House Bill Would Tap Into Nuclear Weapons Fund to Aid Veterans

U.S. military veteran and amputee Lloyd Epps walks after doctors serviced his prosthetic leg at a Veterans Administration facility in New York in January. A bill that the House approved on Thursday would cut some controversial nuclear weapons spending in a bid to help veterans.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
May 23, 2014, 10:16 a.m.

The ver­sion of the fisc­al 2015 de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill that the House ap­proved Thursday would cut some con­tro­ver­sial nuc­le­ar weapons spend­ing in a bid to help vet­er­ans.

The le­gis­la­tion — which au­thor­izes but does not ap­pro­pri­ate funds for mil­it­ary-re­lated items — in­cludes two re­lated amend­ments offered by Rep­res­ent­at­ive Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). To­geth­er they would cut $7.5 mil­lion out of the $643 mil­lion that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ques­ted for con­tro­ver­sial ef­forts to ex­tend the life of B-61 grav­ity bombs, many of which are sta­tioned in Europe.

The two pro­vi­sions also would take $7.5 mil­lion out of pro­jects to re­fur­bish the Navy’s W-76 nuc­le­ar war­head — more than half of the fund­ing boost that the Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship of the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee had sought to au­thor­ize for the pro­gram. The bill would al­low up to $266.3 mil­lion in spend­ing on W-76 re­fur­bish­ment, still $7.1 mil­lion more than the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ques­ted.

The money — along with $15 mil­lion that would be cut from the Navy’s ship­build­ing budget — would fund two ini­ti­at­ives:

One would cre­ate “a train­ing pro­gram to in­crease and im­prove fin­an­cial lit­er­acy and train­ing for in­com­ing and out-go­ing mil­it­ary per­son­nel,” ac­cord­ing to the le­gis­la­tion. Ac­cord­ing to a state­ment Kildee provided to Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, this would help ad­dress a prob­lem of “un­scru­pu­lous lenders” tar­get­ing ser­vice mem­bers.

The oth­er would re­quire the Pentagon to com­mis­sion a third-party study meant to “identi­fy de­fi­cien­cies in the treat­ment of wounded war­ri­ors and of­fer re­com­mend­a­tions to the sec­ret­ary of De­fense and Con­gress to im­prove such treat­ment,” the meas­ure states.

The House ap­prov­al of Kildee’s amend­ments comes amid fur­or on Cap­it­ol Hill over rev­el­a­tions about former ser­vice mem­bers who died while on a Vet­er­ans Af­fairs wait­ing list for med­ic­al ap­point­ments in Phoenix.

Ac­cord­ing to Kildee’s staff, “at a time when our wounded ser­vice mem­bers are not get­ting the ad­equate care they de­serve, it is a mis­placed pri­or­ity to spend more money on such nuc­le­ar re­fur­bish­ment pro­grams for out­dated weapons sys­tems, es­pe­cially when the Pentagon has not even asked for it.”

The House also ap­proved, by a 224-199 vote, an amend­ment offered by Rep­res­ent­at­ive Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) that would re­quire the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice to up­date its re­port on the pro­jec­ted costs of U.S. nuc­le­ar forces on an an­nu­al basis. The move fol­lows a re­port earli­er this year by the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies ar­guing that the cur­rent plan for mod­ern­iz­ing the ar­sen­al is too costly to im­ple­ment.

The Re­pub­lic­an-led House Rules Com­mit­tee, however, blocked floor de­bate on an amend­ment offered by Rep­res­ent­at­ives Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and John Gara­mendi (D-Cal­if.) call­ing for more in-depth ana­lys­is on the need to main­tain all three com­pon­ents of the so-called nuc­le­ar tri­ad.

The pro­vi­sion would have re­quired the non­par­tis­an Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice to study the jus­ti­fic­a­tion and ra­tionale for main­tain­ing the three com­pon­ents, which in­clude bombs that can be dropped by air­craft, along with bal­list­ic mis­siles both at sea and on land. The meas­ure would also have in­struc­ted the GAO study and to identi­fy any ex­cess costs that could be trimmed.

