November 2004

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

New Nuclear Weapons Update

Adam Miles is a Legislative Assistant at Friends Committee on National Legislation, East Asia Policy Education Project, 245 Second Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002; www.fcnl.org

On November 24, 2003, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, which, along with authorizing approximately $400 billion in expenditures for the Pentagon, repealed a ten-year-old prohibition that kept the Department of Energy from conducting research and development of low-yield-nuclear weapons, or "mini-nukes." Known as the Spratt-Furse law in recognition of its original sponsors, Representatives Elizabeth Furse and John Spratt, the prohibition had served as a significant barrier to the development and production of "mini-nukes."

Less than two weeks after this repeal, Ambassador Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administra-tion, the agency responsible for nuclear weapons activity in the United States government, sent a memo to the directors of the three major nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore. In the memo, Brooks noted that the Bush Administration had "sought to remove [the] restriction [on low-yield weapons] because of the chilling effect it has had on nuclear weapons research and development." He instructed the lab directors to "Take advantage of this opportunity to ensure that we close any gaps that may have opened this past decade in [US] understanding of the possible military applications of atomic energy."

Shortly after its distribution, the memo was leaked, and found its way to, among other places, the office of Rep. David Hobson of Ohio, Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which is the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the nuclear weapons budget in Congress. Rep. Hobson had in the previous year removed some of the Administration's requested funds for new nuclear weapons programs in the House version of the energy and water appropriations bill and placed restrictions on how the funds appropriated for the so-called "Advanced Concepts Initiative," which would include potential research of mini-nukes, could be used. It was clear, however, from Ambassador Brooks' memo, that the Administration did not share any of Congress's hesitation in engaging in development of new nuclear weapons.

In response to the memo, Chairman Hobson, along with the ranking Demo-crat on his committee, Pete Visclosky, sent a letter of their own to Mr. Brooks in January of 2004, admonishing him for failing to mention Congress's concerns about mini-nuke development. "The only message conveyed to the weapons laboratories," Reps. Hobson and Visclosky observed, "is that of unbridled enthu--s-i-asm for new weapons designs and for seeking new military missions for nuclear weapons." They concluded, "Although we find your actions unhelpful, they are at least instructive in gauging the actual intent of the Advanced Concepts work proposed by the Administration; we will view future proposals from the Department with this memorandum in mind."

Clearly, a majority of members of Congress support the Administration's campaign to develop new nuclear weapons. The defense authorization bill for 2005, passed already in both the House and the Senate, and soon to be signed by the President, fully authorized funding for all four of the Administration's new nuclear weapons programs. However, there were, just as in previous years, amendments offered to remove authorization for funding these programs. While
the amendments continue to fail, the
margins of defeat continue to decrease. In 2002, 172 representatives voted against funding these programs, as opposed to 204 earlier this year -- only 14 votes shy of the 218 votes needed to block authorization in the House. Massachusetts lawmakers Rep. Ed Markey and Sen. Ted Kennedy have been leading opponents of these programs in Congress and should be applaud-ed for their good work. Both have offer-ed or co-sponsored numer-ous attempts to remove funding for new nuclear weapons initiatives.

Congress has already authorized the Bush Administration's new nuclear weapons initiatives in the defense authorization bill. However, that's just strike number one. After authorization, the actual funds still need to be appropriated by Congress. The actual check still has to be written.

Rep. Hobson, who, in his important position on the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, is the chief check-writer for nuclear weapons in the House of Representatives. Chairman Hobson has been a staunch Bush supporter, but if there is one member of Congress who has not totally abdicated legislative authority to the executive, this may be he.

In a courageous move in early June, Rep. Hobson and his committee stood by the condemnatory language he and Rep. Visclosky had used earlier in the year -- and actually went further. The committee eliminated all funds for new nuclear weapons in its version of the energy and water appropriations bill. These cuts were then approved by the full House appropriations committee and then the entire House of Representatives.

The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to mark up its version of the energy and water appropriations bill. The Senate subcommittee will likely mark up its bill this month. While it is unlikely that the Senate subcommittee will make the same cuts as the House, there is a slight chance. Regrettably, Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, the chairman of the Senate subcommittee, is a leading proponent of these programs. However, his subcommittee is made up of seven Republicans and six Democrats. All of the Democrats, in particular Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California who has been another leader on this issue, support removing funds for new nuclear weapons. If an amendment to remove funding for new nuclear weapons were offered in subcommittee, only one of the Republicans on the committee would have to break ranks for the amendment to succeed.

Activists in Utah have done an exceptional job of raising awareness about the possibility of resumed nuclear weapons testing associated with the Bush Administration's new nuclear weapons programs. This raised awareness has translated into significant pressure on Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, a Republican member of the sub-committee. Sen. Bennett is a conservative Republican who is not likely to vote against the Administration. However, like any member, he is subject to pressure placed on him by constituents, and the anti-testing community in Utah is doing an admirable job of making its voice heard.

Rep. Hobson's decision in subcommittee has likely ensured that at least half of next year's funds for new nuclear weapons will be cut. Even if the Senate fully funds these programs, the issue would be taken to a House-Senate conference, where the funding levels from the House and Senate would likely be averaged. In the current ultra-militarized political environment in Washington, this is an incredible victory. Cutting $50 million from these programs will do a great deal toward delaying their implementation.

This is really just the beginning. Throughout the process, Congress will have to make the ultimate decisions on moving from research into development stages. Activists should draw on last year's successes and make certain that Congress does not allow this to happen.

Previous Article    Next Article