much and how fast we are prepared to reduce 
U.S. forces. Because of our improved relations, 
the need for strict numerical parity between the 
two countries is no longer as compelling as it 
was during the Cold War. But large disparities 
in nuclear capabilities could raise concerns on 
both sides and among U.S. allies and partners, 
and may not be conducive to maintaining a sta-
ble, long-term strategic relationship, especially 
as nuclear forces are significantly reduced. 
Therefore, we will place importance on Russia 
joining us as we move to lower levels.’’. 
(3) The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review also stat-
ed that the Administration would ‘‘conduct follow-on 
analysis to set goals for future nuclear reductions 
below the levels expected in New START, while 
strengthening deterrence of potential regional adver-
saries, strategic stability vis-a`-vis Russia and China, 
and assurance of our allies and partners.’’. 
(4) The Secretary of Defense has warned in 
testimony before the Committee on Armed Services 
of the House of Representatives regarding the se-
questration mechanism under section 251A of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 that ‘‘if this sequester goes into effect 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:08 Mar 09, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4178.IH
H4178
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
and it doubles the number of cuts, then it’ll truly 
devastate our national defense, because it will then 
require that we have to go at our force structure. 
We will have to hollow it out . . . [i]t will badly 
damage our capabilities for the future. . . . And if 
you have a smaller force, you’re not going to be able 
to be out there responding in as many areas as we 
do now.’’. 
(5) The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review also stat-
ed that ‘‘by modernizing our aging nuclear facilities 
and investing in human capital, we can substantially 
reduce the number of nuclear weapons we retain as 
a hedge.’’. 
(6) The President requested the promised 
$7,600,000,000 for weapons activities of the Na-
tional Nuclear Security Administration in fiscal year 
2012 but signed an appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2012 that provided only $7,233,997,000, a sub-
stantial reduction to only the second year of the ten- 
year plan under section 1251 of the National De-
fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub-
lic Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2549). 
(7) 
The 
President 
requested 
only 
$7,577,341,000 for weapons activities of the Na-
tional Nuclear Security Administration in fiscal year 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:08 Mar 09, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4178.IH
H4178
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2013 while the President’s section 1251 plan prom-
ised $7,900,000,000. 
(8) The President’s section 1251 plan further 
promised to request $8,400,000,000 in fiscal year 
2014, 
$8,700,000,000 
in 
fiscal 
year 
2015, 
$8,900,000,000 in fiscal year 2016, at least 
$8,900,000,000 in fiscal year 2017, at least 
$9,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2018, at least 
$9,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2019, at least 
$9,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2020, and at least 
$9,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2021. 
(9) While the administration has not yet shared 
with Congress the terms of reference of the so-called 
Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, or 
the Department of Defense’s instructions for that 
review, the only publicly available statements by the 
administration, including language from the Nuclear 
Posture Review, suggest the review was specifically 
instructed by the President and his senior political 
appointees to only consider reductions to the nuclear 
forces of the United States. 
(10) When asked at a hearing if the New 
START Treaty allowed the United States ‘‘to main-
tain a nuclear arsenal that is more than is needed 
to guarantee an adequate deterrent,’’ then Com-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:08 Mar 09, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4178.IH
H4178
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
mander of the United States Strategic Command, 
General Kevin P. Chilton said, ‘‘I do not agree that 
it is more than is needed. I think the arsenal that 
we have is exactly what is needed today to provide 
the deterrent.’’. 
(b) NUCLEAR EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY.—Section 
491 of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘On the date’’ and inserting 
‘‘(a) REPORT.—On the date’’; 
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing new subsection (b): 
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—With respect to a new nuclear 
employment strategy described in a report submitted to 
Congress under subsection (a), none of the funds made 
available for fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year thereafter 
for the Department of Defense may be used to implement 
such strategy until a period of one year has elapsed fol-
lowing the date on which such report is submitted to Con-
gress.’’; and 
(3) in the heading, by striking ‘‘reports on’’. 
(c) LIMITATION.—During each of fiscal years 2012 
through 2021, none of the funds made available for each 
such fiscal year for the Department of Defense may be 
used to carry out the results of the decisions made pursu-
ant to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Implementation 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:08 Mar 09, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4178.IH
H4178
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Study until the date on which the President certifies to 
the congressional defense committees that— 
(1) the President has included the resources 
necessary to carry out the February 2011 update to 
the report required under section 1251 of the Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2549) in the 
budget of the President submitted to Congress 
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
Code, for such fiscal year; 
(2) the resources described in paragraph (1) 
have been provided to the President in an appropria-
tions Act; and 
(3) the sequestration mechanism under section 
251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Def-
icit Control Act of 1985 has been repealed or the se-
questration mechanism under such section for the 
security category has otherwise been terminated. 
SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON STRATEGIC DELIVERY SYSTEM RE-
DUCTIONS. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) The Nuclear Posture Review of 2010 said, 
with respect to modernizing the triad, ‘‘for planned 
reductions under New START, the United States 
should retain a smaller Triad of SLBMs, ICBMs, 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
03:08 Mar 09, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4178.IH
H4178
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS