Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
3/20/2015
The House and Senate Budget Committees this week released their versions of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget resolution, creating cautious optimism among nuclear weapons complex observers about how much extra defense money—if any—will be available to lawmakers in Fiscal Year 2016 for nuclear modernization efforts. The Senate Budget Committee adhered to the $523 billion defense cap put in place by the Budget Control Act, but an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) increased the amount for Overseas Contingency Operations from $58 billion to $89 billion.
The House budget resolution calls for $94 billion in OCO funds, and extra OCO funds could free up defense money to support increase for strategic nuclear programs in President Obama’s FY 2016 budget request. The Senate plan also would create a “deficit-neutral reserve fund” that could boost defense spending if an agreement is reached later this year to do away with budget caps put in place in the Budget Control Act.
The House and Senate are expected to vote on the measures next week. Whether any extra money will free up space for increases for spending on nuclear weapons remains unclear, and Congressional staffers suggested there wouldn’t be clarity until 302(b) allocations that set spending levels for each appropriations committee are unveiled later this year. However, staffers suggested that if there were increases in the OCO account, it would provide greater flexibility to accommodate an increase for NNSA nuclear weapons funding and money for DoD nuclear delivery systems.
Administration Officials Bemoan Potential ‘Devastating’ Impact of Sequestration
President Obama requested $561 billion for defense activities in Fiscal Year 2016 (which includes money for DOE national security work, like the National Nuclear Security Administration), $38 billion more than budget caps established in the Budget Control Act. Of that amount, $8.8 billion is for the NNSA’s weapons program, a $615 million increase from FY 2015 enacted levels. NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz said the impact of sequestration on the NNSA’s weapons program in FY 2016 would be “devastating,” potentially forcing the agency to delay or cancel the NNSA’s surveillance and life extension programs.
Nuclear Weapons Council Chairman Frank Kendall also spoke out against sequester cuts, saying the Administration’s modernization plan no longer had any “flexibility” in it to absorb funding cuts. “This is an extremely high priority for us,” Kendall told the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee earlier this month, later adding: “We would, I think, have to reexamine everything in both departments [Defense and Energy] under sequester. That said, we’re looking at the percentage of our budget that’s involved here. We would do our best to protect this area because the strategic deterrent mission area is so vital.”
Different Approaches to Defense Spending
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and other members of the committee have pushed the House Budget Committee to relax the caps and allow for more defense spending in FY 2016. In a Feb. 27 letter to House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Thornberry called for $577 billion in defense spending in FY 2016. “If this is not feasible in the first year, the committee recommends, at a minimum, last year’s House-passed Budget Resolution level of $566.0 billion for national defense in the base budget for FY16 with restoration to pre-sequestration level funding in FY17 and out,” Thornberry wrote.
House appropriators, however, haven’t been as receptive. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said tough choices would have to be made because of the budget caps, and Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) asked Klotz at a House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing March 4 to cooperate with appropriators in finding ways to cut funding to adhere to sequestration levels. “There is a distinct possibility we have to mark to the wall here,” Frelinghuysen said. “We’re going to need your cooperation and support to make the right decisions. No matter what our military brass says, and I think most members feel the nuclear deterrent is critically important, we still have to mark to those budget caps. More cooperation, not that we have any resistance, is better than less. And I’m confident we’ll meet our obligations to support the deterrent.”
