Update (5/18/2012): This amendment was passed by a vote of 238-162.

As the House debates and votes on the defense authorization bill Reps. Rehberg (MT) and Lummis (WY) will offer and amendment that would add an unnecessary provision to the NDAA to undermine the U.S. ability to implement the 2010 New START Treaty. The amendment would impose a one-for-one reduction implementation process that is impractical and militarily unnecessary. FCNl joined with 28 other organizations and experts to send a letter to members of the House in opposition of the Rehberg Amendment. Read the letter below.

Oppose Rehberg #59 Amendment to Undermine New START Treaty

May 17, 2012

Dear Representative,

We are writing to urge you to oppose an amendment that would add yet another unnecessary provision to the NDAA to undermine the U.S. ability to implement the 2010 New START agreement. Other similar provisions in the bill (Secs. 1053-1059) have led the White House to issue a veto threat because they would “impinge on the President's ability to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy.”

The amendment offered by Reps. Rehberg (MT) and Lummis (WY) would block U.S. implementation of New START unless the Russian Federation makes “a commensurate reduction, conversion, or decommissioning pursuant to the levels set forth under such treaty.” New START, which was approved by a bipartisan majority in the Senate, establishes common, verifiable limits on strategic deployed warheads (1,550 each) and deployed delivery vehicles (700 each) that must be met by 2018. At the United States insistence, New START allows each side to implement the treaty at its own pace and to structure its forces as it sees fit.

The amendment attempts to impose a one-for-one arms reduction implementation process that is impractical and militarily unnecessary. Further, the amendment attempts to protect the nuclear delivery systems in the districts of the authors from reductions into the indefinite future regardless of decisions about security needs and requirements that might be made by this or future administrations.

We strongly urge you to oppose the Rehberg #59 amendment. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carol Blythe, PresidentAlliance of Baptists

Susan Gordon, DirectorAlliance for Nuclear Accountability

Terri S. Lodge, Director for Nuclear SecurityAmerican Security Project

Eric Sapp, Executive DirectorAmerican Values Network

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive DirectorArms Control Association

Ambassador Robert Grey, DirectorBipartisan Security Group

Katie Heald, CoordinatorCampaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Melissa A. Kaplan, Msc, Deputy Director of Government RelationsCitizens for Global Solutions

Joni Arends, Executive Director Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, NM

T. Michael McNulty, SJ, Justice and Peace DirectorConference of Major Superiors of Men

John Isaacs, Executive DirectorCouncil for a Livable World

David Culp, Legislative RepresentativeFriends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Bobbie Paul, Executive DirectorGeorgia Women’s Action for New Direction

Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director of Security and SustainabilityGlobal Green USA

Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach, DirectorMennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office

David Krieger, PresidentNuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jay Coghlan, Executive DirectorNuclear Watch New Mexico

Marie Dennis, Co- presidentPax Christi International

Kevin Martin, Executive Director Peace Action

Alicia Godsberg, Executive DirectorPeace Action New York State

Jon Rainwater, Executive DirectorPeace Action West

Jerry Stein, Coordinator of the BoardPeace Farm, Amarillo, TX

Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive DirectorPhysicians for Social Responsibility

Joel Rubin, Director of Policy and Government AffairsPloughshares Fund

Marylia Kelley, Executive DirectorTri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Lisbeth Gronlund, Co-Director and Senior Scientist, Global Security ProgramUnion of Concerned Scientists

Rev. Michael Neuroth, Justice and Witness MinistriesUnited Church of Christ

James E. Winkler, General SecretaryUnited Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

Susan Shaer, Executive DirectorWomen’s Action for New Directions

Update (5/18/2012): This amendment was rejected by a vote of 112-308.

As the House debates and votes on the defense authorization bill Reps. Markey (MA), Welch (VT) and Conyers (MI) have offered an amendment to delay the development of the new, long-range, nuclear-capable bomber by 10 years and delete $292 million in spending for FY 2013. Delaying the new bomber would save $18 billion over 10 years and still allow the Pentagon to deploy the same number of bombers as planned under New START. FCNL joined with 28 other organizations and experts to sen a letter to the House in support of the amendment. Read the letter below.

Support Markey-Welch-Conyers Nuclear Bomber Amendment to Save $18 Billion

May 17, 2012

Dear Representative,

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) increases spending for several wasteful nuclear weapons and missile defense programs. In a time of an ongoing budget crisis, Congress should not waste billions of dollars on programs that do not enhance national security. In order to help reduce spending in the NDAA to a sensible and sustainable level, we urge you to support the following key floor amendment.

