nuclear lobbying report

7/31/2019 Nuclear Lobbying Report

1/25

By William D. Hartung with Christine Anderson

June 2012

ExEcutivE S ummary

The battle over de cits and defense has focused attention on the costs of nuclear weapons. Estimates of the full costs of nuclear weapons-related activities are hotly debated, but there is no question that they will reach hundreds

of billions of dollars over the next decade.

At a time of tight budgets, there is a real possibility that some of the systems and facilities described so far could be reduced, delayed, or cancelled outright. For example, former Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright noted in July 2011, The challenge here is that we have to re-capitalize all three legs[of the nuclear triad], and we dont have the money to do it. That same month, General Robert Kehler, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, asserted, Were not going to be able to go forward with weapon systems that cost what weapon systems cost today.

This report provides a pro le of the nuclear weapons lobby, noting along the way that in a constrained budget-ary environment different parts of the lobby may either collaborate to promote higher nuclear weapons spend-ing or compete for their share of a shrinking pie.

B omBs V ersus B udgets : I nsIde the n uclear W eapons l oBBy

An Ohio-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN), slated to be replaced by a Next Generation Sub.

A Publication of the Center for International Policy


2/25 A Publication of the Center for International Policy A Publication of the Center for International Policy A Publication of the Center for International Policy

2

KEy F indingS The Pentagon and the Department of Energys

National Nuclear Security Administration arescheduled to spend hundreds of billions of dollarson nuclear weapons projects over the next decade

and beyond, including $68 billion to develop and purchase a new generation of nuclear bombers;$347 billion to purchase and operate 12 new ballis-tic missile submarines; and billions more on newnuclear weapons facilities.

In the 2012 election cycle, the top 14 nuclearweapons contractors gave a total of $2.9 millionto key members of Congress with decision mak-ing power over nuclear weapons spending. These

rms have donated $18.7 million to these samemembers of Congress over the course of theircareers.

More than half of the contributions cited abovewent to members of the four key subcommitteeswith jurisdiction over nuclear weapons spending the Strategic Forces Subcommittees of the ArmedServices Committees in each house and the Energyand Water Subcommittees of the AppropriationsCommittees in each house. Total contributions bymajor nuclear weapons contractors to members

of these four subcommittees have been over $1.million in the 2012 election cycle thus far, and$11.7 lifetime to these same members.

Of the 14 nuclear weapons contractors trackedthis report, Lockheed Martin has been the big-gest contributor to key members of Congress win uence over nuclear weapons spending. So farduring the 2012 election cycle, Lockheed Martinhas donated $535,000 to these key members; otmajor donors include Honeywell International,$464,582; Northrop Grumman, $464,000; andBoeing, $336,750.

Leading advocates of high levels of nuclear weons spending have received hundreds of thousanof dollars in campaign contributions from majornuclear weapons contractors in the course of thecareers. These advocates include House ArmedServices Committee Chair Rep. Howard P. BucMcKeon (R-CA), with career receipts of $809,15from these companies; Rep. Michael Turner(R-OH), Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcom-mittee of the House Armed Services Committee,with $144,400 in career receipts ; and Sen. JonKyl (R-AZ), with $250,875 in career receipts.Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), who sponsored

P olicy r EcommEndationS r EducE thE balliStic miSSilE SubmarinE ForcE

Th e ballistic missile submarine force should be reduced from 12 boats to eight, with additional war-heads carried in each boat. This would save $18 billion over the next decade while sustaining thecapability to deploy the number of warheads called for under the New START treaty.

P oStPonE nEw nuclEar bombEr PlanSPlans for a new nuclear bomber should be shelved, at a savings of $18 billion over the next decade.

At a minimum, the bomber should not be made nuclear-capable.

c ancEl thE c hEmical and m Etallurgy r ESEarch r EPlacEmEnt FacilityThere is no circumstance under which it will be necessary to build large numbers of new plutoniumpits or triggers for nuclear warheads. Therefore, the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replace-ment facility at Los Alamos National Laboratories should be cancelled, at a savings of $5 billion over the next decade.

c ancEl building thE m ixEd o xidE (mox) FacilityPlutonium waste from nuclear warheads can be neutralized without building the multi-billion dollar MOX facility. It too should be cancelled, at a savings of at least $4.9 billion in construction costs over

the next twenty years.

Forgoing or slowing these projects would save $46 billion over the next two decades, and hundreds of billions more over the prospective lifetimes of the programs.



3an amendment designed to block funding for theimplementation of the New START arms reductiontreaty with Russia and protect ICBMs based in hishome state, has received $118,990 from nuclearweapons contractors in his career in Congress.

The top three recipients of contributions from major nuclear weapons contractors in the House forthe 2012 election cycle are House Armed ServicesCommittee Chair Howard P. Buck McKeon,$257,570; Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), the RankingDemocrat on the House Defense AppropriationsSubcommittee, and a major booster of the buildingof a new bomber, $110,000; and Rep. Mac Thorn- berry (R-TX), a member of the Strategic ForcesSubcommittee of the House Armed Services Com-mittee, $87,250.

The top three recipients of contributions from major nuclear weapons contractors in the Senate forthe 2012 election cycle are Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Energyand Water of the Senate Appropriations Committee(the committee that oversees the nuclear warheadcomplex), $74,500; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D- NY), a member of the Subcommittee on StrategicForces of the Senate Armed Services Committee,$54,916; and Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) a memberof the Subcommittee on Energy and Water of theSenate Appropriations Committee and member of

the Senate ICBM coalition, $53,500. The top 14 nuclear weapons contractors employ

137 lobbyists who formerly worked for key nucle-ar weapons decision makers. The majority of therevolving door lobbyists 96 worked for keymembers of Congress or key Congressional Com-mittees; 26 revolving door lobbyists worked forone of the military services; and 24 revolving doorlobbyists worked for the Department of Defense orthe Department of Energy. Some lobbyists workedfor one or more Congressional of ces or agencies before leaving government, and many now workfor more than one major nuclear weapons contrac-tor.

There are 19 revolving door lobbyists workingfor major nuclear weapons contractors who werestaffers for members of the Energy and WaterSubcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Com-mittee the committee that controls spending onthe nuclear warhead complex.

introduction : t hE h igh c oSt oF n uclEarw EaPonSThe battle over de cits and defense has focused at-tention on the costs of nuclear weapons. Estimatesthe full costs of nuclear weapons-related activities ahotly debated, but there is no question that they wireach hundreds of billions of dollars over the next

cade. Stephen I. Schwartz of the Monterrey Institufor International Studies has called for the federal gernment to regularly publish estimates of the full coof nuclear weapons, including research and develop-ment (R&D), procurement, operations, and supportfunctions like command, control and communicationsAs Schwartz has noted, Theres no easy way to dmine what spending will be going forward, especial because there has never been an of cial, comprehensive nuclear weapons budget.1

What we do know is that there are of cial estimatthe costs of key elements of the nuclear enterprise. past experience is any guide, these estimates are likto grow over time, but at the moment they include

Up to 100 new nuclear bombers at cost of at$55 billion;2

Twelve new nuclear submarines at a cost of $9 billion for procurement and research and devel-opment and $347 billion in full life-cycle costs(including operations and maintenance) over the

next ve decades;3

New nuclear warhead-related facilities, includinglocations for the production of uranium, plutoni-um, and non-nuclear components, at an estimatedcost of well over $13 billion;4

A facility for the production of Mixed Oxide(MOX), a potential fuel for nuclear power plant based on excess plutonium generated by thenuclear warhead program, at a construction costat least $4.9 billion.5

This is not an exhaustive list. Other items slateddevelopment by the Pentagon and the Department oEnergys National Nuclear Security Administration(the agency charged with overseeing the nuclear weons complex) include Life Extension Programs (LEPfor existing nuclear warheads; possible upgrades orreplacements for existing land-based IntercontinentalBallistic Missiles (ICBMs); the possible developmentof a new generation of nuclear-armed Air-Launched



4Cruise Missiles (ALCMS); and the adaptation of someJoint Strike Fighters to carry nuclear weapons. An-other major cost of nuclear weapons development andmaintenance is environmental cleanup, which is esti-mated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars based on past and ongoing activities within the nuclear warheadcomplex. 6

At a time of tight budgets, there is a real possibilitythat some of the systems and facilities described so farcould be reduced, delayed, or cancelled outright. Forexample, former Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefsof Staff General James Cartwright noted in July 2011the challenge here is that we have to re-capitalize allthree legs [of the nuclear triad], and we dont have themoney to do it. That same month, General RobertKehler, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, assertedwere not going to be able to go forward with weaponsystems that cost what weapon systems cost today.7

