The Bush Administration and the Senate have agreed with the position
of Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) and his House colleagues to eliminate research
funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in the FY 2006
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Hobson is the chairman of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee. The subcommittee's FY 2004 and FY 2005 bills did not provide
RNEP (or "Bunker Buster") research funding, a position supported
by the full House last year and this year.
The decision reached by House and Senate conferees who are now working
to resolve differences in the FY 2006 appropriations bill was announced
in a statement issued by the press secretary for Senator Pete Domenici
(R-NM) last night. Domenici supported RNEP funding and is the chairman
of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.
The statement explained that the Administration dropped its $4.0 million
request for RNEP research. Domenici stated, "The focus will
now be with the Defense Department and its research to earth penetrating
technology using conventional weaponry. The NNSA [National Nuclear Security
Administration] indicated that this research should evolve around more
conventional weapons rather than tactical nuclear devices. With this
department change in policy, we have agreed not to provide DOE with
funding for RNEP."
Last night's announcement follows several years of controversy about
the development of a ground-penetrating nuclear weapon to hold at risk
high-value, deeply buried, underground facilities. In 2003, Congress
removed the prohibition on R&D for low-yield nuclear weapons in
the authorization bill for the Department of Defense (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2003/061.html,
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2003/074.html,
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2003/075.html,
and http://www.aip.org/fyi/2003/077.html.)
The FY 2004 appropriations bill for the Department of Energy provided
$7.5 million for RNEP funding, none of which could be spent for the
engineering development phase.
The controversy continued in 2004. The Bush Administration's budget
included a five-year RNEP projected cost of $484.7 million. Observers
said this indicated an Administration plan to build RNEP. NNSA disagreed,
calling the figures "place holders" in a five-year plan (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/050.html.)
During consideration of the authorization bill for the Department of
Defense, both the House (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/069.html)
and then the Senate (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/089.html
) rejected moves to eliminate RNEP funding. Despite these votes on the
authorization bills, money talks: the FY 2005 appropriation for the
Department of Energy contained no RNEP funding (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/154.html.)
This year, the Administration took a different approach in describing
its perspective on RNEP. In testimony before a House Armed Services
subcommittee in March, NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks carefully described
how the Administration's FY 2006 request of $4 million for RNEP was
only for a cost and feasibility study. No five year projections were
included in the budget request, the Administration seeking to avoid
the charge that it had already decided that it would eventually build
this new weapon. Ambassador Brooks also sought to put down the charge
that the Administration was minimizing the impact of the use of an RNEP
weapon, stating, "This is a nuclear weapon that is going to
be hugely destructive and destructive over a large area. No sane person
would use a weapon like that lightly, and I regret any impression that
anybody, including me, has given that would suggest that this is going
to be any easier a decision. . . . I do want to make it clear that any
thought . . . [that] nuclear weapons . . . aren't really destructive
is just nuts" (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/037.html
.)
In April of this year, a National Research Council report concluded
that there are many hardened targets beyond the reach of current conventional
weapons in the U.S. stockpile. It also stated that calculations demonstrated
it would be impossible to contain all of the radiation underground from
the use of an RNEP, and under some circumstances, there could be a million
civilian causalities. However, the number of civilian causalities from
the use of an RNEP would be considerably fewer than the use of a surface
burst nuclear weapon (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/083.html.)
The new Administration approach did not change the position taken by
the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee.
The report accompanying its version of the FY 2006 funding bill stated:
"The [House Appropriations] Committee recommendation provides
no funding for RNEP. The Committee continues to oppose the diversion
of resources and intellectual capital away from the more serious issues
that confront the management of the nation's nuclear deterrent, primarily
the transformation of the Cold War nuclear weapons complex and existing
stockpile into a sustainable enterprise. The Committee has been disappointed
at the bureaucracy's adherence to an initiative that threatens Congressional
and public support for sustainable stockpile initiatives that will actually
provide long-term security and deterrent value for the Nation. It is
the understanding of the Committee that, instead of conducting an RNEP
study at a DOE national laboratory, the Department of Defense will conduct
a non-nuclear penetrator study at a Department of Defense facility"
(see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/073.html.)
A few days later, the House Armed Services Committee in its FY 2006
authorization bill removed the nuclear component from the Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator, and shifted the effort from the Department of Energy
to the Department of Defense (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/078.html.)
The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee's
version of the FY 2006 funding DOE bill included $4.0 million for Air
Force led impact studies on an RNEP type weapon at Sandia National Laboratory.
The subcommittee's report had rather extensive language making the case
for Sandia testing, stating: "The Committee urges the Department
to quickly complete the testing and opposes the Department moving this
test to any other facility, as it would be a waste of taxpayer resources.
The Committee reminds the administration that none of the funds provided
may be used for activities at the engineering development phases, phase
3 or 6.3 or beyond, in support of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"
(see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/099.html.)
It was against this background of the House's position of "no
funding for RNEP" and the Senate's bill providing the requested
$4.0 million that House and Senate conferees and staff went behind closed
doors to resolve their differences. Last night's press release states:
"Domenici indicated that at the request of the NNSA, the Senate
has agreed to drop the $4.0 million it provided in its bill for the
DOE national laboratories, including Sandia National Laboratories, to
continue RNEP research." The release later stated: "Domenici
noted that he expects the final Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
to continue to include language addressing RNEP and the Defense Department
capabilities developed at Sandia National Laboratories." Conferees
hope to finish work on the bill by the end of this week.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl