Lawmakers Criticize  “Empty Rhetoric” on Nuclear Policy

By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Leaders of the House subcommittee that sets funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex yesterday criticized the Bush administration’s recently issued nuclear weapons policy statement (see GSN, July 25).

The secretaries of defense, energy and state on July 24 submitted the joint statement to Congress stating that nuclear weapons would be required for the “foreseeable future” and that a new warhead design is critical to long-term confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Subcommittee Chairman Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) and Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio) wrote in a letter to the administration that the document “failed to address any of the key issues” raised during the budget process for fiscal 2008 programs.

“It is time for the administration to move past empty rhetoric and enter into a constructive dialog with Congress on this vital issue,” they wrote.

The Bush administration seeking more than $52 billion for strategic programs next year, including nuclear weapons, missile defense and space programs. 

That includes nearly $90 million for a program to develop a next-generation nuclear warhead.  The Reliable Replacement Warhead would be easier and faster to produce as well as simpler to maintain, according to the White House.  It is also intended to contain increased security measures, rendering it useless if stolen by terrorists. 

Members of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee have been among the most vocal critics of the RRW program, saying the administration first needs to define the U.S. nuclear defense strategy as well as how many weapons are needed in a national stockpile.

Visclosky’s subcommittee cut all funding for the new warhead, noting that such a program could have “serious international and domestic consequences.”

“Instead of a serious attempt to meet the planning requirements for the future nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons production complex, the [July 24] document was a reiteration of the administration’s budget justification for the Reliable Replacement Warhead and Complex 2030 initiative,” wrote Visclosky and Hobson.

Complex 2030 is the Energy Department’s plan to reconfigure and reinvigorate the aging nuclear weapons production and maintenance complex by the year 2030 (see GSN, May 3).

The representatives noted that their concerns about nuclear policy and stockpile size are not new and have been part of their bipartisan position for years.

“Despite the dramatic international shifts since the end of the Cold War, including the breakup of the Soviet Union and emergent proliferation concerns with rogue states, the United States has yet to develop a modern nuclear weapons policy that addresses the changed global circumstances,” they wrote.

Visclosky and Hobson attacked an administration assertion in the document that “delays on RRW also raise the prospect of having to return to underground nuclear testing to certify existing weapons.”

Such a statement is “irresponsible” and “incautious,” they wrote.  “There is no record of congressional testimony or reports … claiming that the safety, security or reliability of the existing legacy stockpile is on a performance cliff such that a resumption of testing to verify performance of the warheads would be a necessity.”

The administration report indicated that a more in-depth, detailed report would outline methodology used to determine nuclear weapons force structure as well as “dispel a number of myths” about the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.