Nuclear Weapons Budget Request for FY 2005

February 10, 2004

On February 2, 2004 the Bush administration presented its budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. It included increased funding for a number of controversial programs, laying the foundation for congressional debate this year. This summary addresses highlighted nuclear weapons activities of the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including:

1. The Stockpile Plan
2. Modern Pit Facility
3. Advanced Concepts - development of new nuclear weapons capabilities
4. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
5. Nuclear Test Readiness

The nuclear weapons activities budget (Defense Programs) of the Energy Department’s NNSA is only a small percentage of the overall discretionary defense budget (approximately 1.5%). However, it is the budget request for these program activities that has driven the debate about fundamental nuclear weapons policies such as development of new nuclear weapons capabilities and nuclear testing.

Despite the fact that last year the Republican-controlled Congress vigorously debated and in the end cut funds or attempted to restrict each of the controversial programs highlighted below, the Bush administration this year increased the funding requested for these activities.

1. The Stockpile Plan

The Stockpile Plan, jointly developed by the Defense and Energy Departments, describes the size and structure of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Congress has requested a revised Stockpile Plan that would clarify the future plans for the nuclear stockpile consistent with the Nuclear Posture Review, which creates new roles for nuclear weapons, and the Moscow Treaty, which reduces the number of operationally deployed weapons, but not the total size of the U.S. or Russian nuclear arsenals. The size and structure of the nuclear stockpile will affect the stewardship and production activities and programs of the nuclear weapons complex. The need for plutonium pit production (manufacture of primaries, the fissile material core of a nuclear weapon) is one program activity that is largely influenced by the size of the stockpile, but other activities such as production of tritium and other stewardship programs and their costs are also affected by the Stockpile Plan.

Because the revised Stockpile Plan was not delivered last year, congressional appropriators cut funds for the proposed Modern Pit Facility (see #2) and restricted funds for the proposed Advanced Concepts weapons development (see #3). The Stockpile Plan has still not been delivered despite the Congress’ clear efforts to compel its delivery at the same time as the FY 2005 budget request. The head of the NNSA, Administrator Linton Brooks, said that this plan would be delivered "soon."

2. The Modern Pit Facility

NNSA has been seeking to develop a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) to produce from 125 to 450 plutonium pits annually (and possibly more with additional shift and "surge" capacity). Although production and certification of a smaller number of plutonium pits is underway at Los Alamos National Laboratory, NNSA claims that it is essential to have a larger and more "agile" capability and is even considering producing newly designed types of pits at this proposed facility.

MPF Delay

During the past year NNSA has been conducting a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) considering the need and possible location for the proposed MPF. In late January, NNSA postponed issuing the PEIS and naming a site for the proposed MPF. In announcing the delay, NNSA Administrator Dr. Linton Brooks, said, "I intend to have further consultations with Congress before we proceed [with the MPF]."

Funding for the Modern Pit Facility

Last year NNSA requested $22.8 million for the Modern Pit Facility. Congress cut $12 million from this request, stating: "Until the Congress reviews the revised future Stockpile plan it is premature to pursue further decisions regarding the Modern Pit Facility." This year, even with a delay of at least one year in the planned schedule for the MPF, its budget request increased to $29.8 million.

3. Advanced Concepts - development of new nuclear weapons capabilities

Last year NNSA requested a total of $21 million for a nuclear weapons research and development program on Advanced Concepts. The $21 million included $15 million for the second year of a study on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)(see #4), and another $6 million for other "additional and exploratory studies." Within this $6 million, work could be done on low-yield nuclear weapons.

Low-yield Nuclear Weapons

After a vigorous debate last year, Congress repealed a decade-old ban prohibiting research and development on nuclear weapons with yields below 5 kilotons. The current law, however clearly delineates that "the Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress." In sum, this means that, after a ten-year prohibition, research on low-yield nuclear weapons can take place but moving to the next phases, such as development of actual weapon designs, requires congressional approval.

