CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – DEFENSE
May 9, 2012 – 7:54 p.m.
New Facilities Sought by Panel Republicans Entail Billions in Added Costs
By Frank Oliveri, CQ Staff
In working on the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, House Armed Services Republicans have added billions of dollars in the coming years for facilities and capabilities that the military says it does not need, effectively flouting a deficit reduction law many of them supported.
On Wednesday, the panel approved an amendment that would compel the Defense Department to continue planning and building a costly and controversial nuclear weapons modernization facility in New Mexico that officials hope to defer for several years. This comes on top of a provision added to the bill (
Panel Republicans insist they are concerned first and foremost about protecting the nation.
“I think with defense spending, we have to start with what is necessary and required,” said
House Republicans made clear their intention to ignore budget caps placed on defense by last year’s deficit reduction law (PL 112-25) by proposing about $8 billion more in spending than the law would permit. The bipartisan law has already required the Pentagon to reduce planned spending by $490 billion over 10 years. The Pentagon also is facing an across-the-board reduction of almost $500 billion over the same period because lawmakers were unable to reach a deal to reduce future federal spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
But while these particular amendments would only add about $260 million in fiscal 2013 — $160 million of which would come from a prior year appropriation — they could add more than $10 billion to facility construction costs alone in the coming years, and untold more in long-term operations of those facilities.
The Senate Armed Services Committee will mark up its version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill beginning May 22. It is expected to observe the caps on defense set in the deficit reduction law, setting up a likely showdown between the two bodies later this year.
“These votes today are absolutely about today: that the American people want the mainland United States defended,” Turner said.
Republican Support
At the heart of the panel’s actions are two concerns: a suspicion that President Obama might try to renege on promises he made in 2010 to Senate Republicans to modernize the nuclear stockpile while securing ratification of the new strategic arms reduction treaty (New START) with Russia; and overheard comments the president made to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he needed time to secure an election win before attempting to mollify strong Russian concerns about U.S. missile defense plans in Europe.
“We’re going to move forward, and we don’t care what side deal this president has with” new Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turner said.
During a full committee markup session Wednesday, the panel approved an amendment that would turn over construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) project at Los Alamos, N.M., to military control, rather than the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is under the Energy Department.
The panel approved a second amendment that would allocate $160 million in unspent prior-year appropriations to continue construction and compel the military to continue to fund the project until it achieves initial operating capability in 2024.
New Facilities Sought by Panel Republicans Entail Billions in Added Costs
The CMRR project includes design, construction and start-up of new laboratory facilities so that the Los Alamos Laboratory can continue its mission to maintain and certify the U.S. nuclear stockpile while better protecting the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment, according to a statement from the lab.
The aim of the CMRR project is to make it possible for important technical capabilities, such as analytical chemistry, materials characterization and metallurgy research and development, to be relocated from the existing Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility to more modern laboratory facilities.
Some Democrats, such as
“In a time when our nation can only afford to fund priorities, the inclusion in the budget of a multibillion dollar CMRR facility in Los Alamos at this time is a premature and impractical use of our resources,” Sanchez said. “I support a five-year delay in construction, and I do not believe that will compromise NNSA’s ability to maintain our stockpile, as essential plutonium missions can be performed by the existing complex.”
The new facility is controversial also because it would allow for expanded production of plutonium “pits” and therefore could be used to manufacture new nuclear weapons. Pits are the triggers at the heart of modern thermonuclear weapons.
In 2003, constructing the facility was estimated to cost $400 million. By 2008, the projection jumped to $2 billion. That price tag has increased since, and is now expected to fall between $3.5 billion and $6.5 billion once design is complete.
But Turner said that as part of the New START agreement, Obama agreed to spend additional funds on supporting modernization of nuclear facilities.
“The reason why the facility has fallen behind is because of NNSA’s inability to execute and bring this project on line,” Turner said.
The NNSA is charged with the stewardship of the nuclear stockpile and works hand in hand with the Defense Department. A senior congressional aide noted that in 2010 the Defense Department signed a memorandum of agreement with the Energy Department committing it to transferring $5.7 billion between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2015 for the purposes of modernizing the nuclear stockpile and facilities.
On the missile defense site, Republicans said an East Coast location would help protect the nation against a weapons being developed by the nation’s enemies.
“Iran and North Korea continue to pursue capabilities we know will put the U.S. mainland at risk,” Turner said. “An East Coast site, in all studies and analysis, is an inevitability. What we’re doing is taking that first step because it’s not going to be something that is open on day one. It’s going to be a several-year process.”
But Democrats said that the Pentagon does not need or want the additional site.
“This is an ill-advised funding add to a budget that is already extremely strained, and I will support efforts to use this money to reduce our ballooning federal deficit,”