Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
5/29/2015
The Government Accountability Office is recommending that the Defense and Energy departments address new budgetary obligations and an expanded portfolio of planned weapons projects by requiring officials to attend support meetings more consistently and by revising the 18-year-old document guiding the Nuclear Weapons Council. In a report released last week, the GAO found that the Council “does not have an up-to-date agreement that reflects the processes it uses to carry out its responsibilities,” and that the Council’s optional attendance policy for its support committees’ meetings factors into inconsistent attendance by National Nuclear Security Administration budget and program evaluation officials. The GAO stated these two areas “partially but not fully” adhered to “key practices or related key considerations for implementing collaborative mechanisms,” and the organization noted that the Council’s coordination of DoD’s and NNSA’s nuclear weapons stockpile responsibilities are “generally consistent” with most “key practices for interagency collaboration.”
Council Tasked with New Responsibilities
A 1997 memorandum of agreement between DoD and DOE guides the Nuclear Weapons Council. Today, the Council is planning and overseeing more nuclear weapon refurbishment programs and operates in a different fiscal environment, GAO said. Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 gave the Council new responsibilities including approving programming and budget matters pertaining to nuclear weapons programs and submitting a certification on whether NNSA’s budget plans meet stockpile requirements. “According to DOD and NNSA officials, these additional responsibilities require a significant amount of the Council’s time and reduce the time it has to focus on carrying out its traditional stockpile responsibilities,” the report states.
The GAO said the memorandum of understanding does not define employee responsibilities and the operational framework for the Council’s two support committees—the senior executive-level Standing and Safety Committee and the “subordinate, working-level” Action Officers Group. Council and support committee processes can vary “depending on the preferences of officials in key positions and can change when the officials holding those positions change,” the report states. “For example, DOD and NNSA officials said that the frequency and regularity of Action Officers Group meetings has varied depending on who was serving as the Executive Secretary of the Standing and Safety Committee.”
Would New Memo Be Too ‘Prescriptive?’
Council officials have not updated the memorandum, saying it is not necessary and that it could become too “prescriptive,” according to GAO. But other officials cited “confusion and disagreement” over processes like certifying the budget request for NNSA and that a modernized memo of agreement could improve the clarity and regularity of Council processes. “Without an updated memorandum of agreement that describes Council processes, it may be difficult for the Council to provide greater clarity to support committee members on how their work is to be conducted….The Council could formally document its general processes and procedures and still preserve some flexibility in how it carries out its responsibilities,” GAO stated.
NNSA Officials Absent From Support Committee Meetings
The report also found that while DoD budget and program evaluation officials are invited and generally attend support committee meetings, similar NNSA officials usually refrain largely because support committee members invite them at their own discretion. The absence of those NNSA officials could hamper the flow of budgetary knowledge, according to GAO. “Without a requirement that both DOD and NNSA budget and program evaluation officials consistently attend all support committee meetings, the Council may be limited in its ability to manage and respond to unanticipated budget questions as they arise at meetings,” the report states.
The report explored the Council’s areas of weapon programs, infrastructure-related activities and “other activities related to the Council’s statutory responsibilities.” From those categories, GAO explored the B61-12 and W76-1 life extension programs, the plutonium strategy and “budget-related activities, such as the Council’s certification of the annual budget request for NNSA,” the report stated.
New Memo to Be Finished by 2016
Both NNSA and DoD agreed with the report’s recommendations, but with DoD offering an alternative means of implementation. In a May 6 letter to GAO from Arthur Hopkins, Principal Deputy Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, DoD agreed to update the memorandum of agreement, yet proposed to outline support committee responsibilities in a letter from the Council Chairman to Council members. “This [memorandum] is a high-level agreement between two cabinet Secretaries, and therefore proposes that a description of the roles, responsibilities, structure, and functions support committees should documented in a letter from the [Council] chairman to the [Council] members.” This would prevent the Council from having to renegotiate another interagency memo, Hopkins wrote. The updated Council document would also require DoD and NNSA budget and program evaluation officials to “consistently and routinely attend meetings of the [Council] and support committees,” participate more in support committee meetings.
In a May 7 letter to GAO, NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz said the Council would update the memo by Dec. 30. “NNSA will work collaboratively with the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) and Department of Defense to review and update the standing memorandum of agreement,” the letter states. “As part of this effort, we will ensure appropriate guidance is issued to document requirements for the Council’s two support committees and for participation of budget and evaluation officials in support committee meetings.”