Any effort to downsize the nations nuclear force islikely to be met with erce opposition from the indi-viduals and institutions that bene t from the nuclearstatus quo, including corporations involved in design-ing and building nuclear delivery vehicles; companiesthat operate nuclear warhead-related facilities; andmembers of Congress with nuclear weapons-relatedfacilities or deployments in their states or districts.The Obama administrations FY2013 budget proposalhas already sparked a number of major ghts over

nuclear weapons spending. Major points of contentioninclude whether to fund a new facility designed to in-crease capacity for the production of plutonium components for nuclear warheads and whether to delay production of the rst next-generation ballistic mis-sile submarine. In addition, House Republicans, led by Rep. Michael B. Turner (R-OH), chairman of theHouse Armed Services Committee Strategic ForcesSubcommittee, have introduced legislation aimed at blocking implementation of the New START treaty ifthe administration does not adhere to nuclear weap-

ons spending pledges made in the context of the 2010treaty debate. Supporters of the administration havenoted that those spending pledges were made prior tothe passage of the Budget Control Act in the summerof 2011, and that the point is not to spend a guaranteedamount but rather to spend enough to ensure that theU.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe, effective and reli-able. 8 In a related matter, in mid-May Rep. DennyRehberg (R-MT), whose state has 150 IntercontinentalBallistic Missiles (ICBMs) based there, at Maelstrom

Air Force Base introduced an amendment designto prevent the Obama administration from spendingfunds to implement the New START arms reduc-tions or to eliminate a leg of the nuclear triad.Rehbergs press release celebrating House passage ofthe amendment suggests that pork barrel politics mahave played a larger role in his thinking than nuclestrategy: Rehberg Amendment to Protect Malmstromand Stop New START Passes House.9

The ultimate decisions on how much to spend onnuclear weapons should be made based on what isneeded to defend the country, not on the impact ofthat spending on certain companies or Congressionaldistricts. And, as is appropriate, much of the debaon whether to cut the nuclear arsenal will center ostrategic arguments. But making sensible cuts in thU.S. nuclear arsenal will also require policy makerstake on the money, power and in uence of the nuc

weapons lobby.This report provides a pro le of the nuclear weapolobby, noting along the way that in a constrained bgetary environment different parts of the lobby mayeither collaborate to promote higher nuclear weaponsspending or compete for their share of a shrinking

w ho b EnEFitS From n uclEar w EaPonS S PEnding : t hE c orPoratE c onnEctionA handful of companies are the primary bene ciarieof nuclear weapons spending, backed up by an extesive network of subcontractors. The key players aridenti ed below, organized according to the systemfacility with which they are most involved.

The Bomber Complex

This sector is dominated by Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, each of which would ba candidate to serve as prime contractor for a new bomber. 10

Boeing is a major airframe producer, building or upgrading everything from bombers to ghter planes ttanker aircraft to commercial airliners. It designed a built the B-52, and in the 1990s it bought Rockweternational, the company that was the prime contracfor the B-1 bomber during the aircrafts peak prodution years in the 1980s.

Northrop Grumman is the producer of the B-2 stea bomber, a mainstay of the bombing campaigns in I



5and Afghanistan that was produced in relatively smallnumbers (21 planes in all) during the 1990s and is theyoungest aircraft in the current bomber eet.

Lockheed Martin has been a subcontractor on major bomber programs, but its main work in the aircraftsector has been as the producer of major ghter planeslike the F-16, F-22 (with Boeing as a major subcon-tractor), and the latest generation ghter, the F-35Joint Strike Fighter (with Northrop Grumman as amajor subcontractor).

Other possible bene ciaries of a new bomber programare the countrys two makers of aircraft engines, Gen-eral Electric and Pratt & Whitney (a division of UnitedTechnologies). General Electric produced the enginesfor the two most recent bombers, the B-1 and the B-2,while the older B-52 runs on Pratt & Whitney engines.Because of the limited number of aircraft being built by the U.S. military in recent years, the rms tend tocompete, not cooperate.The most recent example of this was GEs long battleto force the Pentagon to procure a second engine forthe Joint Strike Fighter, the main U.S. combat aircraftof the next generation. The ght in Congress pittedthe Connecticut delegation (Pratt & Whitney) versusthe Massachusetts and Ohio delegations (GeneralElectric). After years of political wrangling the Obamaadministration and the Congress nally killed the GEsecond engine project in 2011, but not before each

rm had spent millions in campaign contributions andadvertising on behalf of its system.11

Submarine Production

Current plans call for the procurement of 12 new bal-listic missile submarines between now and 2033.12

Design work on the subs will be done at General Dy-namics Electric Boat facility in Groton, Connecticut,with Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News,Virginia shipbuilding facility serving as a major sub-contractor. It is likely that the prime contract for con-struction of the submarines will be awarded to ElectricBoat as well. The two companies relationship on the ballistic missile submarine program is described inHuntington Ingalls most recent annual report, whichnotes that the company will perform, through anagreement with Electric Boat, as design subcontractorfor the SSBN(X) Ohio-class replacement boats. Thereport further notes that Although the contract is notyet negotiated, we expect to participate in the design

effort, and we believe our experience and quali edworkforce position us for a potential role in the costruction effort. 13

Another major bene ciary of a new SSBN would bthe company that will develop the nuclear reactorthat powers the ship. The U.S. governments navalnuclear reactor program is carried out by two labortories that are run for the U.S. Department of Ener(DOE) by Bechtel Marine Propulsion. The rst labis Knolls Atomic Laboratory, which has major facilities in Niskayuna and West Milton, New York. TKnolls web site indicates that it designs the worldmost technologically advanced nuclear reactor plantsfor U.S. Navy submarines.14 Bechtel also runs thDOEs Bettis Atomic Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is involved in research, design, testiand maintenance of naval nuclear reactors and hasadditional facilities in Charleston, South Carolina an

Idaho Falls, Idaho.15The submarine industrys trade association, The Sub-marine Industrial Base Council (SIBC), claims thatthere are 5,000 U.S. companies that provide criti-cal materials for the Virginia-class submarine.16 Itshould be noted that the council is a strong advoca building more submarines, so its gures on the num ber of companies involved should be viewed skepti-cally. No similar estimates, however exaggerated thmay be, are currently available for ballistic missile

submarines, but presumably a new SSBN programwould draw on a similar supplier base. The SIBC be described in more detail below.

The Nuclear-Capable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

The United States currently has about 200 tactical(short-range) nuclear weapons in Europe. Plans callfor adapting a number of F-35 Joint Strike Fightersto make them capable of carrying these weapons, aa cost currently estimated at about $340 million.17

Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the F-3

Other Delivery Vehicles

There are other nuclear delivery vehicles that are ncurrently scheduled for replacement, including thenuclear version of the Air-Launched Cruise Missile(ALCM); the Minuteman Intercontinental BallisticMissile (ICBM); and the Trident Submarine LauncheBallistic Missile. Whether or not new systems are produced, there will be a lobbying battle over keepthem in the force. For example, there is an ICBM



6alition built around senators from Montana, Wyomingand North Dakota, where the nations 450 MinutemanIII ICBMs are based.18 The two Senators from Utahare also members, based in part on signi cant ICBMmaintenance and production work in their state (seemore below). These deployments could be in danger ifthere were a move to reduce the current nuclear forceof bombers, nuclear submarines and ICBMs from atriad to a dyad, a possibility that may come into play due to cost issues.

t hE n uclEar w EaPonS c omPlEx This sector, which deals with nuclear warheads, isadministered by the Department of Energys National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Each majorfacility is managed by one or more institutions, rang-ing from the University of California system to Bab-cock and Wilcox to Lockheed Martin. The companies

involved in running major facilities within the complex are listed below, organized by facility.

Chemical and Metallurgy Research ReplacementNuclear Facility (CMRR-NF)

The primary purpose of this facility, based in NewMexico at Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL)is to help increase capacity to produce plutoniumpits, the triggers that start the nuclear reaction in athermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. The current estimatefor the construction of the facility is over $5.8 billion,more than 10 times the original estimate.19

Critics of the project have questioned whether the

CMRR is needed at all, given that there are moreenough pits available to support the current nuclearstockpile for decades to come, including capacityto build 20 more per year if needed. A study bywell-respected scienti c advisory group, the JASONgroup, estimated that the plutonium pits in currentwarheads will remain potent for 85 to 100 years.20

The operator of LANL, Los Alamos National SecurCompany LLC, is a consortium led by the Universiof California and including the Bechtel Corporation,Babcock and Wilcox, and URS Corporation.

There is reason to think that the CMRR project co be reduced, restructured or even canceled in the ligof upcoming pressures on the budget of the Depart-ment of Energys National Nuclear Security Admin-istration (NNSA), the body that oversees the nuclearweapons complex. As noted in a recent report onCMRR project by the Washington-based Project on

Government Oversight (POGO), the subcommittee ofthe House Appropriations Committee that deals withthe nuclear weapons complex has indicated that [many gaps remain in the planning efforts [for the Urum Processing Facility and CMRR Project], and bascapability requirements and acquisition strategiescontinue to be re-evaluated. Congress scaled back tadministrations funding request for CMRR from $30million to $200 million in the FY2012 budget. Thwas no funding requested for CMRR in the Obamaadministrations FY2013 budget. 21 The zeroing outhe projects budget was justi ed on the grounds thit would be too expensive to build the CMRR and

new Uranium Processing Facility(UPF) simultaneously.

The Uranium ProcessingFacility (UPF)

The UPF is being built at theY-12 National Security Complexin Oak Ridge, Tennessee.22 Th principal purpose of the facilitywill be to manufacture secondaies, the uranium-based compo-nents of a nuclear warhead. Emates for construction of the plahave jumped from $600 millionto $1.5 billion in 2005 to betwe$6 and $6.5 billion currently.23

The project was originally scheduled to come online in 2018, but the sche

Proposed construction of the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at Los Alamos National Laboratories, New Mexico.



7has now slipped to 2022. If carried forward,the UPF will be the most expensive bomb plantin history. In an April 2011 report, the Alliancefor Nuclear Accountability questioned whetherthe facility was needed at all:

With no new nuclear warheads on the drawing boardand the demands for life extension programs dimin-ishing, the UPF is fast becoming a project without

a need. The cost savings, security footprint reduc-tions, and manufacturing ef ciencies advertised as bene ts of the UPF can all be realized in existingfacilities if they are consolidated, downsized andupgradedat a fraction of the cost of a new facility.24

In keeping with the National Nuclear SecurityAdministrations (NNSA) plan to stagger pro-duction of the CMRR and the UPF, fundingfor the Uranium Processing Facility actually increasedin NNSAs FY2013 budget request, from $160 millionto $340 million.25

As noted above, the UPF is part of the Y-12 NationalSecurity Complex at Oak Ridge, a group of facilitiesoperated by a partnership of Babcock and Wilcox andthe Bechtel Corporation.

The Mixed Oxide (MOX) Facility

The MOX facility is being built at the SavannahRiver Site in Aiken, South Carolina. Its purpose is totake plutonium waste generated by the nuclear bomb program and transform it into fuel that can be used to

power civilian nuclear reactors. The current estimatefor construction of the plant is $4.9 billion, up from anestimate of $1.6 billion in 2004.26 Requests for con-struction funding for the project totaled $505 millionin FY2011, $385 million in FY2012, and $569 millionin FY2013.27

The MOX facility was originally envisioned as aneconomical way to dispose of excess plutonium gener-ated by the U.S. and Russian bomb programs, therebyserving the dual purpose of generating civilian nuclearfuel while also reducing the risks that weapons grade plutonium might fall into the hands of terrorist groupsor others seeking to build a nuclear weapon. The rst part of the equation has been called into question bythe fact that there has been little or no interest amongU.S. utility companies in using MOX fuel, a situa-tion that will only be made worse by the fact that theFukushima reactor that melted down in Japan was in part powered by MOX fuel.28 There is a real possibil-ity that the MOX plant will have no customers when

it comes online in 2016. Meanwhile, an alternativeexists for dealing with the proliferation risks entailein storing weapons grade plutonium. It can be imm bilized and stored in the form of ceramic pucks

canisters of lique ed waste. The technology for doso already exists.29

The MOX project is being run by Shaw Areva MOServices LLC, a partnership of the Shaw Group andAREVA, a French corporation with extensive opera-tions in the United States and Canada.

The Kansas City Plant (KCP)

The Kansas City Plant (KCP) produces nonnuclearcomponents for nuclear weapons. About 85% of thcontent of a nuclear weapon is built at this facility30

A new plant is in the process of being built in KaCity, Missouri, at an estimated cost of $500 million31

It is currently scheduled to become fully operationalin 2014. In an unorthodox procedure never beforeused in the development of a nuclear weapons facilconstruction is being nanced through the issuancemunicipal bonds by Kansas City.

The new KCP is being built and operated by the pvate developer CenterPoint Zimmer (CPZ), a limitedliability corporation composed of Zimmer Real EstatServices and Chicago-based CenterPoint PropertyTrust. Construction is being nanced with bondsissued by the Kansas City Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA). CPZ is slated to receive $ billion in lease payments over the next 20 years.facility will be sub-leased to the General ServicesAdministration, but the income to make these pay-ments will ultimately be provided by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the federal

The Kansas City Plant, a Nuclear Weapons Facility in Kansas City, Missouri.



8agency that oversees the nuclear weapons complex.This roundabout nancing mechanism will mean thatthe funding for the plant will be off the books as far NNSAs annual budget request is concerned, thereforemaking it harder for Congress to oversee and scruti-nize the project.32 The Honeywell Corporation has thecontract to operate the facility.

Life Extension Programs (LEPs)The NNSA spends billions of dollars per year to re-furbish and upgrade existing nuclear warheads underLife Extension Programs (LEPs). Two major projectsnow underway include work on the W78 and B-61-12warheads.

The W78 is slotted to replace current warheads onMinuteman III ICBMs, of which there will be 420 un-der the terms of the New START nuclear arms reduc-tion program. The full cost of the program is estimat-

ed at roughly $5 billion through 2025. Critics of theW78 program assert that it is unnecessary because 200of the warheads deployed on Minuteman III ICBMshave recently been replaced by the W87, the productof another LEP. In addition, they point out, there areabout 550 W87s in the stockpile that could be usedto replace the warheads on the remaining MinutemanICBMs in the U.S. arsenal.33

The B-61-12 is primarily aimed at producing modern-ized versions of 200 tactical (short-range) U.S. nuclear

weapons now deployed in Europe. As with the W78,a report by the Alliance for Nuclear Accountabilityquestions the need for the B-61-12:

NATO is in the process of reevaluating its policy regardingnuclear weapons deployment. The outcome of this debate isuncertain. Moreover, the B-61-12 is being re-designed to t onthe new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and will no longer t on the planes NATO counties presently use to carry current B-61s.34

The estimated cost of the program is $6 billion.35 Themain work on the B-61-12 program is being done atSandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New

Mexico. Lockheed Martin has the operating contractfor Sandia.

Other Nuclear Weapons Facilities

There are a number of other major facilities that form part of the nuclear weapons complex. They includethe Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory,run by Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC,which is composed of Bechtel National, the Universityof California, Babcock and Wilcox, the Washington

Division of URS Corporation, and Battelle (the partnership also has an af liation with the Texas A&MUniversity); the Nevada National Security Site (for-merly known as the Nevada Test Site), which is opated by National Security Technologies LLC (NTSeca joint venture between Northrop Grumman Corporation, AECOM, CH2M Hill, and Babcock & Wilcox;and the Pantex Plant, a facility primarily involved ithe assembly and disassembly of nuclear weapons, r by Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Pantex, L(B&W Pantex), an independent company formed solly to manage the Pantex plant that involves Babcocand Wilcox Technical Services Group, Inc., BWXTechnologies, Honeywell and Bechtel National.36

Companies with Multiple Roles in the Nuclear Weapons Industry

As illustrated above, a number of companies areinvolved in more than one major nuclear weapons-rlated project. For example, Babcock and Wilcox pa role in operating ve facilities, including LawrencLivermore and Los Alamos laboratories, the Y-12 Ntional Security Complex, the Nevada National Secu-rity site, and the Pantex Plant. Bechtel is involvedrunning four facilities -- Los Alamos, Lawrence Livmore, the Nevada National Security Site, and the Ptex Plant. Honeywell plays a role at both the KanCity Plant and the Pantex facility. Northrop Grummwill be bidding on the next-generation nuclear bomb

and is also involved in the consortium that runs th Nevada National Security site. And Lockheed Martwhich will also bid on the bomber project, runs Sa National Laboratories.

n uclEar w EaPonS c ontractS and d EFEnSE d EPEndEncyIt is dif cult to gather precise data on the value ocontracts related to the nuclear weapons projectsdescribed thus far. The bomber and submarine proj

ects are still in early development, and disaggregatedata on contracts for work at speci c sites within t National Nuclear Security Administrations nuclearweapons complex is hard to come by. Even so, this value in looking at the level of Department of Eergy and Department of Defense contracts receivedthe companies involved in developing nuclear delivevehicles and running nuclear weapons facilities, togive some sense of how important new nuclear weaons projects may be to these companies.



Bomber contractors

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grum-man are among the nations largest militarycontractors, receiving tens of billions of dol-lars annually in Pentagon contract awards (seeTable 1).

As seen in the table, each rm depends substan-

tially on government contracts for its business,in the case of Northrop Grumman almost ex-clusively so. Boeing is less dependent due to itsrole in the production of commercial airliners.Lockheed Martins military-related contractstop $38 billion once its $2.4 billion fee for run-ning Sandia National Laboratories is taken intoaccount. 37

What this means, particularly at a time whenPentagon procurement spending will be level-

ing off or decreasing, is that new government projects like the nuclear bomber are of particu-lar interest to these rms. In a period of levelor declining weapons spending, landing a dealfor up to 100 bombers at $550 million or more per copy would be a major win for any of thethree companies discussed in this section.38

Submarine contractors

There are only two companies capable of pro-ducing a next-generation ballistic missile sub-

marine, General Dynamics and HuntingtonIngalls Shipbuilding. Table 2 provides dataon their revenue and government contracts for2011.

General Dynamics Electric Boat division willmost likely serve as the prime contractor forthe next generation ballistic missile submarine,with Huntington Ingalls involved as a majorsubcontractor. At $5 to $8 billion per boat anda plan to build 12 ships, this program could be

a central source of revenue for both rms if itgoes forward as planned.

