In response to a Presidential request, the Senate and House of Representatives both recently passed Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to provide disaster relief to Honduras, Nicaragua, and Colombia. In addition to funds for Central America, the President requested that Congress provide $152 million for domestic agricultural programs, financial assistance to the Middle East in accordance with the Wye River agreements, and $195 million to the Department of Defense for its involvement in disaster response.

The House legislation required "offsets" to be taken from various accounts to pay for the emergency assistance. Among the bill's offsets is a rescission of $150 million from a previous $525 million package included in last October's Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (included in FY99 Omnibus Consolidated Spending bill, HR4328) to facilitate Russian plutonium and highly-enriched uranium (HEU) disposition.

Of this $525 million total, $325 million was designated to help keep an important 1992 agreement with Russia on track, in which Russia is selling 500 metric tons of HEU to the United States. Prior to shipment to the U.S., Russia "downblends" the HEU to a lower-enriched level by diluting it with large quantities of natural uranium. Last year, Russia threatened to withdraw from the deal because it was not being compensated for the natural uranium component of the deal. The Department of Energy has been engaged in negotiations with Russia to get the deal back on track, and the $325 million was appropriated to fairly compensate Russia so that future deliveries of downblended HEU could continue.

The remaining $200 million balance was designated to assist Russia in the design and construction of key plutonium disposition facilities. These funds would be spent once a formal, bilateral agreement is reached with Russia spelling out Russian disposition plans, rates, and techniques in detail. The $200 million therefore provides U.S. negotiators with leverage in concluding an agreement with Russia, and provides a "carrot" in inducing Russia to move earnestly in the development of its plutonium disposal strategy.

On March 24, 1999, the House approved the emergency supplemental bill with the $150 million rescission in tact. An amendment offered by David Obey to delete that rescission (and others) was defeated. A conference committee is expected to convene after the Easter recess to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. The Senate version does not contain the rescission from the plutonium disposition program.

Proposed Amendment:

During the House floor debate, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) offered an amendment to delete those rescissions he considered most damaging, including those to domestic agricultural programs, callable capital appropriations, the EX-IM Bank war chest, and the $150 million rescission described above.

Obey warned that this bill would bring into question the US commitment to work with Russia in disposing its excess weapons plutonium. He argued that rescinding the money would make the Russians less likely to resume negotiations on the conversion of plutonium. As this program aims to prevent excess fissile material from getting into the wrong hands, threatening it would go against US national security interests.

The House Committee Members discussed the bill and the proposed amendment, and ultimately voted against Obey's proposal.

Vote on Amendment: 201 Ayes, 228 Noes, 4 no vote-amendment rejected

*The following is a summary of the different members' views of the $150 million rescission, and the Obey amendment to delete it.

Rep. Young (Chairman, R-FL) began the discussion by stressing the importance of assisting Central America in their time of need. Young summarized the components of the President's request, and discussed the House's decision to pay for the bill through offsets, or rescissions, to other appropriations. The House exempted DOD activities from being rescinded.

Rep. Obey (D-WI) indicated that he could not support the bill because of the offsets requirement. He highlighted what he considered the four most "reckless" offsets: 1) the rescission of $648 in callable capital to Multilateral Development Banks, 2) the reduction of funding for the EX-IM Bank "war chest," 3) a decrease of domestic agricultural funds, and 4) the rescission of the previous appropriation for Russian plutonium and HEU disposition.

Obey argued that the latter rescission, which he termed the "most egregious," would put obstacles in the way of negotiations with the Russians on plutonium disposition. Obey suggested that these funds were being targeted in part because members of the House Energy and Water Subcommittee were excluded from the decision to insert these funds in the October 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Obey submitted for the record a letter from Energy Secretary Richardson arguing against the cut. In the letter, Richardson indicated that the rescission would negatively impact cooperative nonproliferation activities with Russia, including efforts to secure and account for weapons-usable materials and to prevent "brain drain" of expertise. Richardson stressed that since DOE has negotiated an agreement with Russia to use the $325 million to compensate Russia for the uranium deliveries, the entire $150 million cut would have to come from the $200 million appropriated to help Russia dispose of its plutonium. Richardson said that having the $200 million available has been instrumental in bringing the Russians closer to a bilateral agreement, and that rescinding the funds now would call into question US reliability. Furthermore, potential donors from the international community could perceive the rescission as a "dilution of our leadership and resolve" to dispose of plutonium.

Rep. Gephardt (D-MO) also urged a vote against the bill by stating that it contains items that would threaten our national security and weaken the international economy.

Rep. Young responded by assuring his colleagues that "there is absolutely zero threat to our national security in this bill."

Rep. Obey stated that the majority party's explanation for the rescission of the plutonium money was because it would not be used this fiscal year. However, he reemphasized that taking the money off the table now could damage negotiations to achieve a bilateral agreement on the 50 excess Russian plutonium disposition tons, equivalent to 15,000 nuclear weapons.

Rep. Knollenberg (R-MI) discussed several points to support the majority party's actions. First, he stressed that the funds for plutonium disposition were not originally part of last year's Omnibus Appropriation Bill, as the issue was only raised in a conference committee. Second, since the fiscal year is half over, that money would not be spent. Third, the agreement has not been concluded, as Primakov canceled his recent trip to the US. And finally, the rescission would still leave $375 million to work on HEU and Pu disposition.

Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX) argued against the bill, stating that rescinding funding for the purchase of nuclear materials in light of the proliferation threat was dangerous. She reminded the Committee that the President strongly supported this program, and that just last week, Congress acknowledged the proliferation threat when it supported the development of a national missile defense (NMD) system. And unlike the plutonium program, she argued, the NMD does not guarantee a reduction in nuclear arms.

