Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2002

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Dayton, Warner, Inhofe, Allard, Collins, and Bunning.

Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff director. Majority staff member present: Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel.

Minority staff members present: Judith A. Ansley, Republican staff director; L. David Cherington, minority counsel; Mary Alice A. Hayward, professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional staff member; Patricia L. Lewis, professional staff member; and Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel.

Staff assistants present: Daniel K. Goldsmith, Andrew Kent, and Thomas C. Moore.

Committee members' assistants present: Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Richard Kessler, assistant to Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Margaret Hemenway, assistant to Senator Smith; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins; and Derek Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. The committee meets this morning to receive testimony from Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham on the budget request for the Department of Energy's (DOE) national security activities, which account for approximately two-thirds of the entire Department of Energy budget.

We welcome a friend back to what was, for a time at least, his home away from home. We all know Spence well. We are delighted

that he is the Secretary of Energy and that he is with us this morning.

We have a number of important issues to discuss with Secretary Abraham, including the adequacy of the Department of Energy's environmental management (EM) budget; the progress of its programs to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and DOE's plans, if any, for modifying existing nuclear weapons or developing new ones.

Today, the United States is confronted by a wide range of threats to our security from a wide range of potential adversaries. In the past, our Nation has led efforts to reduce these threats to the United States and to our allies through diplomacy and, when necessary, through military action.

The United States led by example in 1959 when we initiated the Antarctic Treaty to internationalize and demilitarize the Antarctic continent. We led by example when we signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) on the first day it was open for signature in 1968. We led by example in our efforts to reach an Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START).

We led by example, when we took our long-range bombers off nuclear alert status, when we unilaterally eliminated tactical nuclear weapons from the Army and the Marine Corps, and removed them from Navy surface ships and submarines.

We have also led the way to increase the safety and security of nuclear weapons and materials. Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program in the Defense Department and the nonproliferation programs of the Department of Energy, the United States has secured tons of nuclear materials in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

We have helped deactivate, dismantle, or destroy thousands of Russian nuclear weapons and delivery systems that once threatened our security. We have helped provide employment for hundreds of Russian scientists and engineers with expertise in building nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and who otherwise might be tempted to sell that expertise to unfriendly nations, or even terrorist organizations. All of these efforts to reduce the dangers from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons have directly contributed to our own national security.

Today the United States has an opportunity to lead again by carrying out real reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal and by reducing the incentives for other countries to build or keep nuclear weapons.

In May 2000, President Bush recognized this opportunity for leadership when he said, "America should rethink the requirements for nuclear deterrence. The premise of Cold War targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal."

The United States has the opportunity to lead a safer world. The United States should be prepared to lead by example, because it is in our best interests and the best interests of the world.

This would be an act of principled leadership, seizing the moment and beginning a new era of security, a new era of cooperation. on proliferation and nuclear security.

But I have to wonder if we are really providing the leadership needed to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Are we setting an example for the rest of the world to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons or are we setting the opposite example?

What kind of an example do we set for other nations when we say we are reducing our strategic nuclear stockpile to 1,700 or 2,200 nuclear warheads, when what we really are doing is moving nuclear warheads from missiles and bombers to warehouses, where they could be quickly and easily brought back to service?

What kind of an example are we setting when we say that we are studying ways to modify existing nuclear weapons, or even develop new nuclear weapons to give us new capabilities and options to use them, possibly in a preemptive manner in specific scenarios or against specific targets? Does that not signal to the world that there is a new and broader range of contingencies in which the United States would consider using nuclear weapons and, most significantly, that we are considering increasing rather than reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons?

If we are unwilling to reduce our own nuclear weapons stockpile in a more meaningful way, and if we are looking at ways to make nuclear weapons more usable in future conflicts, does that not reduce our standing to persuade other countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals, or to forego the development of a nuclear capability, or to refrain from transferring nuclear weapons technology? "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a very effective way to influence the behavior of other countries. It is not leadership by example. In my view, it is certainly not an approach that will make our Nation more secure when it comes to reducing the threat of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I know, Secretary Abraham, that some of those issues are outside of your jurisdiction, but we will be glad to have your comments relative to any of them. I know there will be a number of questions relative to those issues since they are very prominent at this time. Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Allard.

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I just visited with Senator Warner and he is going to be here momentarily. He had originally asked me to make his opening comments; now he has decided he is going to be here, so he'll make those opening comments.

I have a few comments I would like to make as the ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee.

Chairman LEVIN. Sure.