Nuclear Weapons Complex

Nuclear weapons contracts are among the largestoutlays in the Department of Energy budget. Themajority of contract dollars are awarded to rms likeLockheed Martin, Bechtel, Babcock and Wilcox, andLos Alamos National Security LLC that are integrallyinvolved in the nuclear weapons complex (see table 3,

below). Some rms, such as Savannah River Solutions, LLC and UT-Batelle, LLC receive contracts primarily for nuclear cleanup work, but the major-ity of rms listed in Table 3 (below) receive the bof their funds for research, development, design andmaintenance of nuclear warheads.

t ablE 1:Pentagon Contracts and Federal Contract

Dependency of Potential Contractors for theNext-Generation Bomber Project, FY 2011

CompanyDoD PrimeContracts,FY2011

Govt Contractsas % of Revenue

Lockheed Martin $35.6 billion 82%

Boeing $20.2 billion 38%

Northrop Grumman $13.8 billion 90%

SOURCE: Federal Procurement Data System, Top 100 ContractorsReport, FY2011 and company 10K reports for their 2011 scal years.

Data on government contracts as a percentage of revenue (displayed icolumn 2) include both prime and subcontracts.

t ablE 2:Pentagon Contracts and Federal ContractDependency of Major Contractors for the

Next Generation Ballistic Missile Submarines, FY2011

Company DoD PrimeContracts,FY2011

Govt Contractsas % of Revenue

GeneralDynamics $19.4 billion 72%

HuntingtonIngalls $4.0 billion 100%*

*In its 2011 10K report, Huntington Ingalls indicates that substantiallyall of its business is with the U.S. government.

SOURCES: Federal Procurement Data System, Top 100 ContractorsReport for FY2011 and company 10K reports for 2011.

9



10

t hE n uclEar w EaPonS l obby :a P roliFEration oF o rganizationSThe nuclear weapons lobby is not a monolithic entity.It consists of a network of overlapping organizationsthat include members of Congress, retired military personnel, and weapons producing corporations invarious combinations. Some relevant lobbying groups

are described below, with a focus on bombers andsubmarines.

The Submarine Lobby

The largest organization with a submarine-speci cfocus as opposed to an interest in shipbuilding moregenerally is the Submarine Industrial Base Coun-

cil, a body which claims to speak for the more th5,000 businesses across all 50 states that make upnations submarine industrial base. The organiza-tions goal is to educate policymakers and the pubabout the nations ability to design, build and maintsubmarines a highly specialized and unique workforce. 39

The notion that the nation needs to keep a large cof companies and workers in place to maintain theability to produce nuclear submarines now and in thfuture is a central tenet of the organization. Takento an extreme, it implies that we can never cut basigni cantly on submarine procurement. To do sowould be to lose the technology and skill base nee

to build them in case they are needed at some podown the road, or so the council claims. In factthere is evidence to suggest that the unique skillsequipment needed to maintain or revive a submari

production capability are fairly narrow. These esstial skills can be maintained by building prototypeor stretching out existing programs.40 As formerUnder Secretary of Defense Paul Kaminsky noted,We need not procure new systems to maintain mof our military-unique capabilities.41

The Submarine Industrial Base Councils Web siteincludes a Congressional Packet that consists ofconcise fact sheets, quotes from validators such askey members of Congress and retired admirals, an

not surprisingly, an article from the industry-backedLexington Institute. One of the groups main ac-tivities is an annual Congressional lobbying eventdubbed supplier days, and described as follows:Supplier Days is a great opportunity for you tosonally convey the important messages of the sub-marine industrial base to your members of Congreand to meet with Electric Boat and Newport NewShipbuilding management, US Navy of cials, theSubmarine Industrial Base Council leadership andfellow suppliers. 42

In March of 2012, 300 representatives of the coundescended on Capitol Hill to press for $150 milliofor long lead-time components for a new ballisticmissile submarine, funds that would be allocatedin addition the Navys $585 million FY2013 re-quest for R&D on the ship. We really want toto Congress and make certain they understand thesigni cance of the strategic deterrent a new ballistic missile sub would provide, said Dan DePompei

t ablE 3:Department of Energy Contractors Involved in

Nuclear Weapons-Related Work, FY2011

Company Contracts ($ mil-lions)

Lockheed Martin 2,716.0

Los Alamos National Secu-rity LLC 2,504.9

Babcock and Wilcox 2,057.4

Bechtel Group, Inc. 2,009.3

Battelle MemorialInstitute 1,619.8

Lawrence Livermore Na-tional Security LLC 1,574.8

URS Corporation 1,465.8

UT-Batelle LLC 1,287.7

State of California 795.5

Savannah RiverSolutions LLC 764.5

Honeywell International 652.8

CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. 635.3

Shaw Group 516.9

National SecurityTechnologies 510.9

SOURCE: Federal Procurement Data System, Top 100 Contrac-tor Report, FY2011.



11of Dresser-Rand industries, the co-chairman of thecouncil. 43

There are no dues to join the council. Operatingexpenses are paid for by the Electric Boat Division ofGeneral Dynamics, the company most likely to buildthe next generation ballistic-missile ring submarine.

Working parallel to the Submarine Industrial Base

Council is the Naval Submarine League, which de-scribes itself as the professional organization forsubmarine advocates. It is nanced by 58 corporate benefactors, ranging from Advanced Acoustic Con-cepts, LLC, to General Dynamics, to Northrop Grum-man, to Oceaneering International. The groups boardof directors includes an impressive array of former ad-mirals, vice-admirals, and other naval of cers. Mainactivities include annual symposia on the history,technology, and current status of the U.S. submarineforce; putting out its own publication,The Submarine

Review; and holding Corporate Benefactors Recogni-tion Days that bring together companies involved insubmarine production with key Navy of cials.

The Navy League is another major advocate of build-ing the next generation of ballistic missile submarines(SSBNs). With 60,000 members and 250 chapters mostly composed of retired personnel from the Navy,Marines, or Coast Guard the Navy League is well positioned to bring pressure to bear on Congress andthe Executive Branch on behalf of its agenda. Like all

of the organizations that form part of the submarinelobby, it has generous corporate support, with 247 corporate partners, including 25 Corporate Gold members who are the largest nancial contributors to theorganization. Seven of the 25 corporate gold membersare among the major nuclear weapons contractors pro-

led in this report: Boeing, Fluor Corporation, Gen-eral Electric Marine, General Dynamics, Honeywell,Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. Each goldmember makes an annual contribution of $15,000 tothe Navy League.

As its name suggests, the Navy League is concernedwith the full range of government shipbuilding initia-tives, not just SSBNs. Its optimum goal is to movetowards a 307-ship Navy, up from the current inven-tory of 285 ships.44 The league also proposes to raisethe annual shipbuilding budget to over $20 billion per year, a one-third increase from the current levelof roughly $15 billion per year.45 These goals areunlikely to be met in the current scal climate, but the

Navy Leagues push for these spending levels mayresult in annual shipbuilding budgets that are higherthan those currently envisioned.

On the issue of the SSBN, the Navy League has vspeci c objectives.

In its maritime policy statement, the league assertsthat the ballistic-missile submarine program must

be recapitalized in a timely manner and funded as anational program outside of the Navys SCN account .[emphasis added]. 46 The reason the Navy Leaguesupports a separate budget line for the SSBNs is c their enormous cost:

The Ohio SSBN replacement is under design, with efforts torestrain the costs yet to meet the expected operational demands.This development and construction program, if allowed to re-main in the Navys SCN funding accounts, will create havocwith other vital construction programs. These costs should ba national strategic program off the Navys funding books.47

In addition to these outside organizations, there aretwo caucuses within the Congress that attempt to exleverage on behalf of higher shipbuilding budgetsin general and spending on ballistic missile subma-rines in particular. The Congressional ShipbuildingCaucus is the larger and more in uential of the twIt is co-chaired by Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), whohas a strong interest in the welfare of the Newport News, Virginia shipyard, which is one of two mainconstruction sites for a next-generation SSBN. Theother co-chair is Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT), who hthe General Dynamics Electric Boat submarine plantin his district. According to its web site, the cauchas 74 members representing 29 states.48 Ten ofthe members are from Virginia, home of HuntingtonIngalls Newport News shipyard. Given its numbers,the caucus offers a useful core for efforts to sustainexpand funding for ballistic missile submarines. Th presumes that the caucus is not split in the event battle within the shipbuilding budget between surfacships and submarines a ght that is likely to occ

if the ballistic missile submarine doesnt get its own budget line.

Finally, there is the Submarine Caucus, for which thSSBN is obviously a top priority. It doesnt haveown Web site, and at 16 members it is much smalthan the shipbuilding caucus. It has four co-chairs,including Representatives Wittman and Courtney the co-chairs of the Shipbuilding Caucus as wellRep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and Jim Langevin (D-RI



12Forbes, whose district is close to the Newport Newsshipbuilding facility, has also been a major advocateof higher military budgets generally, alongside HouseArmed Services Committee Chairman Howard P.Buck McKeon (R-CA). In particular, Forbes hashelped spearhead efforts to hold off the so-called se-quester the over $500 billion in additional reductionsin Pentagon spending plans over 10 years that would be triggered if Congress does not come up with anadequate de cit reduction package.49 If the sequesteror some version thereof is implemented, it will put thatmuch more pressure on the shipbuilding budget andmake a next-generation SSBN even less affordable.

The Bomber Lobby

The bomber lobby does not involve as many distinctorganizations as the submarine lobby, but it has onecrucial advantage: the Air Force Association. It is an$18 million per year operation with nearly 100,000members. Although technically a 501(c)3, nonpro torganization, the AFA is one of the most effectiveadvocacy groups in Washington. As it notes in itsannual report, under the heading Educating Lawmak-ers and Their Staffs, AFAs congressional outreach programs include brie ngs, targeted meetings,and Secretary/Chief of Staff of the Air Force recep-tions reaching hundreds of Congressional staffers andmembers, with attendance increasing at virtually everyevent. Its top issues for 2012 include eld[ing] a

new bomber well before current B-52 and B-1 bombereets go out of service. But the AFA also speaks out

on issues related to the nuclear warhead complex, call-ing, for example, for funding for multi-billion dollarlife extension programs for existing warheads and billions more for what it describes as a responsiveinfrastructure to deter, assure, and provide stability.50

As noted above, independent analysts have questionedthe need for these expenditures.

AFAs President and CEO Michael M. Dunn is a

former Secretary of the Air Force and has been an ag-gressive advocate of increasing spending on combataircraft, including long-range bombers. The organiza-tion receives hundreds of thousands of dollars per yearin corporate donations, with the top donors includingBoeing (over $200,000 per year), Northrop Grumman(in the $100,000 to $199,000 range per year), Lock-heed Martin (between $50,000 and $99,000 per year),and Honeywell ($50,000 to $99,000).51

In parallel to the AFA, there is a Congressional Long-

Range Strike Caucus that advocates for funding notonly for nuclear and conventional bombers but fortercontinental Ballistic Missiles and cruise missiles awell. Similar to the submarine caucus, the long-ranstrike caucus has no Web site. It does not even pformal list of members. However, inquiries with keCongressional of ces and reviews of key Congres-sional statements suggest that the caucus has had asmany as 15 members in recent years, although fourthese were either defeated or chose to leave Congreafter the 2010 elections. The co-chairs of the caucare Rep. John C. Fleming (R-LA), a House ArmedServices Committee member whose district hosts thenew Global Strike Command at Barksdale, LouisianaAir Force Base; and Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallof Guam, the site of a major B-52 bomber base.other Republican representatives from Louisiana arealso members of the caucus Steve Scalise, Rodne

Alexander, Charles W. Boustany, and Bill Cassidy.Missouri, home of Whiteman Air Force Base, whichhosts the B-2 bomber, is represented in the caucusRepublican representatives Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer. By far the most important member ofLong Range Strike Caucus is House Armed ServiceCommittee Chairman Rep. Howard P. Buck McKeon, who has Northrop Grummans B-2 stealth bombfacility in his district, and who has been the recipieof over $800,000 from the major nuclear weaponscontractors pro led in this study over the course of

his career. Lockheed Martin and Boeing competitofor the new nuclear bomber project have also macontributions to the campaign of Buck McKeonswife, Patricia, who is running for the California StaAssembly. 52

The ICBM Coalition

There is also a Congressional network that advocatefor the third leg of the nuclear triad, IntercontinentaBallistic Missiles (ICBMs). The group consists ofmembers of the Senate whose states either house bawhere Minuteman III ICBMs are located or have sini cant-ICBM related work in their state. The ICBM bases are located in Montana, North Dakota and Wming. As a result, caucus members include SenatoJon Tester (D-MT); Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT); Sen.Kent Conrad (D-ND); Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND);Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY); and Sen. Mike Enzi(R-WY). Maintenance on Minuteman IIIs is doneHill Air Force Base in Utah, and Alliant Techsystem



13(also known as ATK) produces Minuteman III Stage 1motors as part of its Minuteman Solid Rocket MotorWarm Line (SRMWL) program at ATKs test facilityin Promontory, Utah.53 This work helps account forthe membership of Utah Republican Senators OrrinHatch and Mike Lee. Sen. Conrad and Sen. Enzi areco-chairs of the ICBM coalition.

The coalition is vigilant in its opposition to any chang-es that might reduce the number of ICBMs in the U.Sarsenal to levels that might threaten the existence ofcurrent ICBM bases. For example, a February 2012 press release from Sen. Jon Testers of ce lists a seriesof letters to the Obama administration and meetingswith key administration of cials such as Secretariesof Defense Leon Panetta and Robert Gates and VicePresident Joe Biden designed to ensure ICBM fund-ing is maintained throughout the budget process.This includes advocating for the highest possible lev-

els of ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal even after reductionsin deployed warheads required by the New STARTnuclear arms reduction treaty. Current plans call for amodest decrease in deployed ICBMs from 450 to 420as part of the implementation of New START. TheICBM coalition has urged that the remaining 30 silosstay in a warm status, ready to deploy ICBMs ifrequired at some future date. This policy would meanthat no ICBM silos would be destroyed.54

Baucus and Tester have argued that if there are to be

additional cuts in nuclear delivery vehicles, the Penta-gon should go after the other legs of the nuclear triad, bombers or ballistic missile submarines:

ICBMs are by far the most cost-ef cient leg of the nucleartriad. The ICBM fleet provides a critical deterrent be-cause of its considerable survivability. Unlike an attackon the submarine or bomber leg of the triad, an enemywould be required to strike deep within the continentalUnited States in order effectively eliminate ICBM strikecapability. Such a visible, highly dispersed force creates a powerful disincentive for any adversary while also provid-ing clear reassurance to our allies, many o f whom have

chosen not to pursue their own nuclear arsenal becauseof the security provided by Americas nuclear umbrella.55

This suggests the possibility that if a combination of policy and budgetary and policy changes result in sig-ni cant cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal beyond NewSTART levels, the lobbies for each leg of the nucleartriad might spend as much or more time ghting eachother as they would ghting for a status quo in thelevels of U.S. nuclear weapons overall.

b uying inFluEncE : c amPaign c ontributionSand t hE r Evolving d oor

Campaign Contributions by Nuclear WeaponsContractors

There are dozens of members of Congress who plamajor roles in deciding how much funding goes tospeci c nuclear weapons-related projects, but somehave far more in uence than others. The key comtees that deal with nuclear weapons-related fundingare the Energy and Water Subcommittees of the Hoand Senate Appropriations Committees; and the Strategic Forces Subcommittees of the House and SenatArmed Services Committees.

The Energy and Water Subcommittees deal with thenuclear weapons complex, including projects such asthe Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), the Chemi-cal and Metallurgy Replacement Nuclear Facility(CMRR-NF), and the Mixed Oxide (MOX) facility,all mentioned above. On the Senate side the subcomittee chair is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and tranking Republican is Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)Sen. Feinsteins state is home to the Lawrence Livemore nuclear weapons laboratory, and Sen. Alexan-ders state is home to the Oak Ridge National Secusite, which includes the UPF project. On the Housside the Energy and Water Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ). The rankingDemocrat is Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN).

The Strategic Forces Subcommittees deal with nucledelivery vehicles such as submarine-launched ballisticmissiles (SLBMs) and intercontinental ballistic mis-siles (ICBMs), along with related programs such asmissile defense. On the Senate side the subcommitis chaired by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), whose stateis home to the Strategic Command (Stratcom), andthe ranking Republican is Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)whose state hosts a large cluster of missile defensecontractors in and around Huntsville. On the Houseside the subcommittee is chaired by Rep. MichaelTurner (R-OH), one of the most aggressive advocateof increased spending for nuclear projects of all sorwhether they relate to warheads or delivery vehiclesThe ranking Democrat is Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Other major players with decision making powerover nuclear weapons spending include House ArmeServices Committee Chair Rep. Howard P. Buck



14

McKeon, who has facilities of all the three competi-tors for a new nuclear bomber in his district Boe-ing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin; and

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), who has on occasion beencalled the Representative from Boeing due to his re-lentless advocacy for his home state rm. Rep. Dicksis the ranking Democrat on the Defense Subcommit-tee of the House Appropriations Committee. Last but not least is Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a central playerin opposing major arms control treaties like the NewStrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) andin supporting increased spending on nuclear weapons.Although he does not serve on any national security-related committees, over the years he has become thekey point person for Senate Republicans on nuclearweapons issues. For example, he led the successful1999 effort to block rati cation of the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty. He was not able to maintain a solid block of Republican opposition to the New STARTtreaty, however. It was rati ed in December 2010 with13 Republican votes in favor.56

It should be noted that three key players in the nuclearweapons debate are leaving Congress in 2012: SenateStrategic Forces Subcommittee Chair Sen. Ben Nelson(D-NE), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Defense Appropri-ations ranking Democrat Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA).It will be interesting to see how their absence impactsthe effectiveness of the nuclear weapons lobby inCongress.

In addition to the key players mentioned thus far, the project tracked campaign contributions to members ofCongress who t one or more of the following catego-ries: 1) members of the Energy and Water or Strategic

Forces Subcommittees; 2) members ofrelevant caucuses like the Long-RangeStrike Caucus, the Submarine Caucus,or the ICBM coalition; and 3) Membewith major nuclear weapons-related fa-cilities in their states or districts or whave been vocal advocates of highernuclear weapons spending. Thesecategories add up to 92 members, morthan one out of every six members ofCongress.

The project then tracked campaign contributions to these key members from

major nuclear weapons contractors, including Babcock and Wilcox, Bechtel, BoeingHoneywell, Lockheed Martin, Northrop

Grumman, Shaw-Areva Services, and URS Corpora-tion. The results are summarized in Tables 4, 5 a

As noted in Table 4, during the 2012 election cyclthe top 14 nuclear weapons contractors donated ove$2.9 million to key members of Congress with leveage over nuclear weapons spending decisions. Duritheir entire Congressional careers, these same members received over $18.7 million in campaign con-tributions from the top nuclear weapons contractors.The bulk of these contributions went to members othe key subcommittees highlighted above the Strategic Forces Subcommittees of the Armed Services

Committees in each house and the Energy and WatSubcommittees of the Appropriations Committeesin each house. Total contributions by major nucleaweapons contractors to members of these four sub-committees have been over $1.6 million in the 201election cycle thus far, and $11.7 lifetime.

The majority of the members in the top 20 recipienlist for contributions by major nuclear weapons con-tractors are on key committees and/or have nuclearweapons contractors in or near their districts. Sixthe top 20 are on the Strategic Forces Subcommit-tee of the House Armed Services Committee: Rep.Mo Brooks (R-AL); Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA); RepScott Rigell (R-VA); Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL); RepC.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD); and Rep. MacThornberry (R-TX). The chair of the House ArmedServices Committee, Rep. Howard P. Buck McKe-on, heads the list, and the ranking Democrat Rep. Norm Dicks, (D-WA) comes in second. As notedlier, Rep. Dicks is not running for re-election in 20

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and Howard P. Buck McKeon (R-CA),Chair of the House Armed Services Committee.

HA S C R e p u b l i c a n s , vi a F l i c k r , C r e a t i v e C omm on s A t t r i b u t i on



As for the Strategic Forces Subcommittee as a whole,top nuclear weapons contractors have given $558,532to members of the subcommittee in the 2012 cycle sofar, and $2.2 million lifetime to these same members.

Members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee ofthe House Appropriations Committee which has jurisdiction over the National Nuclear Security Ad-ministration, the agency that runs the nuclear weaponscomplex are also well-represented on the Top 20list, with ve members in all. Subcommittee ChairRodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) ranks fth on the list,and Subcommittee ranking Democrat Pete Visclosky

ranks tenth. Other subcommittee members in the to20 include Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Rep. Ed Pasto(D-AZ), and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID).

As for the Energy and Water Subcommittee as awhole, top nuclear weapons contractors have given$338,530 to members of the subcommittee in the 2cycle so far, and $2.5 million lifetime to these sammembers.

There are four members of the Seapower and ForceProjection subcommittee of the House Armed ServicCommittee among the top 20 recipients of campaign

t ablE 4:

Campaign Contributions by Major Nuclear Weapons Contractors to Key Members of Congress,2012 Election Cycle and Career

Company 2012 Contributions Total Contributions

1 Lockheed Martin $535,000 $2,764,9492 Honeywell International $464,582 $2,199,431

3 Northrop Grumman $464,000 $2,568,748

4 Boeing Co $336,750 $2,272,551

5 General Dynamics $293,850 $2,183,461

6 General Electric $231,450 $2,097,720

7 United Technologies $158,000 $1,065,350

8 Fluor Corp $103,150 $652,149

9 Bechtel Group $98,500 $769,550

10 Babcock & Wilcox $92,000 $449,749

11 CH2M HILL $67,730 $573,459

12 Shaw Group $38,466 $365,715

13 AECOM Technology Corp $18,200 $87,966

14 URS Corp/WashingtonGroup $11,900 $669,086

Total $2,913,578 $18,719,88

SOURCE: Data is from the Center for Responsive Politics, analyzed by the Center for International Policy.

Note: Data for Babcock and Wilcox includes period when it was part of McDermott International.

15



16

t ablE 5:

Top 20 Recipients of Campaign Contributions from Nuclear Weapons Contractors,U.S. House of Representatives, Ranked by Donations Received During 2011/2012

Member Af l. FY 2012 Lifetime Top Lifetime Contributor

1 McKeon, Howard (Buck) R-CA $257,750 $809,150 Northrop Grumman

2 Dicks, Norm D-WA $110,000 $797,200 Boeing Co

3 Thornberry, Mac R-TX $87,250 $329,249 Lockheed Martin

4 Ruppersberger, Dutch D-MD $74,400 $308,600 Northrop Grumman

5 Lewis, Jerry R-CA $69,500 $807,449 General Dynamics

6 Granger, Kay R-TX $62,750 $421,900 Lockheed Martin

7 Akin, Todd R-MO $62,250 $222,850 Boeing Co

8 Clyburn, James D-SC $61,500 $345,527 Lockheed Martin

9 Frelinghuysen, Rodney R-NJ $59,050 $405,200 Lockheed Martin

10 Larsen, Rick D-WA $53,000 $252,000 Boeing Co

11 Hunter, Duncan D R-CA $51,950 $131,300 General Dynamics

12 Kingston, Jack R-GA $48,500 $331,500 General Dynamics

13 Simpson, Mike R-ID $46,980 $285,519 CH2M HILL

14 Courtney, Joe D-CT $46,250 $162,750 United Technologies

15 Rogers, Mike D R-AL $43,500 $243,949 General Dynamics

16 Visciosky, Pete D-IN $42,500 $384,900 Northrop Grumman

17 Brooks, Mo R-AL $40,500 $56,750 Honeywell International

18 Rigell, Scott R-VA $35,999 $35,999 Honeywell International19 Pastor, Ed D-AZ $35,000 $263,700 General Dynamics

20 Wittman, Rob R-VA $33,450 $128,350 Northrup Grumman

SOURCE: Data generated by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed by the Center for International Policy.



17

t ablE 6:

Top 20 Recipients of Campaign Contributions from Nuclear Weapons Contractors, U.S. Senate,Ranked by Donations Received During 2011/2012

Member Af l. FY 2012 Lifetime Top Lifetime Contributor

1 Feinstein, Dianne D-CA $74,500 $421,747 Northrop Grumman

2 Gillibrand, Kirsten D-NY $54,916 $154,907 Honeywell International

3 Tester, Jon D-MT $53,500 $66,600 General Electric

4 Barrasso, John R-WY $48,500 $124,00 Honeywell International

5 Hatch, Orrin R-UT $47,500 $234,616 General Electric

6 Collins, Susan M R-ME $44,000 $341,600 General Dynamics

7 Graham, Lindsey R-SC $44,000 $434,660 Fluor Corp

8 Landrieu, Mary L D-LA $40,350 $369,298 Shaw Group

9 Cornyn, John R-TX $39,500 $265,250 Lockheed Martin

10 McConnell, Mitch R-KY $39,500 $433,925 General Electric

11 Baucus, Max D-MT $39,500 $417,240 General Electric

12 Corker, Bob R-TN $36,500 $106,450 Honeywell International

13 Udall, Mark D-CO $36,500 $190,899 Lockheed Martin

14 Wicker, Roger R-MS $34,500 $193,500 Northrop Grumman

15 Inhofe, James M R-OK $34,000 $285,310 Lockheed Martin

16 Thune, John R-SD $30,000 $175,900 Northrop Grumman

17 Nelson, Ben D-NE $28,500 $178,750 Lockheed Martin

18 Shelby, Richard C R-AL $27,500 $485,750 Northrop Grumman19 Cochran, Thad R-MS $24,000 $357,650 Northrop Grumman

20 Begich, Mark D-AK $23,000 $63,900 Boeing Co

SOURCE: Data generated by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed by the Center for International Policy.



18contributions from major nuclear weapons contractors:Subcommittee Chair Todd Akin, (R-MO), Rep. RobWittman (R-VA), Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT), and Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-CA).

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), one of the most asser-tive advocates for high levels of spending on nuclearweapons facilities and nuclear delivery vehicles, isalso a signi cant recipient of campaign contributionsfrom nuclear weapons contractors. He has receivedover $144,500 lifetime from major nuclear weaponscontractors, and $19,000 for the current election cycle.His largest lifetime donor among nuclear weaponscontractors is General Dynamics, at $31,500. Rep.Denny Rehberg (R-MT), sponsor of a recent Houseamendment designed to block funding for the imple-mentation of the New START arms reduction treatywith Russia and protect funding for ICBMs based inhis home state, has received $118,990 from major

nuclear weapons contractors during his career in Con-gress.

