The Future of Modernization Budgets

By Chris Jones

A few months ago, the Administration was loosening the purse strings in an (ultimately futile) effort to secure Senator Kyl’s vote for the New START Treaty. Since the ratification of the New START Treaty, however, nuclear issues have taken a backseat in Washington as the 112th Congress continues what “is not a workable situation,” according to DEPSEC Lynn, by funding the government in a series of two-week extensions. For nuclear analysts, a looming question is what will happen to the administration’s promises on nuclear funding. Earlier in March, GSN picked up an article from the always strong John Fleck that argued: 

Recently defeated budget bills suggest fiscal 2011 funding for the maintenance of U.S. nuclear weapons will ultimately fall below levels sought by the Obama administration, the Albuquerque Journal reported on Thursday (see GSN, March 3).
President Obama requested $7 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons stockpile activities in the current budget cycle, which ends on September 30. Congress has yet to approve a final budget for the current fiscal year and the federal government is operating under a continuing funding resolution set to expire next Friday.
The fiscal 2011 spending budget passed by the House of Representatives would provide $6.7 billion for nuclear stockpile work. Though the amount is less than what Obama sought, it would provide a 7 percent increase over fiscal 2010 funding levels. A separate Senate budget proposal would have allotted $6.8 billion to NNSA weapons programs.
Though neither the Democrat-sponsored Senate plan nor the Republican-backed House proposal acquired enough votes for passage in the Senate on Wednesday, the fiscal 2011 stockpile funding levels offered by both bills suggest the ultimate amount would fall between $6.7 and $6.8 billion, Friends Committee on National Legislation lobbyist David Culp said.
"The Senate cut less, but certainly followed suit," Union of Concerned Scientists stockpile policy analyst Nickolas Roth said.
The debate over stockpile funding in the current budget cycle indicates fiscal 2012 funding negotiations could be similarly contentious, Culp added.

While these reductions are not THAT large (roughly 3% using the Senate CR number) should the FY 11 budget actually pass, there are major concerns that this is only a preview of bigger reductions to come. Senator Graham explained in February: 

It was not immediately known whether the Senate would put money back in for NNSA nuclear nonproliferation operations and stockpile sustainment activities. U.S. nuclear weapons funding is likely to remain in danger, said speakers at a nuclear conference including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Representative Michael Turner (R-Ohio) and Leland Cogliani, a GOP staffer for the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee.
However, a "national game plan" has been developed to safeguard the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.
"We have it on paper, but I don't believe the average member of Congress has any idea what I'm talking about," Graham said, stressing the need to modernize the nation's nuclear-weapon assets. The senator also called for broader focus on lawmakers, their offices and others to preserve nuclear weapons funding

He made a similar argument in the context of the funds (or potential lack thereof) for the Air Force to study a future ICBM: 

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday that he views a Defense Department misstep in omitting fiscal 2012 funds for a future-ICBM study as a harbinger of the Obama administration's "gradual retreat" from nuclear modernization commitments made last fall.
"It is a sign of things to come," said the South Carolina Republican, speaking at a Washington-area conference on nuclear deterrence. "It is a program that was thought to be valuable ticket-pricewise; it's not that expensive. But it is what I fear the most: a gradual retreat, beginning on the margins, that goes to the heart of the matter."

In response to Graham, a senior administration official quoted in the article said the White House remains "committed to modernizing the stockpile,"  While the White House does seem willing to continue to put its money where its mouth is, it remains to be seen if the Hill will maintain the fragile bipartisan consensus on nuclear modernization funding.  The Congressional deficit hawks on the right, including many of the new members, and leftist Democrats who are not convinced on the merits of modernization, particularly given that New START is now ratified, could easily form an alliance that would not be kind to nuclear funding.  Senator Kyl and other national security Republicans would cry foul, even though they didn't vote for New START, and say the Administration was crossing their fingers the entire time even though the blame lies on Congressional shoulders, both Democrat and Republican.  This could have deleterious implications for the Administration’s nuclear agenda moving forward.  As the administration prepares to tee up issues like the CTBT, significant horse-trading will almost certainly have to be part of the strategy to get the 16ish votes they need.  Congressional unwillingness to come through on nuclear budget requests could easily be a reason, or an excuse, for Senator Kyl and the opposition to say they don't trust Democratic deals because things will just “go for a while and peter out” (his language from the New START debate).  The nuclear complex, meanwhile, would be right back to the unenviable situation of the past decade.