Senator ALLARD. I do not know exactly what your format is going to be this morning.

Chairman LEVIN. We would be happy to either have those comments now or you can make them at your turn.

Senator ALLARD. I will proceed now, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LEVIN. There are going to be a few of us, so I am going to call on each of us for an opening comment then.

Senator ALLARD. That is fine, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LEVIN. Will that be all right with everybody?
Secretary Abraham, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY OF ENERGY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. EVERETT BECKNER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; AND AMBASSADOR LINTON F. BROOKS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Secretary ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First, let me thank you and the members of the committee for having me here today. I last testified before the committee at the time-actually after my confirmation, but in what, I guess, we termed a confirmation-related hearing and I have appreciated, and I know our staff has and our team at DOE, working with your staffs as well as the members of the committee over the last year.

Today I would like to just report a little bit on our 2003 budget and would be glad to submit for the record my full testimony and make some comments here that might highlight a few of the important points of that.

Chairman LEVIN. We appreciate that, and, of course, the full statement will be made part of the record.

Secretary ABRAHAM. Thank you. Before I begin I would just like to take a moment to express-although he is not here today, my appreciation and thanks to Gen. John A. Gordon, who heads up our National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

Upon my arrival at the secretary's post, General Gordon, of course, had already assumed his position as the administrator of NNSA. He has become a trusted friend and colleague during a very challenging time and I wanted the committee to know that I certainly appreciate him and I think we all at DOE appreciate the enormous contribution which he and his team are making to our national security.

Two of those team members are here with me today and-who have now been officially confirmed in their positions as deputy administrators at NNSA: Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, and Dr. Everett Beckner, who are respectively our deputy administrators for non-proliferation programs and defense programs. They are also very welcome and important additions to a very strong team that we have at the Department.

This has been an eventful year for most every agency of the Federal Government, certainly for ours. A severe energy supply shortage confronted us our first day in office, as you all know, and heating oil, natural gas, and gasoline price spikes took place. Significant events have happened in the energy markets and, of course, the terrorist attacks of September 11 all combined to make this an extremely challenging year for the men and women at the Department of Energy.

I just want to comment here that certainly a lot of us in elected office, and I would join that group or be included in it, have from time to time raised concerns about the effectiveness of various government agencies. I was one who, as this committee noted when I appeared last year, had been critical of the actions at times of the Department of Energy. I am sure not every action that the Department takes will be viewed universally as ideal.

But I would just like to pay special tribute to the folks at the Department. I have gotten to know a lot of them, career people who worked very hard for this country and who rose to a tremendous challenge this last year, both at our sites around the country in meeting some severe challenges, particularly after September 11, and the people at our headquarters. They really do a very good job, Mr. Chairman.

Last October, I spoke to the Department's managers to address an issue that I think had been an overriding concern to some, which was whether or not this Department had a core mission and declarative mission. I spoke to them to emphasize that we do, and that that mission really is still very much wrapped around the topic of national security.

Our national security mission has obviously appeared in the Department's national nuclear security activities, but it shapes our other programs as well.

Our energy programs advance energy security, which is a critical part of national security. Our science programs contribute directly both to the technology base critical to today's military and to energy security as it looks over the horizon to sources that can increase our energy independence.

Even our environmental management program, in my judgment by cleaning up the legacy of the Cold War and protecting communities and restoring the environment, plays an important role in furthering the broader objectives of the Department's security mission.

To ensure that everything we do at the Department is consistent with our mission in national energy security, we have initiated noholds-barred reviews of most of our key programs. Those reviews have and will continue to help guide us as we change and improve the way the Department of Energy does business.

As a result, in no small measure of reviews already completed, we have this year's budget submission. So let me talk about that briefly.

Mr. Chairman, you and the members of this committee have oversight of, as you indicated, two-thirds of the DOE budget. Our budget for 2003, our submission request totals $21.9 billion, which is an increase from last year of $580 million, and that is the largest amount ever requested for this Department. Not counting the fiscal year 2002 supplemental, in fact, our increase is nearly a billion, and covers critical needs related to national security, energy, and the environment.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, our Department has enormous responsibilities for safety here at home and for our national defense. Under DOE's defense programs, we maintain our nuclear deterrent through our Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).

We also play a critical role in non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, and homeland security, and we provide, of course, the power plants for our fleet of nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers.

Each of these areas sees budget increases in our 2003 request. Overall, we are requesting just over $8 billion for NNSA, a $433 million increase over the 2002 level, signaling a major boost in sup

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »