|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: U.S. Representatives Announce New Threat Reduction Proposals By David Ruppe The bill, proposed by Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and 17 cosponsors, would authorize up to $330 million for nonproliferation efforts aimed primarily at the large quantities of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons material produced by the former Soviet Union and located at sites there (see GSN, April 9). One measure also would authorize activities to retrieve nuclear materials from civilian nuclear reactors in countries outside the former Soviet Union. “This Congress needs to wake up. It is a disgrace that we would … have so many debates about so many issues that mean nothing ultimately to the survival of the world and yet we have had hardly any debate on the floor of the House on this issue,” said House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). “We need to help our Russian colleagues contain this material,” he said. “The new reality of the threat of nuclear terrorism has been met in Congress with more rhetoric than action. We intend to change that,” Representative Chet Edwards (D-Texas) said. “We have had, I would suggest, more discussion on the House floor over the past two years on the renaming of post offices and federal office buildings than we have had on discussions on how to protect Americans from the ultimate nightmare of nuclear terrorism. That must change,” he said. Further Steps Needed Edwards praised the Bush administration for negotiating an agreement last year with other G-8 leaders to jointly contribute $20 billion over 10 years for securing former Soviet weapons of mass destruction. Half that money would be put up by the United States (see GSN, June 28, 2002). He added, however, that “small and moderate steps are not enough to protect American families against nuclear terrorism.” Holding a plastic drinking cup, Edwards said, “God forbid, if a nuclear terrorists detonated just one full cup of highly enriched uranium in an American city, we would lose more citizens in an instant than we have lost in every conflict since the Revolutionary War.” Yesterday’s event echoed recent criticism of the Bush administration by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). Last month, prior to the start of war in Iraq, Lugar urged the Bush administration to pay more attention to the subject, arguing that nuclear proliferation should be the government’s top priority and that the administration should heed his call to create a senior executive position to manage the varied U.S. nonproliferation efforts (see GSN, March 13). Edwards said funding to prevent nuclear proliferation comprises less than 1 percent of the national defense budget. Total funding for such activities through the departments of Energy, State and Defense totals about $1 billion per year. The defense budget for fiscal 2003 will total about $396 billion, not including $80 billion in supplemental funding now under consideration in Congress to pay for the U.S. military activities in Iraq and other items (see related GSN story, today). The administration has requested $1.75 billion in threat reduction funding for fiscal 2004. Skepticism About Certain Funding House Republicans, including Weldon, have criticized the Pentagon’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program for wasteful spending and an inability to obtain Russian cooperation with some disarmament efforts. Moreover, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), in his role as House Armed Services Committee chairman, said at a hearing last month the 12-year-old program has “strayed from its original purpose.” He said it has moved from “the initial focus on the short-term, high-priority elimination of former Soviet-era strategic nuclear systems, to today’s constantly expanding scope which includes all manner of weapons of mass destruction-related activities, sometimes only tangentially related to the original purpose or to the principle of reducing direct military threats to the United States.” “If we are to continue to support diverting billions of dollars from the U.S. defense budget for these activities, we must ensure that the investment can be directly traced to an actual tangible reduction in military threats,” he warned. Critics also have focused in part on difficulties in obtaining Russian cooperation. General Accounting Office testimony last month said Russia has not always adhered to agreements to pay its share of program costs, nor to always provide access to nuclear and biological sites for security enhancements (see GSN, March 24). Weldon yesterday argued his proposals would have unprecedented support from key, high-level Russian government officials with whom he has had personal contacts. The legislation also would expand activities at the Energy Department, which has been less criticized, rather that the Pentagon program. Weldon also noted that the legislation contains measures intended to improve oversight and reporting of all U.S. threat reduction programs. At yesterday’s event, the legislation received the endorsement of nongovernmental organizations from a range of political perspectives, including the Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign, the Heritage Foundation and the Physicians for Social Responsibility. It’s an “unheard of alliance” of groups, said Weldon. “They’re trying to sell it from more of a national security point of view, not just from a ‘nonproliferation, gee, nice to have’ point of view. So they’re really trying to sell it on both sides of the aisle,” said Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Correction: A related April 9 story incorrectly reported the Nuclear Threat Initiative was among organizations supporting yesterday’s event. The correct organization was the Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
