This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 61: May 9, 2003

House and Senate Considering Nuclear Weapons R&D, Testing

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees are nearing completion
of bills authorizing approximately $380 billion in defense spending
for FY 2004.  Among the contested provisions of this legislation is
language on low-yield nuclear weapons' research and the future
testing of nuclear weapons.  The American Physical Society, one of
the American Institute of Physics' ten Member Societies,  recently
reaffirmed a Statement on Nuclear Testing warning of "serious
negative international consequences" from such testing, finding that
it "is not required to retain confidence in the safety and
reliability of the remaining nuclear weapons in the United States'
stockpile." 

Earlier this week, the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
considered draft provisions of  H.R. 1588, The National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2004.  Section 221 of this bill rescinds the
prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons
(with yields of  five kilotons or less.)  During the subcommittee's
deliberations, an amendment offered by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) to
restrict how the requested $6 million for the "Advanced Concepts
Initiative" could be spent failed by a single vote along party lines. 

While the House is expected to approve the provision on  low-yield
nuclear weapons' research as a part of the much larger authorization
bill, the Senate floor action scheduled for next month is not as
predictable.  There has been much discussion about the need for this
new type of weapon both on and off the Hill.  At an arms control
press conference last week, Sidney Drell, Deputy Director Emeritus of
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, acknowledged the need to respond
to the threats posed by deep bunkers for weapons storage or command
and control centers.  But he disputed the contention that only
nuclear weapons are suitable against such bunkers, calling it a "
dangerous thought" that nuclear weapons be contemplated for use for
what has been accomplished with conventional weapons.  Supporters of
research on these weapons contend that radiation would be needed to
kill biological agents stored in underground bunkers.  At a hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Strategic Forces last month, chairman
Wayne Allard (R-CO) said "it's time to begin considering how advanced
nuclear concepts may contribute to our ability to hold at risk
emerging threats."   He noted that the authorization would be only
for research and not for advanced development or weapons production.
Similar contending sentiments were expressed at the House Strategic
Forces Subcommittee hearing in March.  Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) argued
that the proposed research "opens a Pandora's box of strategic
considerations."  Everet Beckner, Deputy Administrator for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) outlined his support
for the research, acknowledging that he was not viewing the political
ramifications of the weapons research, but was rather recommending it
as an engineer or scientist.

Congress is also considering whether current constraints on
underground testing should be changed.  The House subcommittee
considered this issue during its Wednesday markup.  The subcommittee
defeated, on a party line vote, an amendment offered by Spratt and
Tauscher to make the observed testing moratorium official U.S.
policy.  The amendment would have required the President to notify
Congress at least 18 months before any test and explain why it was
necessary.  The Administration wants to reduce the time that is
necessary to conduct such a test from the current three years to
perhaps as little as six months.  An NNSA report outlining the
factors involved in reducing this time, as well as a recommendation
for what time period is appropriate, has been delayed.  The report
was required by a previous authorization act, and the subcommittee
accepted an amendment that constrains the use of funding for enhanced
test readiness until the report is received.  This amendment was
offered by the subcommittee's ranking member, Silvestre Reyes (D-
TX).   In his remarks, subcommittee chairman Terry Everett (R-AL)
called the current three year test preparation requirement "
unacceptable." Spratt's opening statement explained that "to the
extent we compress the period for test readiness, we may be actually
encroaching upon talent needed to have a robust Stockpile Stewardship
Program.  . . . we need to very carefully weigh that trade off."

Note that in early April, the American Physical Society issued the
following statement: 

"03.2 Statement on Nuclear Testing  (Adopted by Council on April 4,
2003)

"The American Physical Society, reaffirms its April 1997 statement
that 'fully informed technical studies have concluded continued
testing is not required to retain confidence in the safety and
reliability of the remaining nuclear weapons in the United States'
stockpile.' Resumption of nuclear testing may have serious negative
international consequences, particularly on the nonproliferation
regime. In addition the Society strongly urges the Congress and the
Administration to provide sufficient notification and justification
for any proposed nuclear test to allow adequate time for informed and
thorough analysis and public discussion." 

The discussions before the two authorization committees serve as a
preview of what can be expected when the full House and Senate take
up the National Defense Authorization Act in coming weeks.  Versions
of the bill should be completed before the July 4 recess, with a
conference then scheduled to resolved differences in the two bills. 

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - END OF FILE -
==========

@Message posted automagically by IMTHINGS POST 1.30
---