The top Senate recipients of contributions from nu-clear weapons contractors were also concentrated inkey subcommittees. Nine of the 17 members of theEnergy and Water Subcommittee of the Senate Ap- propriations Committee were in the top 20 recipientsof campaign donations from nuclear weapons con-tractors, including Subcommittee Chair Sen. DianneFeinstein (D-CA), Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), Sen. Patty

Murray (D-WA), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA),Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY),Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Sen. Thad Cochran(R-MS).

As for the Energy and Water subcommittee as a whole,top nuclear weapons contractors have given $455,100to members of the subcommittee in the 2012 cycle sofar, and $4.6 million lifetime to these same members.

Similarly, a large proportion of the members of the

Senate Armed Services Committees Subcommitteeon Strategic Forces seven out of 13 were amongthe top 20 recipients of donations from major nuclearweapons contractors. Recipients included Subcom-mittee Chair Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. RogerWicker (R-MS), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen.John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), Sen.James Inhofe (R-OK), and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).

As for the Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee asa whole, top nuclear weapons contractors have given

$272,816 to members of the subcommittee in the 2cycle so far, and $2.4 million lifetime to these sammembers.

Other members of the Top 20 who are not on onethe key committees still have connections to nuclearweapons or other strategic facilities. Sen. Bob Cor(R-TN), twelfth on the list, represents the home staof the Oak Ridge National Security site, where thenew Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) is being buSen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) represents Huntsville,Alabama, home to the largest cluster of missile de-fense contractors in the country.

Other major recipients of nuclear weapons contractor political contributions in include Sen. Jeff Sessions(R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Subcommit-tee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed ServicCommittee, who has received $143,275 during his political career from top nuclear weapons contrac-tors, with Lockheed Martin his top donor at $35,15Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. JoeLieberman (ID-CT), who has received $466,435 inlifetime contributions from these rms, with UnitedTechnologies as his largest contributor with $172,050in donations; and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who has received $250,875 from major nuclear weapons contrators in his career, with General Dynamics as his ladonor at $45,100.

It should be noted that while donations to key deci

sion makers are a sign that contractors are seekingin uence over and access to these members of Congress, these efforts are not always successful. Forexample, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has been onof the keenest critics of the National Nuclear SecurAdministration (NNSA). She opposed the NNSAs proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), andhas raised questions about the costs and scope of kfacilities like the plutonium-producing Chemical andMetallurgy Replacement Facility (CMRR) and theUranium Processing Facility.57

Through the Revolving Door

In addition to making campaign contributions, anothtechnique for attempting to in uence governmentdecision makers is the use of the revolving door.revolving door refers to the process through which public of cials leave government service to work focompanies they had been in charge of funding and/regulating. There are two potential problems with


19/25 A Publication of the Center for International Policy A Publication of the Center for International Policy

revolving door. First, it raises the danger that compa-ny lobbyists who used to work in government can getspecial treatment for their rm from former colleaguesin key decision making positions in government. Sec-ond, of cials may not strike as hard a bargain as theyshould with rms if they see them as potential futureemployers.

More than forty years ago, the late Sen. WilliamProxmire (D-WI) eloquently summarized the potential problem posed by the revolving door:

The easy movement of high ranking military of cersinto jobs with major defense contractors and the reversemovement of top executives in major defense contractorsinto high Pentagon jobs is solid evidence of the military-industrial-complex in operation. It is a real threat to the public interest because it increases the chances of abuse . .. How hard a bargain will of cers involved in procurement planning or speci cations drive when they are one or twoyears from retirement and have the example to look at ofover 2,000 fellow of cers doing well on the outside afterretirement? 58

In some instances, the revolving door starts at the top.For example, until recently, former Secretary of En-ergy Spencer Abraham was president of MOX ArevaServices, the joint venture of the French rm Arevaand the U.S. contractor The Shaw Group Inc. thatis responsible for the troubled Mixed Oxide (MOX) plant in Aiken, South Carolina.59 And Everet Beck-ner, a former executive at Lockheed Martin, spent astint as the head of nuclear weapons facilities at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).60

But for every top executive who makes the leap fromgovernment to industry or the reverse, there are dozensof high- and mid-level of cials doing the same thing.For example, the 14 nuclear weapons contractorscovered by this study employ 137 lobbyists who areformer employees of key members of Congress, Con-gressional Committees, or executive branch agencieslike the Department of Defense and the Departmentof Energy (of which the NNSA is a part) or one of

the military services. A number of lobbyists work formore than one of the nuclear weapons contractors.61

The breakdown of major revolving door lobbyists is asfollows (see Tables 7 and 8):

The distribution of revolving door hires among companies differs substantially (see Table 8, below).

As demonstrated in Table 7, the majority of relevantrevolving door hires now working as lobbyists for keynuclear weapons contractors came from Congress,

A Publication of the Center for International Policy

19a total of 96 in all. Next in line were the uniformmilitary, with 26, and the executive branch (DoD aDOE), with 25. To cite just one example of thetential in uence offered by these connections, a dozof the revolving door lobbyists listed here are formchiefs of staff for key members of Congress, including Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Rob Portman (R-OHSenate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY),Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Rep. Kay Grang(R-TX). In addition, 19 revolving door lobbyists aformer staffers of members of the Energy and WateSubcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Com-mittee the committee that controls spending on thnuclear warhead complex. Subcommittee memberswith former staffers now working for nuclear weapocontractors include Rep. Patty Murray (D-WA), fourSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), 4; Sen. Susan Collin

(R-ME), 4; and one former staffer each from theces of Thad Cochran (R-MS); Sen. Richard Shelby(R-AL); Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA); Sen. LindseGraham (R-SC); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. KayBailey Hutchinson (R-TX); and Sen. Mitch McCon-nell (R-KY).

Table 8 shows that the largest rms have far andthe most revolving door lobbyists, dominated by Boing (39), General Dynamics (32), General Electric(29), and Lockheed Martin (20).

t hE b ottom l inE : b ombS v ErSuS b udgEtSAs Congress and the president wrangle over the ap propriate level of spending on defense in an era ofde cit reduction, military contractors includingthose involved in nuclear weapons-related work have become increasingly vocal in their oppositionto real reductions in military spending. Althoughhas been described in some circles as a plan for cuts in Pentagon spending, the Obama administra-tions current plan would involve cuts of only 1.6%

real terms over the next ve years.62 The larger goften cited $487 billion in cuts over a decademeasured relative to the Pentagons prior, unrealistic plans, not relative to current spending levels.63 Butafter over a decade of steady increases in militaryspending, even the leveling off entailed in currentPentagon plans will pose problems for major procurment programs.64 There is simply not enough moin proposed budgets to pay for ballistic missile sub



20

t ablE 8:

Revolving Door Lobbyists, Major Nuclear Weapons Contractors, as of December 2011

Company Number of Revolving Door Lobbyists*

Boeing 39

General Dynamics 32

General Electric 29

Lockheed Martin 20

Northrop Grumman 17

United Technologies 11

Honeywell 10

Babcock and Wilcox 9

URS/ Washington Group 4

Shaw Group 3Fluor Corp. 3

AECOM 1

SOURCE: Analysis by the Center for International Policy based on data in the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets data base.

*Revolving door hires counted for purposes of this table include only those who worked for the military services, thePentagon, the Department of Energy, a key member of Congress, or a key Congressional committee. An accountingof all revolving door lobbyists working for these rms would yield substantially higher numbers.

t ablE 7:Breakdown of Major Revolving Door Lobbyists Employed by the Nuclear Weapons

Industry

Organization Worked For Number - Revolving Door

Member of Congress 57

Key Congressional Cmte 39

Department of Defense 16

Department of Energy 8

Uniformed Military 26

SOURCE: Data analyzed by the Center for International Policy based on information contained in the Center for ResponsivOpen Secrets data base. Totals re ect the fact that some lobbyists worked for one or more of the relevant agencies/of



21marines and a full complement of new surface ships; anew bomber and over 2,000 F-35 ghters plus a newgeneration of aerial refueling tankers; or three majornew nuclear weapons facilities.

But even given the potential impacts on key programsof the Obama administrations modest belt tightening,the industry and its allies in Congress have reservedtheir harshest rhetorical re for the much feared pros- pect of sequestration the automatic spending cutsthat will be triggered if Congress fails to come up withan adequate de cit reduction plan.65 If sequestrationwere to occur, Pentagon plans would be scaled back by roughly $1 trillion over the next decade twicethe level of reductions called for in the current Obama plan. This would put considerable additional pres-sure on weapons procurement budgets, making it thatmuch less likely that costly projects like a new nuclear bomber or a new ballistic missile submarine will be

fully funded or funded at all.It should also be noted that reductions in nuclearweapons spending can and should be made at what-ever level of Pentagon expenditures emerges fromcurrent debates. At a time when as few as 300 nuclearweapons would be more than adequate to deter anycountry from attacking the United States with itsnuclear arsenal compared to the thousands theUnited States currently possesses it is not possible toargue that spending reductions in this area would leave

us with a hollow military or undermine support formilitary personnel, or otherwise undermine our de-fenses, as suggested by the pro-nuclear lobby.66 Andthe Obama administrations current nuclear policy re-view, while it may set the stage for further reductionsin the U.S. arsenal, is unlikely to go anywhere near aslow as 300 deployed warheads.

