	Background

		Most Recent Developments

For FY2010, the Administration proposed to terminate the RRW program and requested no funds for it. The House and Senate Armed Services Committee versions of the FY2010 defense authorization bill each had a provision that would strike Section 4204a of the Atomic Energy Act, which directed the Department of Energy to establish the RRW program. Neither committee recommended providing RRW funds. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended providing no RRW funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Reflecting NNSA's concern, Congress first funded the RRW program in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and the Life Extension Program , by Jonathan Medalia, details 20 such goals. In contrast, NEP components cannot be subjected to nuclear tests because the United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992. In this way, it is hoped, components will be close to the originals so that they can be qualified for use in warheads. They believe that LEP can continue to maintain warheads. They note that Congress rejected funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which many Members perceived as being a new nuclear weapon, and that the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. Others hold that neither RRW nor LEP provides confidence in the stockpile. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 1815 , the committee required the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to carry out the RRW program, and spelled out its objectives for RRW:
(b) Objectives- The objectives of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program shall be—
(1) to increase the reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile;
(2) to further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of nuclear testing;
(3) to remain consistent with basic design parameters by using, to the extent practicable, components that are well understood or are certifiable without the need to resume underground nuclear testing;
(4) to ensure that the United States develops a nuclear weapons infrastructure that can respond to unforeseen problems, to include the ability to produce replacement warheads that are safer to manufacture, more cost-effective to produce, and less costly to maintain than existing warheads;
(5) to achieve reductions in the future size of the nuclear weapons stockpile based on increased reliability of the reliable replacement warheads;
(6) to use the design, certification, and production expertise resident in the nuclear complex to develop reliable replacement components to fulfill current mission requirements of the existing stockpile; and
(7) to serve as a complement to, and potentially a more cost-effective and reliable long-term replacement for, the current Stockpile Life Extension Programs. DOE's FY2007 operating plan includes $35.8 million for RRW. In addition, the Navy requests $30.0 million for FY2008, and estimates a request of $50.0 million for FY2009, for RRW. A reduction in NNSA's RRW funds, from $88.8 million requested to $68.8 million (pp. This facility would make pits. The House Appropriations Committee marked up the bill on June 6. The House Appropriations Committee reported the defense appropriations bill ( H.R. 110-434 ), which included $15.0 million for the Navy for RRW. P.L. 110-161 eliminated NNSA RRW funds. Congressional Action on the FY2009 RRW Request

For FY2009, DOE requests $10.0 million and projects a request the same sum for each year FY2010-FY2013. In its markup of the FY2009 defense authorization bill, reported in a press release of May 1, 2008, the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended retaining NNSA's request for RRW but eliminating the Navy's request. 5658 . The resulting bill had no RRW funds for the Navy or NNSA. The committee eliminated the $10.0 million NNSA request for RRW. H.R. 110-329 through March 11, 2009. The Administration requested $23.3 million in RRW funds for the Navy in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. That bill eliminated Navy RRW funds. No amendments on RRW were offered to either bill. It contained no funds for RRW. It contained no funds for RRW. Webb, Greg, "Leading U.S.
Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are being retained longer than was planned. Yet they deteriorate and must be maintained. To correct problems, a Life Extension Program (LEP), part of a larger Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), replaces components. Modifying some components would require a nuclear test, but the United States has observed a test moratorium since 1992. Congress and the Administration prefer to avoid a return to testing, so LEP rebuilds these components as closely as possible to original specifications. With this approach, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy have certified stockpile safety and reliability for the past 12 years without nuclear testing.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Department of Energy (DOE) component that operates the U.S. nuclear weapons program, would develop the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). For FY2005, Congress provided an unrequested $9.0 million to start RRW. The FY2006 RRW appropriation was $24.8 million, and the FY2007 operating plan had $35.8 million. For FY2008, the request was $88.8 million for NNSA and $30.0 million for the Navy; Congress appropriated no RRW funds for NNSA and $15 million for the Navy. For FY2009, DOE requested $10.0 million for RRW. The Navy requested $23.3 million for RRW but said it prepared its request before Congress eliminated NNSA RRW funds and that the Navy funds would not be used for RRW. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report H.R. 5658, the FY2009 defense authorization bill, recommended eliminating Navy and NNSA RRW funds while adding funds for the Navy and NNSA for related purposes. The House defeated an amendment to add $10.0 million in NNSA RRW funds to H.R. 5658. The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended retaining NNSA's request for RRW but eliminating the Navy's request. The FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-417, contained no RRW funds for the Navy or NNSA. Both appropriations committees recommended eliminating NNSA RRW funds for FY2009. Neither P.L. 110-329, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, nor the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-32, contained NNSA RRW funds. Neither appropriations committee marked up the Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations bill, but P.L. 110-329, Division C, the DOD appropriations bill, contained no Navy RRW funds. For FY2010, the Administration canceled the RRW program and requested no RRW funds. No bills contained RRW funds, but a provision in the House and Senate defense authorization bills would strike Section 4204a of the Atomic Energy Act directing DOE to establish the RRW program.
NNSA argues it will become harder to certify current warheads with LEP because small changes may undermine confidence in warheads, perhaps leading to nuclear testing, whereas new-design replacement warheads created by the RRW program will be easier to certify without testing. Critics believe LEP and SSP can maintain the stockpile indefinitely. They worry that untested RRWs may make testing more likely and question cost savings, given high investment cost. They note that there are no military requirements for new weapons. Others feel that neither LEP nor RRW can provide high confidence over the long term, and would resume testing. Another point of view is that either LEP or RRW will work without nuclear testing.
This report provides background and tracks legislation. It will be updated to reflect final FY2010 congressional action on RRW. See also CRS Report RL33748, Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and the Life Extension Program, by Jonathan Medalia, which compares these two programs in detail.