The House ap­proved by voice vote an amend­ment offered by Rep­res­ent­at­ive Steve Daines (R-Mont.) — whose home state hosts ground-based mis­sile silos — that would make it “the policy of the United States to op­er­ate, sus­tain and mod­ern­ize or re­place the tri­ad” in its en­tirety.

The House bill also con­tains lan­guage, to which the White House ob­jects, that would re­quire that every in­ter­con­tin­ent­al bal­list­ic mis­sile silo cur­rently con­tain­ing a de­ployed mis­sile be kept op­er­a­tion­al.

At press time, all of the po­ten­tial dis­crep­an­cies with the House bill and the Sen­ate ver­sion of the an­nu­al de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill were not yet clear. The Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee com­pleted draft­ing its ver­sion of the bill on Thursday, but had not yet re­leased the full text of the le­gis­la­tion.

One ap­par­ent dif­fer­ence is that the Sen­ate bill would au­thor­ize $365 mil­lion for the Co­oper­at­ive Threat Re­duc­tion pro­gram — the en­tire amount that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ques­ted. The CTR pro­gram — which se­cures and dis­mantles po­ten­tial weapons of mass de­struc­tion throughout the world that are con­sidered to be a threat to the United States — would be cut by $10.5 mil­lion un­der the House bill.

Un­like the House bill, the Sen­ate le­gis­la­tion would also provide $346 mil­lion — $145 mil­lion more than the ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ques­ted — to con­tin­ue con­struc­tion of a con­tro­ver­sial fa­cil­ity in South Car­o­lina that would con­vert ex­cess bomb-grade plutoni­um in­to nuc­le­ar fuel. The ad­min­is­tra­tion is look­ing to sus­pend con­struc­tion of the fa­cil­ity while it ex­plores oth­er, pos­sibly cheap­er, meth­ods of dis­pos­ing of the plutoni­um.

Some law­makers are ques­tion­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s cost es­tim­ates, however, and have sug­ges­ted it should be able to make a de­cision in less than the 18 months it has pro­jec­ted. Sen­ate ap­pro­pri­at­ors at a budget hear­ing earli­er this month gave Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials two weeks to come up with new ways to make the ori­gin­al mixed-ox­ide fuel con­ver­sion plan cost less.

Ac­cord­ing to NNSA spokes­man Der­rick Robin­son, ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials did have a fol­low-up meet­ing with Sen­at­ors Di­anne Fein­stein (D-Cal­if.) and Lamar Al­ex­an­der (R-Tenn.) last week. It was “a sub­stant­ive con­ver­sa­tion that dis­cussed a range of op­tions and chal­lenges, which in­cluded a dis­cus­sion of MOX costs and op­tions,” he said.

Robin­son did not provide any re­vised cost pro­jec­tions.

Cor­rec­tion: This art­icle was mod­i­fied after pub­lic­a­tion to cor­rect the state Kildee rep­res­ents.
What We're Following See More »
THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
6 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
LATER TO THIS YEAR’S NADER
Jim Webb Rules Out Independent Bid
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

UPDATED: Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will not be playing the role of Ralph Nader in this year’s election. Speaking in Dallas today, Webb said, “We looked at the possibility of an independent candidacy. Theoretically, it could be done, but it is enormously costly and time sensitive, and I don’t see the fundraising trajectory where we could make a realistic run.”

Source:
HE’D SIPHON OFF DEM VOTES
RNC Chief Would Welcome Bloomberg
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

“The lead­ers of the Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic na­tion­al com­mit­tees on Wed­nes­day weighed in on the pro­spect of an in­de­pend­ent pres­id­en­tial run by” former New York City May­or Mi­chael Bloomberg (I). “DNC Chair­wo­man Debbie Wasser­man Schultz sug­ges­ted that the former New York City may­or’s pri­or­it­ies are already ‘well cared-for’ in the Demo­crat­ic plat­form, while RNC lead­er Re­ince Priebus wel­comed the idea, say­ing Bloomberg would si­phon off votes from the Demo­crat­ic can­did­ate.”

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Large Is Hillary Clinton’s Delegate Lead?
8 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Three hundred fifty-two, thanks to superdelegates pledged to Clinton, and the vagaries of the delegate allocation process in early states. Not bad, considering her results have been a virtual tie and a blowout loss.

Source:
×