In fact, signi cant savings in nuclear weapons spend-ing are possible even without a major policy shift.And some changes such as reducing the ballisticmissile submarine force from 12 to eight while in-creasing the number of warheads that can be launched by the remaining boats could be carried out withouteven reducing the levels of deployed warheads al-lowed under the New START nuclear arms reductiontreaty. 67 Strong cases can also be made for delayingthe construction of a new nuclear-capable bomber orending plans for a facility that will allow the Depart-ment of Energy to step up its capacity to make pluto-nium pits for nuclear warheads.68

Reductions in Pentagon spending could increase the prospects of a split in the nuclear weapons lobby, wkey contractors and their allies ghting over a shrining budgetary pie. We have already seen examplesof this in the actions of the ICBM Coalition, whichhas made the case that ICBMs are superior to bomers in the capabilities offered as part of an emerginU.S. nuclear deterrent. Discussions over whether toset up a separate budget category for ballistic missisubmarines so that spending on them doesnt directlyimpinge on the Navys budget are aimed at heading budgetary tradeoffs between surface ships and ballistmissile subs.

The bottom line is that the level of nuclear weaponspending and the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenalshould be determined based on strategic decisionsabout how best to defend the country, not on pork barrel politics. In order to move in that direction,

following policy options should be implemented:1. The ballistic missile submarine force should be

reduced from 12 boats to eight, with additionalwarheads carried in each boat. This would save$18 billion over the next decade while sustainingthe capability to deploy the number of warheadscalled for under the New START treaty.

2. Plans for a new nuclear bomber should be shelat a savings of $18 billion over the next decadeAt a minimum, the bomber should not be made

nuclear-capable.3. There is no circumstance under which it will b

necessary to build large numbers of new plutonipits or triggers for nuclear warheads. Therefothe Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replace-ment facility at Los Alamos National Laboratorieshould be cancelled, at a savings of $5 billionthe next decade.

4. Plutonium waste from nuclear warheads can beneutralized without building the multi-billion dol-

lar Mixed Oxide (MOX) facility. It too shouldcancelled, at a savings of at least $4.9 billionconstruction costs over the next ten years.69

While these steps will have some impact on the nuar weapons industry, they are manageable in the context of a $14 trillion economy. There is too muchstake to let narrow special interests trump the nationinterest when it comes to making decisions on nuclweapons spending and policy.



22

About the author: William Hartung is a senior policy analyst at CIP, where he directs the Arms & Se-curity project. Hartung specializes in national security issues, and has authored numerous articles that have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the World Policy Journal. His most recent book is Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complexx(Nation Books, 2011).

r EFErEncES1Aaron Mehta and R. Jeffrey Smith, Possible Nuclear Weapons Cuts Worry Republican Lawmakers,iWatch News , Center for PubliIntegrity, March 5, 2012, available at http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/05/8313/possible-nuclear-weapons-cuts-worry-republican-lawmakers

2David Axe, Bombs Away: How the Air Force Sold Its Risky New $55 Billion Plane,The Danger Room , March 26, 2012, availableat http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/05/8313/possible-nuclear-weapons-cuts-worry-republican-lawmakers For the $68 billionestimate, which includes research and development, see Letter from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to Senator John McCain budgetary effects of sequestration, November 14, 2011. The letter is cited in Tom Z. Collina and Kelsey Davenport, Fact Shee Nuclear Modernization Programs, Arms Control Association, April 9, 2012.

3Christopher Castelli, New Nuclear Subs Will Cost $347 Billion to Acquire, Operate Defense News, February 16, 2011, availabhttp://defensenewsstand.com/NewsStand-General/The-INSIDER-Free-Article/dod-new-nuclear-subs-will-cost-347-billion-to-acquire-operate/menu-id-720.html Article cited in Tom Z. Collina and Kelsey Davenport, Fact Sheet: U.S. Nuclear Modernization Programop. cit. On costs for procurement and R&D of new ballistic missile submarines, see Congressional Budget Of ce, An Analysis of the

Navys 2011 Shipbuilding Plan , June 2011, p. 17.

4Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Nuclear Reality Checks: the U.S. Department of Energys Most Dangerous Budget-Busting Projects , April 2011, available at http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/high_risk_report.pdf

5Ibid., p. 17.

6As of 1996, the Department of Energy had estimated the costs of cleaning up the nuclear warhead complex at $227 billion, athat is considered to be conservative. See Stephen I. Schwartz, ed., Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. NucleWeapons Since 1940, (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1998), p. 355.

7Amy F. Woolf, Modernizing the Triad on a Tight Budget, Arms Control Today , January/February 2012, available at http://www.

armscontrol.org/act/2012_01-02/Modernizing_the_Triad_on_a_Tight_Budget8Tom Z. Collina, GOP Raps Obama on Nuclear Budget, Arms Control Today, April 2012.

9Of ce of Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Rehberg Amendment to Protect Malmstrom and Stop New START Passes House, May2012.

10W.J. Hennigan, Pentagon Weapons Buyer Quietly Visits California to Discuss Bomber Plans, Los Angeles Times , May 22, 2011.

11Craig Whitlock and Dana Hedgpeth, Congress Pursues F-35 Engine That Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Doesnt Want,Washington Post , May 28, 2010.

12Of ce of Naval Operations, Annual Report to Congress on Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2013,2012, p. 6.

13

Huntington Ingalls industries, 10K Report for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2011, p. 57.14Quoted passage is from the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory web site, at http://www.knollslab.com/whatwedo.html

15See Bettis web site at http://www.bettislab.com/whatwedo.html

16 Number listed on the front page of the web site of the Submarine Industrial Base Council, at http://www.submarinesuppliers.org

17Hans Kristensen, B61 Nuclear Bomb Costs Escalating, FAS Strategic Security blog, Federation of American Scientists, May 92012.

18Task Forces, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), at http://www.stratcom.mil/task_forces/

19Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Nuclear Reality Check$ , op. cit., p. 5.



2320Pit Lifetime, the Mitre Corporation, November 20, 2006. On page one the report notes that with respect to plutonium piserve as the triggers for current nuclear weapons, Most primary types have credible minimum lifetimes in excess of 100 yearsregards aging of plutonium.

21Reality Check: Nuclear Weapons Spending and New START, Arms Control Association, armscontrol.org, March 19, 2012.

22Further details about the Y-12 complex are available at http://www.y12.doe.gov/about/

23Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, op. cit., p. 7.

24Ibid.

25Arms Control Association, armscontrol.org, op. cit.

26 Nuclear Reality Check$, pp.17-18.

27Statement on the FY 2013 Presidents Budget Request before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy andWater Development March 6, 2012, Thomas DAgostino, administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

28John Matson, MOX Battle: Mixed Oxide Nuclear Fuel Raises Safety Questions,Scienti c American , March 25, 2011.

29Arjun Makhijani, Plutonium End Game: Managing Global Stocks of Separated Weapons-Usable Commercial and Surplus Nuclear Weapons Plutonium , Chapter 5: Alternative Disposition Options, Institute for Environmental and Energy Research, January 2001.

30Greater Kansas City Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Nuclear Watch New Mexico, The Kansas City Plantfor Nuclear Weapons Components: Background on KCP and the Nuclear Weapons Complex, available at http://nukewatch.org/

KCNukePlant/31William D. Hartung To Build or Not to Build? The Role of the Kansas City Plant in the Department of Energys Plans forModernizing the Nuclear Weapons Complex, Arms and Security Initiative, New America Foundation, October 18, 2007.

32Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, op. cit., p. 9.

33Ibid., pp. 13-14.

34Ibid., pp. 15-16.

35Hans Kristensen, B-61 Nuclear Bomb Costs Escalating, FAS Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists, May2012.

36Information on companies involved in running each facility are available either on the facility web site or on separate sites setfor the corporate partnerships involved, including Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, at http://www.llnsllc.com/ ; Sandia National Laboratories, at www.sandia.gov ; National Security Technologies LLC, at www.nstec.com ; and Babcock and WilcoxTechnical Services Pantex LLC (B&W Pantex), at http://www.babcock.com/services/nuclear_operations_management/mo_of_doe_ sites.html

37Federal Procurement Data System, Top 100 Contractors Report, FY2011.

38Refers to procurement costs only; see David Axe, op. cit.

39See home page of the Submarine Industrial Base Council, at http://www.submarinesuppliers.org/

40RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute,Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Submarine Design Capabilities , May 2007.

41Prepared Remarks of Paul G. Kaminsky, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, at the U.S. Strategic CommStrategic Systems Industrial Symposium, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, August 30, 1995.

42Submarine Industrial Base Council home page, op. cit.43Roxana Tiron, Submarine Contractors Lead Lobbying March Amid U.S. Defense Cuts, Bloombe

nuclear lobbying report

Documents