|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
United States: U.S. Legislators Offer Mixed Signals on Bush Nuclear Program By David Ruppe The House, in its action, voted to uphold decade-old restrictions on the advanced development and production of low-yield nuclear weapons, co-authored by Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.). The restrictions ban the United States from adding new low-yield weapons to its nuclear arsenal by prohibiting all but basic research and development activities. Yesterday’s vote reaffirmed an earlier House vote to partially repeal the ban by allowing research activities. Some congressional staffers last week said they feared House Republicans would seek a total repeal in a House-Senate conference on the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill (see GSN, July 9). A Senate version of the bill, meanwhile, would effectively eliminate restrictions on all research and development, but would require further congressional authorization before “testing, acquisition or deployment.” In a statement today, Spratt said the restrictions in the 1990s helped the United States persuade other countries to give up nuclear weapons and to permanently extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1995. “I would not like to see us backtrack on these achievements, and I hope that the House’s position will prevail in conference with the Senate,” he said. The fate of that and other contentious Bush administration nuclear weapons proposals remains unresolved, however, with various pieces of major legislation this year differing in their House and Senate versions (see GSN, July 16). Instructions for Negotiation With the voice vote yesterday, the House instructed its conferees to insist on maintaining the language the House has already passed during the House-Senate 2004 defense authorization bill conference. While the instructions are not binding, experts say it would be unlikely that they would be disregarded by the senior House conferees, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Ind.) and senior committee Democrat Ike Skelton (Mo.). Hunter yesterday said he would not urge opposition to the motion to instruct, but the outcome of the conference remains uncertain. “The House approach is better than the Senate’s because it’s a clear statement of U.S. policy against development of tactical nukes, and contains a stronger guarantee that the Congress will be an equal partner in any decision to move beyond research,” Spratt said. “We authorized research but retained the prohibition on development activities that could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new low-yield nuclear weapon,” said Skelton. Question Persists on Funding Meanwhile, key House and the Senate appropriations committees appear to differ over funding the mini-nuke and other Bush administration nuclear weapons priorities its fiscal 2004 Energy Department appropriations request. The Senate Appropriations Committee today approved in full the administration’s funding request for work on low-yield weapons in 2004 ($6 million), research on a modified nuclear weapon intended for earth penetration ($15 million) and activities to reduce the preparation time for resuming nuclear testing ($25 million). The House Appropriations Committee this week, however, voted not to fund nearly all those programs, saying in a report the administration needed to provide better justifications for the requests. Debate Over Implications In a markup session yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development debated the potential implications of lifting the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) charged, “This bill launches a new generation of nuclear weapons … that will make this nation less safe in the future, not more safe.” Subcommittee chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) disagreed, and said the funding would ease restrictions on the freedom of U.S. nuclear scientists. “If you vote for this you will not be voting for a new generation of nuclear weapons. That I can assure you,” he said. “We’re talking about whether or not we’re going to let our scientists have new ideas and new thoughts or whether we’re going to try from the outside to put some kind of parameters around their thinking,” he said. Feinstein said the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review indicated a goal to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. “The fact of the matter is the administration has decided to take concrete steps for creating new classes of nuclear weapons and the wheels are beginning to grind to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons,” she said. “The administration seems to be moving toward a military posture where nuclear weapons are just like other weapons,” she said. A formal White House policy statement on the defense authorization bill said eliminating research and development restrictions was needed to address new threats. “Maintaining the prohibition on development will hinder the ability of our scientists and engineers to explore technical options to deter national security threats of the 21st century,” it says.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
