By George Lobsenz
A bipartisan group of senior senators last week asked the White House Office of Management and Budget to drop its plan to consider moving the National Nuclear Security Administration to the Pentagon, saying the semi-autonomous Energy Department weapons agency needs to be fixed, not put under the control of the military.
The request carries some weight because it comes from the Democratic chairmen and ranking Republicans on three committees that directly oversee the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
Signing the letter were Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), senior Republican on that panel; Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate energy and water appropriations subcommittee and Sen. Robert Bennett, that panel’s senior Republican; and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), chairman of the strategic subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.
The letter asked Peter Orzag, head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to withdraw a directive to DoE and DoD to study the costs and benefits of moving NNSA to the Pentagon, saying the administration should at least wait until it completes its review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal and policy.
“As chairmen of the principal authorizing and appropriation committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over the DoE and the NNSA, we would like to express our firm opposition to the transfer of the NNSA to the Department of Defense,” the senators said. “Further, it is our understanding that [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates, and National Security Adviser [James] Jones all share that same view for a multitude of compelling reasons….
“We recognize that the current structural relationship to the DoE of NNSA is in many ways dysfunctional,” they added. “Improvements are needed if the NNSA is to optimally carry out both its missions focused on the stockpile and its potential to contribute to broader national defense, energy, and economic security.
“While we would welcome an appropriately framed review of NNSA’s structure and functioning, we also believe that any such review would be premature prior to the conclusion of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), due out in January 2010. That review will provide guidance for the size and shape of the nuclear stockpile, and the resources and capabilities necessary to support it. It is a prerequisite to having an informed discussion of the NNSA and its core missions and structure.”
Among other objections to moving NNSA, the senators said continued civilian control over the nuclear weapons complex was an important check on the Pentagon and also enhanced foreign trust of U.S. nonproliferation efforts overseas by avoiding military involvement. Further, they said Pentagon control over the weapons complex would hurt needed efforts by NNSA’s weapons labs to diversify their research portfolios.