House Republicans Look to Block U.S. Nuclear Security Work in Russia

Ukrainian forces at a checkpoint on the edge of Slovyansk, the main town occupied by pro-Russian activists, on Tuesday. House Armed Services Committee Republicans are looking to block U.S. nuclear security work in Russia until the crisis is resolved.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Douglas P. Guarino
May 6, 2014, 9:42 a.m.

House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans are look­ing to block the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion from con­tinu­ing nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity work in Rus­sia un­til the Ukraine crisis has been re­solved.

Draft de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill lan­guage re­leased on Monday would bar the use of fisc­al 2015 funds by the En­ergy De­part­ment’s nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity arm “for any con­tract, co­oper­a­tion, or trans­fer of tech­no­logy” between the United States and Rus­sia, pending spe­cif­ic ac­tion by the ad­min­is­tra­tion.

For the re­lease of funds, the En­ergy sec­ret­ary, in con­sulta­tion with sec­ret­ar­ies of State and De­fense, must cer­ti­fy to key con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees that “the Rus­si­an Fed­er­a­tion is re­spect­ing the sov­er­eignty of Ukrain­i­an ter­rit­ory,” ac­cord­ing to the Re­pub­lic­an draft bill.

Anne Har­ring­ton, the Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s deputy for de­fense nuc­le­ar non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire last month that U.S. nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity work in Rus­sia had re­sumed, des­pite dis­agree­ments over Mo­scow’s an­nex­a­tion of the Crimea re­gion in Ukraine.

The work — which in­cludes up­grad­ing the phys­ic­al se­cur­ity of build­ings where sens­it­ive nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als are stored — had pre­vi­ously been sus­pen­ded while the United States and Rus­sia hashed out the de­tails of how to im­ple­ment a new agree­ment the two na­tions signed last year.

Dur­ing the April 8 in­ter­view, Har­ring­ton said the two sides were able to fi­nal­ize out­stand­ing de­tails and re­sume work — des­pite ten­sion over the Ukraine situ­ation.

Monday’s draft bill lan­guage sug­gests that since then, “in re­sponse to on­go­ing Rus­si­an ag­gres­sion to­ward Ukraine, the sec­ret­ary of En­ergy has sus­pen­ded nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity co­oper­a­tion” with Rus­sia. It says this ap­par­ent sus­pen­sion should re­main in place “so long as Rus­sia con­tin­ues its ag­gres­sion to­ward Ukraine.”

Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, however, are sug­gest­ing that no such sus­pen­sion has taken place. NNSA spokes­man Der­rick Robin­son on Monday poin­ted to an April 10 state­ment from the U.S. Em­bassy in Mo­scow that says while the ad­min­is­tra­tion is con­duct­ing a re­view of all “Rus­si­an-re­lated activ­it­ies” in light of the Ukraine situ­ation, it has “not an­nounced a de­cision to sus­pend nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity co­oper­a­tion with Rus­sia.”

The April 10 state­ment, which says “crit­ic­al bi­lat­er­al nuc­le­ar non­pro­lif­er­a­tion activ­it­ies are con­tinu­ing in a num­ber of key areas,” still ap­plies, ac­cord­ing to Robin­son.

A House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee spokes­man did not re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment by press time.

Dur­ing an April 8 hear­ing, some com­mit­tee Re­pub­lic­ans sug­ges­ted the United States should not provide any aid to Rus­sia, and that do­ing so was tan­tamount to sub­sid­iz­ing mod­ern­iz­a­tion of Mo­scow’s nuc­le­ar arms.

Then-Act­ing NNSA Ad­min­is­trat­or Bruce Held said at the hear­ing that the United States spends money on nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity pro­jects in Rus­sia not be­cause they are good for Mo­scow, but be­cause they are im­port­ant for U.S. na­tion­al se­cur­ity. NNSA non­pro­lif­er­a­tion pro­grams are meant to pre­vent ter­ror­ists from ob­tain­ing dan­ger­ous ma­ter­i­als.

The new draft bill word­ing would also block nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity work un­til Rus­sia com­plies with cer­tain treat­ies, in­clud­ing the In­ter­me­di­ate-range Nuc­le­ar Forces Treaty. Some con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans ac­cuse Mo­scow of vi­ol­at­ing the ac­cord, un­der which the United States and Rus­sia have agreed not to de­vel­op, test or field mis­siles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.

The House Armed Ser­vice Com­mit­tee is ex­pec­ted to vote on the draft lan­guage on Wed­nes­day.

What We're Following See More »
Chef Jose Andres Campaigns With Clinton
5 hours ago
White House Weighs in Against Non-Compete Contracts
6 hours ago

"The Obama administration on Tuesday called on U.S. states to ban agreements prohibiting many workers from moving to their employers’ rivals, saying it would lead to a more competitive labor market and faster wage growth. The administration said so-called non-compete agreements interfere with worker mobility and states should consider barring companies from requiring low-wage workers and other employees who are not privy to trade secrets or other special circumstances to sign them."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
7 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

No Lobbying Clinton’s Transition Team
10 hours ago

Hillary Clinton's transition team has in place strict rules to limit the influence that lobbyists could have "in crafting the nominee’s policy agenda." The move makes it unlikely, at least for now, that Clinton would overturn Obama's executive order limiting the role that lobbyists play in government

Federal Government Employees Giving Money to Clinton
10 hours ago

Federal employees from 14 agencies have given nearly $2 million in campaign donations in the presidential race thus far, and 95 percent of the donations, totaling $1.9 million, have been to the Clinton campaign. Employees at the State Department, which Clinton lead for four years, has given 99 percent of its donations to the Democratic nominee.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.