Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
4/17/2015
The Fiscal Year 2016 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account could help the U.S. avert the “disaster” that sequestration would visit upon the Nuclear Enterprise, but the emergency war fund cloaks the long-term budget crunch facing strategic forces, the ranking member on a House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee said during a hearing this week. “The good news is it looks as if we’ll avoid the disaster … and we’ll come in with a number slightly above the President’s request,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Ranking Member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee said during the April 15 hearing. “The bad news is we’re pretending that OCO, Overseas Contingency Operations, will pay for that, which is off-budget, which is like borrowed money, which is like a Band-Aid. So we really haven’t fixed sequestration if we’re not really paying for our nuclear forces, but pretending we’re going to pay for our nuclear forces.” Cooper’s words are the clearest official statement yet that OCO funds could infuse the triad, at least for FY 2016. On March 27, the Senate approved a GOP-led FY 2016 budget resolution that would include $524 billion for defense activities and $96 billion for OCO spending, about $45 billion above President Barack Obama’s FY 2016 OCO request.
Testifying at the hearing, Robert Scher, Assistant Defense Secretary for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities, said stable, long-term funding is critical to support nuclear forces. “To be able to put in a systematic plan to put across budget years is critical for us,” he said. “Stability, and clarity, and transparency of budget figures is important for us to be able to deal with not just this year but future years. … I know we are working to try to get to a situation where we are not reliant on OCO to cover the funding gaps.” While saying he didn’t want to air out too much “dirty laundry,” Cooper touched on his hopes for the budget request to catalyze fixes to morale and equipment problems found in the November-released Nuclear Enterprise Reviews. “There has been a sad litany of failures and problems in recent years,” Cooper said. “Past witnesses may have mouthed the words, but somehow ‘safe, secure, and reliable’ was not necessarily the result.” The Air Force and Navy are working to implement hundreds of recommendations to strengthen the nuclear enterprise that the one internal and one external review presented.
$142B for Nukes Over FYDP
Dr. Arthur Hopkins, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, in testimony submitted to the hearing stated nuclear modernization will require investment over current levels for “much of the next 15 years,” as weapons replacement programs create a bow wave in nuclear delivery system costs. The President’s Budget outlines $142 billion for the nuclear enterprise over the Future Years’ Defense Program, including about $8.5 billion in enhancements recommended by the NERs. “These budget enhancements fall in several key areas: additional oversight to clarify the nuclear deterrent leadership structure and reduce administrative burdens imposed on the forces; increased investment in the nuclear deterrent enterprise to improve and sustain current equipment and infrastructure, and for increased personnel and training; and improvements in the way we conduct inspections, ensure the reliability of our nuclear personnel, and provide for security of our nuclear weapons,” Scher’s testimony states.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) mentioned a January Congressional Budget Office study which estimated the 10-year cost of nuclear weapons at $348 billion over the next decade. In response, Scher said the Defense Department plans extensively for the FYDP, versus a 10-year timeframe. Scher noted that, over the FYDP, nuclear weapons spending is expected to peak in FY 2020, climbing slightly from 3 percent of the total DoD budget in FY 2016 to, possibly, slightly more than 3 percent in FY 2020.
Annual 25-Year Nuclear Cost Estimate Submitted to Congress?
Subcommittee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) asked Hopkins what DoD’s reaction would be to a Congressionally ordered annual report for a 25-year plan with expected budgets and funding for DoD nuclear forces. “I think the initial reaction would be, ‘Oh, no, not another report,’ ” Hopkins responded. “In general, the report would be perceived as burdensome, so that’s the mechanics of it. In fact, as you know, we do look out. These programs we are talking about go well beyond the five-year defense program time limit. We have to think well into the future years.” Hopkins added that while DoD regularly looks ahead 25 years, the credibility of the numbers as part of any official report would be “very, very suspect.” He instead recommended continuing to estimate and report the results of such assessments.
Responding to Congressman’s Question, A10 Chief Addresses Certain Critics
In response to a question by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), who asked whether critics’ characterization of ICBMs being under “hair-trigger alert” was an accurate description, Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, Air Force Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, said it was “absolutely not accurate,” while recognizing the missiles’ responsiveness. “It’s an emotional aspect that people attached to this that is not fundamentally factual to what goes on in ICBM launch-controlled facilities,” Harencak said. “They are very responsive, the most responsive aspect of our nuclear triad, but that characterization is inaccurate and unfair.”
