Hearing of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee - Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear Programs Budget Request

Statement

The Armed Forces Subcommittee on Strategic Forces today received testimony from Department of Defense and Department of Energy senior officials on the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for nuclear weapons and atomic energy defense activities. The hearing marks the first time in recent years that Pentagon witnesses have testified before the Armed Services Committee or one of its subcommittees to specifically discuss Department of Defense nuclear programs and budgets.

Subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) released the following opening statement in conjunction with the subcommittee's hearing:

"This annual nuclear budget hearing has typically focused solely on the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). However, the Department of Defense (DOD) also has a significant role in maintaining our nation's nuclear deterrent and, as the primary customer for NNSA's Weapons Activities, is directly responsible for shaping many of NNSA's plans and programs. Therefore, I have asked three key DOD leaders to testify in a second panel on the Department's nuclear programs and budgets, and the linkages with NNSA.

"Remarkably, a strong bipartisan and bicameral consensus has been forged over the need for nuclear modernization. This way was paved two years ago with the important work done by the bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission, led by Dr. William Perry and Dr. James Schlesinger. Less than two weeks ago, all 16 members of this subcommittee sent a letter to the Budget Committee urging them to support NNSA's funding increases and to ensure such funds are categorized as national defense.

"The Nuclear Posture Review and the Section 1251 Report made many promises with respect to the modernization of our nuclear warheads, delivery systems, and infrastructure. Based on what I have seen thus far of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request, I am encouraged that the Administration appears ready to honor these promises. But there is much work to be done, and my focus today is to understand exactly how those promises are being implemented in the plans, programs and budgets of NNSA and DOD.

"NNSA has outlined a tightly choreographed warhead life extension plan over the next two decades that meets DOD requirements, matches its available capacity and workforce, and syncs to its infrastructure modernization plans. Any perturbations in this plan or changes in funding have wide-reaching implications.

"To this end, I am particularly concerned about the B-61 life extension program (LEP). Despite specific timeline requirements, the magnitude of the B-61 LEP will not be known until the cost and design study is completed later this year. NNSA has been unable to start the W-78 life extension program--which will also explore the feasibility of a common ICBM and SLBM warhead--due to limitations in the Continuing Resolution. I would ask Administrator D'Agostino to discuss how these programs are being managed to minimize schedule and cost risk.

"I am also concerned about NNSA's two major construction projects at Los Alamos and Y-12. This year's budget request includes revised cost estimates for both projects--based on 45-percent completed design--which are significantly higher than earlier estimates. Despite this cost growth, only $340 million has been added to the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The majority of the construction funds will come outside the FYNSP. I would like to understand what is driving these costs and how NNSA plans to simultaneously manage these large-scale construction projects.

"The $4.1 billion increase in modernization funding contained in last November's 1251 Report is welcome, but upon further inspection, is a bit misleading. Of the $4.1 billion added to the FYNSP, $1.5 billion of this--or, 37-percent--is allocated to employee pension plans, not modernization. I am open to any ideas that could give NNSA and its contractors greater flexibility in meeting their pension obligations.

"On the DOD side, the NPR and 1251 Report describe plans for the sustainment and modernization of several DOD systems including: a new bomber, dual capable aircraft, a new cruise missile, a potential ICBM follow-on, the Ohio-class replacement submarine, the Trident D5 life extension program, a new joint Air Force-Navy fuze replacement program, and the nuclear command and control infrastructure. This is a tremendous "to-do' list. Does the budget request merely contain placeholders for these plans or are there concrete activities associated with each? I am also concerned about the solid rocket motor industrial base and I know that Admiral Benedict's budget, in particular, has increased to accommodate rising costs to sustain this important capability.

"Another issue I am closely watching is the implementation of the New START Treaty. We have yet to see exactly how DOD will implement the force reductions in the Treaty or the associated funding requirements. However, senior Administration officials, including the President's national security advisor, have already commented that, "We're making preparations for the next round of nuclear reductions' and that "the Department of Defense will… develop options for further reductions in our current nuclear stockpile.' It would seem to me that we need to understand and work through the details of how to smartly implement New START before rushing towards another round of reductions.

"Additionally, and I've said this in previous years, I remain concerned about nuclear safety and security. There is no margin for error in the nuclear business. I would appreciate our witnesses also discussing their efforts to address nuclear safety and security, including Dr. Winokur's safety assessment of our nuclear facilities and operations.

"In the area of Environmental Management (EM), I would welcome Dr. Triay's update on EM progress to-date, her priorities, and the challenges ahead. Additionally, our committee included a provision in last year's defense bill to authorize the establishment of energy parks on former defense nuclear facilities. Miamisburg Mound in my district in Ohio was once a key Cold War era nuclear production facility and, after an extensive clean-up effort, has been redeveloped into a business park for high-tech companies. It is just such a candidate for channeling the community's legacy nuclear expertise into new energy research.

"I have also asked Deputy NNSA Administrator Harrington to participate in today's hearing to address member questions on nuclear nonproliferation. This issue is handled at the full committee level, but we have been given approval by Chairman McKeon to discuss it today with our expert witnesses. There is strong bipartisan support to keep dangerous material out of the wrong hands, especially for the urgent task of identifying, securing, and reducing foreign sources of potential nuclear and radiological threats. The committee is also closely monitoring plans to build nuclear Centers of Excellence in China and India to understand their scope and how DOD and NNSA funding would be used.

"On a final note, I want to make it clear that while our subcommittee supports the increase in nuclear funding, we do not write blank checks. We will continue to conduct rigorous oversight of the nuclear portfolio, seek out areas for cost savings and efficiencies, and make budget modifications consistent with our oversight findings."

Source