Rep. Kilpatrick (D-MI) agreed that the bill threatens the security of the United States. Although the plutonium program is in its early stages, rescinding the funds now would send a message to Russia that the US is not serious about combating the nuclear threat.

[Mr. Obey presented the amendment]

Rep. Markey (D-MA) argued that in light of the budget surplus, the US can afford to provide foreign assistance without having to slash other programs. He argued that it is in our national interest to help Russia dismantle its nuclear stockpile and store the fissile materials in a form no longer usable for weapons purposes. He also questioned the logic of spending billions on a missile defense system with doubtful utility, while taking away money from critical nonproliferation programs. In addition, given the current tension in US-Russian relations, Markey questioned whether it was wise to send the message that we are no longer interested in helping Russia dismantle its nuclear warheads.

Rep. Hinchey (R-NY) agreed with Markey's assessment of the importance of the plutonium program. He argued that if the US does not help Russia in disposing of its weapons-grade plutonium, some of that material would likely make its way to enemies of the United States. Furthermore, supporting a national missile defense while rejecting a program that would prevent the proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials is simply ridiculous.

Rep. Tiahrt (R-KS) disagreed with Markey that offsets were unnecessary, claiming that if the money is not offset, it will inevitably come from social security. He postulated that most people would prefer to have their money spent on social security rather than foreign aid emergencies. Furthermore, the US would not be put at risk do to the rescission of this money because the $150 million had not actually been obligated yet, as an agreement had yet to be reached with Russia on plans, techniques, facilities, and rates for its plutonium disposition.

Rep. Obey disagreed with Tiahrt, arguing that Social Security recipients would probably be more concerned with having a world safer from nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he argued that Social Security would not be affected by withdrawing offsets.

Rep. Tiahrt addressed Obey's argument by stating that the reason $375 million was left in the account was to ensure that nonproliferation efforts with Russia would not be completely abandoned.

Rep. Obey replied that that argument is simply untrue. He explained that $375 million would not be left, since $325 million will be used to maintain the HEU Purchase Agreement. That would leave only $50 million out of the $200 million designated to facilitate Russian plutonium disposition. If an agreement is reached, it will cost at least $1 billion to implement the plan. The $200 million, therefore, is a significant inducement for Russia to develop its Pu disposition plans, and would help accelerate the entire disposal effort.

Rep. Thornberry (R-TX) warned against overplaying the dangers associated with the rescission of the plutonium disposition fund. While he acknowledged that proliferation was a serious issue and that the risk posed by excess plutonium was a viable concern, disaster relief is an immediate concern, and therefore, a higher priority at present. He explained that the plutonium program would be a long-term commitment, planned to run over the course of 20 to 25 years. Therefore, the results would not be catastrophic if the money was taken out this year. Thornberry also explained that the plutonium negotiations would involve only a fourth of Russia's 200 tons of plutonium, thus not fully addressing the proliferation risk. He went on to state that the DOE expected to obligate only half of that money in FY00 if an agreement was reached. Therefore, while rescinding the money could send the message that the US is not very serious about controlling proliferation of fissile materials, the rescission this year would probably not have a disastrous effect.

Rep. Edwards (D-TX) responded by stating that since we have the opportunity today to take 50 tons of plutonium off the market that could become available to terrorists or organized crime groups, we should take advantage of it now. Just as the Committee decided a week before that a missile defense was worthwhile if there was even a 1% chance of a foreign missile attack, it should likewise not take the 1% chance of allowing any of this material to leak onto the black market. A breakdown of the negotiations on a plutonium disposal agreement would be very damaging, as Russia would probably keep its Pu in storage rather than disposing of it.

Rep. Packard (R-CA) rose to oppose Obey's amendment stating that the 50 metric tons is not to be purchased by the US as some members had claimed. Rather, the money was to provide facilities in Russia that would convert the plutonium to fuel to be burned in reactors. This effort, he argued is a long-term plan that the US will be funding for the next few years. Second, since the uranium from the HEU deal is already in the US, the argument that it would be used against the US if the money is rescinded is invalid. Third, Packard argued that the $150 million cut can come from either program. Therefore, it could be taken from the HEU deal rather than the plutonium program. And finally, the $200 million was not supposed to come from taxpayers, rather, from the international community. He argued that since the US has spent over $1 billion in nuclear programs with Russia thus far, he feels that that money should perhaps be spent in the US to adequately address our own nuclear waste disposition problem.

Rep. Obey argued against Packard's proposal of rescinding money for the HEU work as an agreement between the US and Russia merely awaits signature.

Rep. Oliver (D-MA) added to Obey's point that the $200 million provides leverage for securing contributions from other G-7 countries. International cooperation is essential if there is any hope of eventually securing all the plutonium that is at risk of getting into wrong hands. He emphasized that last week, 317 Members of the House were in favor of a NMD that would cost billions of dollars, but the House is doing nothing about the possibility of fissile materials getting into the hands of terrorists.

Rep. Allen (D-ME) agreed that the offsets were harmful to our national security. He criticized the decision to spend between $18 and $28 billion on national missile defense for a "narrow response to a limited threat," while scrapping a nonproliferation program that would help keep the materials out of terrorists hands. He urged the House not to reject this inexpensive and effective first line of defense against terrorism.

Rep. Tierney (D-MA) concurred that approving the bill with an offset from the plutonium program would be a dangerous move away from our national security interests. He urged the House to regard our first line of defense as the highest priority, as that is where the greatest danger lies.

Rep. Knollenberg reiterated that the $200 million would not be spent during the current fiscal year. Even if an agreement was reached, he explained, the $200 million would be expended over a 2 to 3 year period. He assured the members that once an agreement is in place, the House can work with the administration to ensure adequate future funding for the plan.

*This report was prepared by RANSAC's Research Associate, Elena Thomas.