons.

One of the conditions for repealing the 1995 ban was if “another nation has conducted a nuclear test for the purpose of developing new or improved nuclear weapons.”  The New York Times reported Saturday that administration officials had briefed members of Congress, including Weldon, on evidence suggesting Russia is preparing to resume nuclear testing (see related GSN story, today).

Under the compromise version, the Energy Department “can do concept definition work, they can do research work, they can do design work, they can build a wooden mock-up, but they cannot bend metal or do fissile component parts until the law itself is changed,” said Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.), who authored the 1995 law, explaining his support for the amendment.

Missile Defense Differences

The Senate committee’s bill drew divided Republican support, with eight of the 12 Republican committee members voting in opposition. All 17 Democrats voted for the bill.

Senator John Warner (R-Va.), the committee’s ranking Republican, cited the “drastic” reduction in missile defense funding for the opposition, reduction he said all Republican committee members opposed.

The $812 million cut was moved to shipbuilding programs and other strategic programs.

The missile defense cuts were made “in activities which were duplicative, premature or had execution problems,” Levin said.  He had previously said just $50 million of $800 million allocated to the ballistic missile defense systems element was spent last year.

The committee cut $100 million from the Space-Based Infrared System-High program, citing cost and schedule problems and program restructuring.

The Senate committee’s version also would increase congressional and senior military oversight of the ballistic missile defense work, which would reverse to some degree an administration initiative to free the program from traditional cost and scheduling measurements.

It would require a major review and report by the defense secretary to Congress on the cost and schedule progress of the major elements of the program, as well as an annual Pentagon operational assessment and review of the cost schedule and performance criteria for the missile defense programs.

Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish in January assigned the newly created agency new “nonstandard” approaches to measuring missile defense program success, including “expanded authority” to make decisions under “streamlined executive oversight and reporting,” according to a Pentagon memorandum.

Both House and Senate bills propose the largest increase to the defense budget in more than 20 years, of approximately $35 billion as requested by the president.

Other Differences

While both houses fully authorized the administration’s request for Pentagon nonproliferation programs with Russia and other former Soviet states, the House version would cut $39 million from the administration’s $1.1 billion request for Energy Department nuclear nonproliferation programs, citing in part nearly $60 million in “unobligated balances” from the current fiscal year intended for eliminating weapon-grade plutonium in Russia.

The Senate authorized a $15 million increase to that budget, with the extra money to go for research on a new generation of radiation detectors for use by homeland defense authorities.

The Senate bill also would require Energy to examine ways to increase the speed at which it can dismantle nuclear weapons resulting from future reductions.

Administration officials earlier this year said they were not seeking funding to begin in 2003 new operationally deployed warhead reductions scheduled through 2012, which have been proposed by U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin (see GSN, April 16).

In a major announcement, the White House today announced an agreement between the two countries to sign a treaty specifying those reductions (see related GSN story, today).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top