Following this congressional action, NNSA Administrator Dr. Linton Brooks attempted to inspire the laboratories to pursue such research, sending a letter stating, "Repeal of the [low-yield nuclear weapons] restriction on nuclear weapons research and development represents, in part, an endorsement by Congress of our efforts to begin to address the nuclear stockpile in accordance with the recommendations of the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review to meet the security needs of the 21st Century. We should not fail to take advantage of this opportunity."

In response, the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee that funds these weapons programs severely chided Dr. Brooks, sending him a letter stating "You should be very well aware of our concerns about this advanced concepts work on new nuclear weapons...[however] the only message conveyed to the weapons laboratories is that of unbridled enthusiasm for new weapons designs and for seeking new military missions for nuclear weapons." Clearly, some members of Congress are willing to confront the Bush administration on its nuclear weapons priorities.

Funding for Advanced Concepts

Congress fenced $4 million of the $6 million requested for Advanced Concepts. The funds will be released after the Stockpile Plan (see #1) is provided to Congress with 90 days allowed for congressional review.

The FY 2005 request for Advanced Concepts is $9 million (separate from the RNEP request.)

4. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)

In FY 2004, NNSA requested $15 million to fund the second year of a planned 3-year study on the development of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). This study on a new capability designed to penetrate hard and deeply buried targets, is to conduct research through the cost and feasibility stage of development, officially categorized as stage 6.2A.

Funding for the RNEP

After much congressional debate, last year, Congress cut half of the requested funds for the RNEP, to $7.5 million. Both the authorizers and appropriators also clarified that no activities beyond the planned 6.2A study are allowed without a separate request. For this year, the budget request for the RNEP is $27.577 million. With these funds NNSA intends to complete its study in FY 2005 and projects that it will request approximately $95 million for FY 2006 to begin the next phase of work, engineering development (stage 6.3). It is likely that the FY 2005 funding request will again be vigorously debated in Congress this year.

5. Nuclear Test Readiness


The nuclear test readiness posture refers to the amount of time required to resume full-scale underground nuclear testing should the President decide to do so. Determination of the test readiness posture is premised upon conducting a diagnostically meaningful test that would provide information about a problem in the stockpile or contribute to the development of a new design nuclear weapon. Most experts agree that conducting a test as a political demonstration would not require as much time as preparation for a diagnostically meaningful one. The required nuclear test readiness posture has been 2-3 years. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and other advisory panels have urged shortening this time requirement, or "enhancing test readiness." Following from the NPR, NNSA began in FY 2003 to fund studies to enhance test readiness and determine a new test readiness posture and last year identified 18 months as the "optimal" test readiness posture.

FY 2004 Restrictions

The Energy and Water appropriators provided the full FY 2004 request for test readiness, but then stated in their Report: "The conferees expect the NNSA to focus on restoring a rigorous test readiness program that is capable of meeting the current 24-month requirement before requesting significant additional funds to pursue a more aggressive goal of an 18-month readiness posture." While Congress clearly intended to restrain the program, this restriction appears to have had no practical effect on the test readiness program or its budget. It is worth noting that the appropriators also reminded the administration that, "congressional authorization must be obtained before proceeding with specific activities that support the resumption of testing."

FY 2005 Request

The funding for test readiness is $30 million and NNSA continues to work toward an 18-month test readiness posture—which they believe will be achieved by the end of FY 2005.

More to Come This Spring

Throughout the month of March congressional committees have held hearings on the nuclear weapons budget. Already debate about the stockpile plan (which has still not been delivered as of April 2004), the funding for the RNEP and other nuclear weapons issues have been topics of debate in both the House and Senate.

Consideration of the FY Defense Authorization is expected in the House and Senate sometime in May. The House and Senate Energy and Water Appropriation subcommittees that provide the appropriation of funds for nuclear weapons activities are also expected to consider their spending bill this Spring. Debate on these controversial nuclear weapons issues is expected in both the authorization and appropriation process.