The mess that is the appropriations process in Congress right now has already been a topic of conversation here at NoH.  Bill Matthews has a nice summary of the situation and what it means in the Oct. 11 edition of Defense News.  I flag this piece for you because Travis makes an all-star appearance:

The same may be true if Republicans could win control of one or both houses of Congress. They may decide not to let legislation that the Democrats drafted pass this year because they will be in a position to rewrite in when the next Congress begins work in January, said Travis Sharp, a defense budget analyst at the Center for a New American Security.

In that case, the current continuing resolution would likely be extended.

Even if the Democrats retain control of the House and Senate, the Republicans have little incentive to yield to them on the defense bills.

“Presidential campaigning for 2012 begins in November, literally as soon as midterm elections are over,” Sharp said.

Republicans will be looking for issues they can use in the campaign, among them, maintaining the ban on gays in the military and blocking immigration reform.

Perhaps the most optimistic outcome would be “a more closely divided House and Senate,” Sharp said. “The impact for defense legislation is that you would see much cleaner authorization and appropriations bills.”

The reason: Members in both houses generally support the military and are generous about spending money on it. But the defense bills attract controversial and not necessarily germane amendments because the bills are considered “must pass” legislation. So measures that can’t pass on their own sometimes slip through as amendments to defense bills.

With more equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, particularly in the Senate, there would be less chance of getting enough votes to pass controversial amendments, so fewer would be attached to the defense bills, Sharp said.

Read more

Security Matters, Congress, FY2011 Budget Request (all tags)

As Laicie noted yesterday, with the end of FY 2010 set for 12:00 AM on Oct. 1, the last major piece of legislation lawmakers need to wrap up before heading out for the elections is a Continuing Resolution (CR) to ensure that the federal government keeps operating.

While the CR will fund most programs at FY 2010 spending levels through December 3, the Senate version of the bill contains some exceptions for funding above FY 2010 levels.

One of those exceptions is the Obama administration's budget request for a $624 million increase for weapons activities at NNSA.  The CR apparently specifically links the exception to the New START treaty.  Word from the Hill as late as this afternoon was that this funding, which has already been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, would not be included in the CR.  

Stay tuned for more developments, particularly whether the House signs on to the addition.

UPDATE 9/30 9:30 AM: Yesterday evening the Senate passed the CR by a vote of 69-30. Later in the evening the House passed the bill, which also included the $624 million exception for NNSA, 228-194. The text of the bill can be found here. According to House Appropriations Committee summary of the CR, the funding "anomaly" for NNSA is "in support of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)." Its no secret that the Obama administration wanted this money added on to the bill, but amidst all the shrieking for a "clean CR" it wasn't clear until the last minute whether the money would make it.  

President Obama will sign the CR sometime today.

CLARIFICATION 9/30 (1:45 PM): Since the CR only runs until December 3, technically the bill does not contain a $624 million increase above FY2010, but rather 2 months of funding in line with the FY2011 request. If during the lame duck the Energy and Water appropriations bill is conferenced and passed, rolled into an omnibus appropriations bill, or if it is the subject of another CR after December 3, the status of the remainder of the FY2011 request could change. Regardless, the decision to fund NNSA weapons activities at FY2011 levels in the CR is yet further evidence of the administration's commitment to maintain the stockpile and modernize the infrastructure.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Congress, FY2011 Budget Request (all tags)

You may recall the policy debate over Afghanistan from last year:

Analyst 1: [Counterterrorism] is better. I go on first and clean the [foreign nation].
Analyst 2: [Counterinsurgency] is better. I leave the [foreign nation] silky and smooth.
Analyst 1: Oh, really, fool?
Analyst 2: Really.
[Fracas ensues…]

People feel strongly about other policy debates, too. For instance, some people feel that the United States is focusing too much on counterinsurgency. Others feel that nuclear terrorism has been overhyped.

Feelings are nice things. I enjoy feelings. But what do we spend?

Read more

Security Matters, Defense Spending, FY2011 Budget Request (all tags)

Jason Sigger skillfully critiques Elaine Grossman’s recent story on Pentagon counter-WMD efforts. His closing argument about the value of the military’s role is spot on. Yet I question whether elevating nuclear terrorism’s prominence in U.S. defense white papers and making the corresponding alterations to operational programs ought to be labeled “wasting assets” simply because we all agree that nuclear terrorism is less likely than other threats. It’s important to differentiate between the rhetorical flourishes of national security commentators (“Give me what I want on any issue under the sun or NUCLEAR TERRORISM!!!”), which understandably irk, and the actual allocation of resources (only two-tenths of one percent of U.S. security spending goes toward helping foreign governments stop the theft of nuclear materials). Is two-tenths of one percent wasted on protecting against a contingency that, were it to occur, would produce catastrophic consequences?

Max Bergmann bonks the notion that New START ratification can be de-politicized. Learn it, live it, love it: “[I]t makes little sense to pursue a ratification strategy that seeks to ‘de-politicize’ treaty ratification, when it is clear that treaty opponents will in fact aggressively politicize treaty ratification,” writes Bergman. Not to say that winning in Box #1 will be easy, of course.

The Stimson Center last week released its analysis of the FY 2011 international affairs budget request. There are big increases across the board.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Table Scraps, Nuclear Terrorism, FY2011 Budget Request (all tags)

While the results of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) have yet to be released, we can be sure that at least one decision has already been made: Full steam ahead on a major refurbishment study for the B61 gravity bomb.  

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s FY 2011 budget, released yesterday, includes $251.6 million for the B61 Phase 6.2/6.2A design definition and cost study, an increase of nearly $220 million over what Congress appropriated for FY 2010.  As I had suspected, last year’s request of $60 million and Congressional appropriation of $32.5 million for a non-nuclear refurbishment study turned out to be a mere placeholder that paved the way for a much larger request (and likely appropriation) for a full nuclear and non-nuclear study this year.  NNSA describes the purpose of the study as follows:

In FY 2011, funding supports a life extension study of the nuclear and non-nuclear components scope, including implementation of enhanced surety, extended service life and modification consolidation. This life extension study in coordination with the B61 Project Officers Group will publish a Phase 6.2A Report and Weapons Design and Cost Report. This report will document the conceptual designs, program costs and schedules associated with the nuclear and non-nuclear refurbishment scope, including development of concepts and costs to replace arming and fuzing components (e.g., neutron generator, power supplies, radars and programmer) to address near term end-of-life and sustainment concerns on the B61 bomb family. The study will evaluate options for improving safety and use control features and ensures compatibility and integration with modern aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Completion of the study will also provide options and a path forward to enable LANL and SNL participation in development of detailed designs to extend the life of the nuclear explosive package which may include an extension of the B61 nuclear primary’s life (reusing the existing B61 nuclear pit), potential implementation of multipoint safety, and reuse or remanufacture of the canned subassembly (CSA) and for a complete life extension of the B61 -3, -4, -7, and -10, if directed by the Nuclear Weapons Council.

A few things stand out here…

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, B61, FY2011 Budget Request, tactical nuclear weapons (all tags)