Congress returned from its Memorial Day recess with a full agenda on key global security issues, including the administration's so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program and its controversial proposal to build missile defense interceptors and radars in Europe. Last month, we achieved a significant initial victory when a critical House sub-committee agreed to zero out all Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) funding for the RRW program amid a flurry of activity in both the House and Senate.

Cart before the Horse: Committees Call for Comprehensive Nuclear Policy Review/Strategy

On May 23, our efforts to stop the RRW took a major step forward when the House Energy & Water Appropriations Committee unanimously agreed to zero out the entire $118 million FY08 funding request for the program, as part of its consideration of the annual Energy & Water Appropriations Bill. The full House Appropriations Committee approved that proposal on June 6. The Senate Energy & Water Appropriations Committee is expected to take up its version of the bill the week of June 18 or 25.

Also in May, the full House approved their version of the FY08 defense authorization bill. The bill reduced RRW by $45 million, and limited the program to a design and cost study, prohibiting any engineering and development. The bill also includes language calling for a congressional commission on nuclear policy that will submit findings by December 2008. We worked with several offices to try, at a minimum, to get a debate about the RRW and nuclear policy issues during floor consideration of the bill, but unfortunately the new congressional leadership opposed those efforts, and no debate took place.

The creation of, and funding for, programs is a multi-step process. The authorization bill creates programs and sets policies, while the appropriations bill actually provides the funding. If the results in the House stand, the RRW program would be authorized, but would not get any funding.

On May 23, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) marked-up its version of the defense authorization bill and took a confusing and troubling approach. Rather than using the $118.8 million budget request for RRW indicated by the Bush administration, they declared that the RRW program was also being funded in several other budget areas, and that total funding for the program was $238 million. From that, they cut $43 million, leaving $195 million in funding for RRW. The majority of the $43 million cut was $23 million for the proposed Consolidated Plutonium Center, the facility to make new plutonium "pits" for nuclear warheads. This indicates strong support for the RRW program in the committee, but less support for the Department of Energy's vision for the proposed "Complex 2030" revitalized weapons manufacturing infrastructure. The full Senate is expected to take up the bill in late June, after which the House and Senate will need to reconcile their versions of the bill.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is likely to pass its bill later this month, and that will go a long way toward deciding the actual funding for the RRW program.

U.S. - Russia Tensions Rising Over Proposed European Missile Defense

Russian President Vladimir Putin is publicly warning that a "new arms race" is upon us and that there will be serious international consequences if the United States proceeds with its plan to place missile defense interceptors and radars in Europe. Meanwhile, another U.S. missile defense flight test failed—the target missile did not reach the defended zone so the interceptor could not engage it.

Russia objects strongly to the European proposal, since it places a strategic missile defense site near Russia's border. Moreover, the plan is unpopular with much of the public in Poland and the Czech Republic. Because the United States is working directly with Poland and the Czech Republic as opposed to working within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) framework, a number of U.S. allies in Europe have also expressed concern that this plan would undermine NATO.

In its version of the defense authorization bill, the full House cut $160 million of the $310 million requested for the European site while the Senate Armed Services Committee has reduced the request by $85 million. The House, sensibly, said funding for the interceptors should not be provided until the new version planned for this site has had end-to-end testing, something that will not happen for years.

Recent UCS Testimony/Comments

On May 23, 2007, Dr. Laura Grego, UCS staff scientist, testified before the House Subcommittee on National

Security and Foreign Affairs, which is part of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The hearing, "Weaponizing Space: Is Current U.S. Policy Protecting Our National Security?" featured both administration and military officials as well as outside experts.

Dr. Edwin Lyman, UCS staff scientist, submitted comments on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) on June 4, 2007. The GNEP proposal has enormous flaws, and Dr. Lyman's comments highlight in particular the faulty claims that the proposed technology will not make it easier for terrorists to obtain weapons-usable nuclear materials.

If you have any questions or have had feedback (e.g. letters) from your members of Congress, please feel free to contact me at 617-301-8065 or smeyer@ucsusa.org.

Thank you,

Sean Meyer
National Field Organizer
Global Security Program