```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 633 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 633

  Expressing the sense of the Senate on the plan of the Department of 
   Defense and the Department of Energy for modernizing the nuclear 
                     weapons of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2016

Mr. Franken (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
 Markey, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, 
     Mr. Leahy, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Murphy) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Senate on the plan of the Department of 
   Defense and the Department of Energy for modernizing the nuclear 
                     weapons of the United States.

Whereas nuclear war poses the gravest risk to the national security of the 
        United States;
Whereas, as of 2016, the United States maintains a force of approximately 7,000 
        nuclear weapons, either active, on reserve, or waiting for 
        dismantlement;
Whereas the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy are planning an 
        extensive and costly program to ``modernize'' the nuclear weapons of the 
        United States;
Whereas there is substantial controversy over whether the nuclear modernization 
        plan goes beyond assuring that the United States nuclear deterrent is 
        safe, secure, and reliable to defend the United States and allies of the 
        United States, and is instead a plan for the development of an even more 
        powerful nuclear arsenal that lacks sufficient cost analysis or 
        decisions on priorities;
Whereas the nuclear modernization plan was launched in a different budget era 
        before the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-
        25; 125 Stat. 240), which includes budget caps;
Whereas there is widespread agreement that the United States should retain a 
        robust nuclear arsenal to deter a nuclear attack on the United States or 
        allies of the United States;
Whereas, if the nuclear modernization plan is followed, the United States would 
        face a ``modernization mountain'' of the heightened expenses associated 
        with developing and procuring 12 SSBN(X) nuclear submarines, as many as 
        100 long-range strike bombers, a new nuclear-tipped cruise missile, and 
        642 intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons all at the 
        same time;
Whereas the total cost to develop, procure, and maintain such an enhanced 
        nuclear arsenal over the next 3 decades has been estimated at up to 
        $1,000,000,000,000;
Whereas, if all those nuclear weapons programs move forward at their estimated 
        cost, other priorities may suffer, including the fight against 
        international terrorism, the purchase of conventional weapons, and 
        training and maintenance of troops;
Whereas a 2014 review by the National Defense Panel, led by former Secretary of 
        Defense William Perry and retired United States Army General John 
        Abizaid, concluded, ``Recapitalization of all three legs of the nuclear 
        Triad with associated weapons could cost between $600 billion and $1 
        trillion over a thirty year period, the costs of which would likely come 
        at the expense of needed improvements in conventional forces.'';
Whereas Brian McKeon, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
        Policy, noted, ``We're looking at that big bow wave and wondering how 
        the heck we're going to pay for it, and probably thanking our lucky 
        stars we won't be here to answer the question.'';
Whereas Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Mike McCord expressed his 
        concern over the costs of the nuclear refurbishment program, saying, ``I 
        don't know of a good way for us to solve this issue.'', while noting 
        that it will be a major challenge for the next President;
Whereas Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies 
        pointed out that with a nuclear modernization bow wave facing the United 
        States, the next President ``will need to make many difficult choices to 
        rationalize long-term defense modernization plans with the resources 
        available''; and
Whereas former Secretary of Defense Perry stated at a July 2016 hearing, ``I do 
        not believe we should simply modernize all systems that we built during 
        the Cold War.'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the President 
should--
            (1) take action to ensure the affordability and feasibility 
        of the plan of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
        Energy for modernizing the nuclear weapons of the United States 
        by reevaluating, and modifying accordingly, proposals for 
        programs to modernize United States nuclear weapons and 
        delivery systems for such weapons with the goal of ensuring 
        that such proposals focus on refurbishment to ensure security 
        and safety as well as efficiency of existing weapons and 
        delivery systems; and
            (2) prioritize among any programs that are planned so that 
        the United States retains a nuclear arsenal robust enough to 
        meet deterrence needs and so that such programs do not 
        jeopardize other economic investments and other security 
        expenditures appropriate to the needs of the United States in 
        the 21st century, including responses to conventional and 
        nonconventional threats.
                                 <all>
```