Threat Reduction Boosted By Policy Review, Spending
Bills
Programs to secure Russia’s vulnerable nuclear
materials and expertise received a positive report card from a White
House review unveiled December 27, and President George W. Bush
signed spending bills in late December and early January that will
significantly boost funding for key threat reduction efforts.
The White House launched its threat reduction review
in March, after its plans to cut funding for threat reduction programs
were strongly criticized by Congress. (See ACT,
April 2001.) Early reports indicated that the review would recommend
downsizing or even terminating key programs. However, the review
of more than 30 programs, which had a combined 2001 budget of about
$750 million, determined that most of the programs “work well,
are focused on priority tasks, and are well managed,” and it
identified several for expansion and reorganization.
Within two weeks of announcing the results of the
White House review, the president signed the defense authorization
and appropriation bills, which granted the administration’s
full request of $403 million for the Defense Department’s Cooperative
Threat Reduction program, a modest reduction from 2001 levels of
$443 million. Emergency supplemental funding in the appropriations
bill also provides an additional $226 million to fiscal year 2002
funds for Energy Department threat reduction programs, which had
been allocated $804 million by the energy and water appropriations
act in November, $70 million less than they received in 2001. (See
ACT,
December 2001.)
In addition to specifying funding levels, the bills
include threat reduction-related restrictions and requirements.
Most broadly, the defense authorization act requires the president
to submit by June 15 a plan, which should cover “all relevant
Federal agencies,” for securing, downsizing, and disposing
of Russia’s nuclear weapons, fissile material, and expertise.
The legislation also encourages the president consult with the “relevant
states” of the former Soviet Union and with the “appropriate
committees of Congress.”
Programmatic Changes
The threat reduction review and spending bills also
mandated a number of changes to specific threat reduction programs.
The review decided to transfer to the Energy Department
a Pentagon program to shut down three Russian plutonium production
reactors and to construct conventional power plants to take their
place. That decision should allay the concerns of some defense officials
and lawmakers who had been reluctant to allocate Defense Department
funds for the construction of conventional power plants.
The administration’s review also decided to expand
the Energy Department’s Material Protection, Control, and Accounting
program, which helps Russia secure vulnerable nuclear sites. Administration
officials declined to provide any additional details.
The administration had sought only $139 million for
fiscal year 2002 funding for the program, but Congress restored
funding to the 2001 level of $173 million in the energy and water
appropriations act. (See ACT, May
and December
2001.) The program also received an additional $120 million boost
from emergency supplemental appropriations.
The administration’s review further decided to
consolidate two other key Energy Department programs—the Nuclear
Cities Initiative (NCI) and the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention—a
move the General Accounting Office had recommended last May. (See
ACT,
June 2001.) Both programs seek to provide alternative employment
for Russian weapons scientists, and officials felt they could be
implemented more efficiently if they were merged.
The appropriations bill allocated $42 million for
these programs, a significant increase from the administration’s
$29 million request, and the emergency supplemental provides an
additional $15 million. But the authorization bill restricts NCI
operations to a limited number of sites, pending an agreement securing
U.S. access to all 10 nuclear cities and four other sites the program
covers. Access difficulties, resulting from Russia’s reluctance
to open sensitive nuclear weapons facilities to outsiders, have
impeded the program’s efforts to date.
The threat reduction review also slates for reorganization
the Plutonium Disposition program, an Energy Department initiative
intended to implement pledges by Moscow and Washington to dispose
of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. (See ACT,
July/August 2000.) Although the White House remains “committed”
to the program, the Energy and Defense departments are examining
“alternative approaches” to the initiative, aiming to
make it “less costly and more effective.”
The Plutonium Disposition program remains controversial
on the domestic front. Lawmakers inserted language into the defense
authorization bill that bars shipment of plutonium to South Carolina’s
Savannah River nuclear site absent a detailed report from the energy
secretary by February 1 on his department’s plans to dispose
of surplus plutonium at the site. The act also requires the secretary
of energy to consult with the South Carolina governor on disposition
plans.
Last year, the Bush administration suspended work
on plutonium immobilization, which, along with a process known as
irradiation, were the two plutonium disposition approaches the Clinton
administration had outlined when it signed the plutonium disposition
agreement with Russia. (See ACT,
July/August 2001.) The move prompted South Carolina officials,
who are concerned the suspension would require Savannah River to
store plutonium on a long-term basis, to bar plutonium shipments
into the state until the administration details its strategy for
removing the material. (See ACT,
September 2001.)
The administration’s review also singled out
two State Department programs for expansion—the International
Science and Technology Center (ISTC) and the Redirection of Biological
Scientists program, which is primarily implemented through the ISTC.
Both programs seek to redirect former Soviet weapons scientists
to civilian work. The review also identified a program to design
and construct a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia
for acceleration. (See U.S.
Reinstates Funds for Russian Chemical Demilitarization.)
Whether the White House’s rhetorical support
for threat reduction will translate into funding increases will
become clear when the administration submits its 2003 budget proposal
to Congress in the coming months. In a January 7 interview, a key
Senate staffer welcomed the administration’s stated support
for threat reduction efforts, but noted, “It would be nice
to see them put their money where their mouths are.” Early
signs indicate that the administration’s new budget proposal
will substantially boost the programs.
|