SUPPORT. #11. Markey (MA); Welch (VT); Conyers (MI). New Nuclear-Capable Bomber.Would delay the development of the new, long-range, nuclear-capable bomber by 10 years and delete $292 million in spending for FY 2013. Delaying the new bomber would save $18 billion over 10 years and still allow the Pentagon to deploy the same number of bombers as planned under New START.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carol Blythe, PresidentAlliance of Baptists

Terri S. Lodge, Director for Nuclear Security American Security Project

Eric Sapp, Executive Director American Values Network

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive DirectorArms Control Association

Ambassador Robert Grey, DirectorBipartisan Security Group

Katie Heald, Coordinator Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

William D. Hartung, Director, Arms and Security ProjectCenter for International Policy

Melissa Kaplan, Deputy Director of Government RelationsCitizens for Global Solutions

Bob Kinsey Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War

David Culp, Legislative Representative Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Bobbie Paul, Executive Director Georgia Women's Action for New Direction

Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director of Security and Sustainability Global Green USA

Tom Carpenter, Executive Director Hanford Challenge, Seattle

David Krieger, PresidentNuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jay Coghlan, Executive DirectorNuclear Watch New Mexico

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator Nuclear Watch South, Atlanta

Marie Dennis, Co-President Pax Christi International

Kevin Martin, Executive DirectorPeace Action

Alicia Godsberg, Executive Director Peace Action New York State

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director Peace Action West

Jerry Stein, Coordinator of the BoardPeace Farm, Amarillo, TX

David Hart, Director of Security Programs Physicians for Social Responsibility

Joel Rubin, Director of Policy and Government Affairs Ploughshares Fund

Jean Stokan Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, Institute Justice Team

Liz Woodruff, Executive DirectorSnake River Alliance, Idaho

Marylia Kelley, Executive DirectorTri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Stephen Young, Senior Analyst, Global Security ProgramUnion of Concerned Scientists

James E. Winkler, General Secretary United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

Susan Shaer, Executive Director Women's Action for New Directions

NOTE: Unfortunately, the amendments below were not approved for debate by the House Rules Committee. However, you can still call your representative and ask him or her to support the Markey, No. 11, amendment to delay the new nuclear bomber and to oppose the Rehberg, no. 59, amendment on the New START treaty. Delaying the new bomber would save $18 billion over 10 years and still allow the Pentagon to deploy the same number of bombers as planned under New START. The Rehberg amendment would impose a one-for-one reduction implementation process for New START that is impractical and militarily unnecessary. Call your representative today at 877-429-0678!

Dear Friend,

This week, the House will likely vote on funding for a new nuclear bomb plant in New Mexico and wasteful spending on a new missile defense site on the East Coast. Your representative is one of a select few who could help stop these proposals--but he or she needs to hear from you.

Please call your representative today toll-free at 877-429-0678 and ask him or her to vote "yes" on three amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. When you call, ask to be connected to your representative's office (look up his or her name). Here are talking points to help you make your call.

• My name is ____ and I'm calling from (Your Town and State)
• I am asking Representative _____ to vote "yes" on three amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act: The Markey amendment to eliminate funding for a new bomb plant in New Mexico, the Sanchez amendment to reduce funding for nuclear weapons activities, and the Garamendi amendment to eliminate funding for a new missile defense site on the East Coast.
• Thank you.

These three amendments are likely to come up for a vote in the House this week.

1. No funding for a new bomb plant: We expect Rep. Ed Markey (MA) to offer an amendment to defund a new nuclear bomb plant in New Mexico. The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility would increase the U.S. capacity to produce nuclear weapons. The total cost for the CMRR is estimated at up to $5.8 billion.

2. Reduce funding for nuclear weapons activities: We expect Rep. Jared Polis (CO) to offer and amendment to return funding levels for nuclear weapons activities to the administration's request. Savings resulting from the amendment would be directed to deficit reduction.

3. No funding for East Coast missile defense site: We expect Rep. John Garamendi (CA) to offer an amendment to defund a new missile defense site on the East Coast. The planned site would cost up to $5 billion and uses technology that has failed multiples tests. Furthermore, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on May 10 that the site is unnecessary.

The United States should be reducing its nuclear arsenal, not spending billions to increase capacity to build more bombs. The United States is not threatened by any country that is capable of striking the East Coast with an intercontinental ballistic missile. Please call 877-429-0678 and ask your representative to support eliminating funding for these projects in the defense authorization bill.

Thank you, and please spread the word by sharing this action alert with others. You can see other amendments that we are following on this legislation on our website.

Sincerely,

David Culp
Legislative Representative, Nuclear Disarmament

May 8, 2012

Dear Member of the Armed Services Committee,

The bill before you is among the most extreme defense authorization bills to ever be considered by the House Armed Services Committee.

It threatens to prevent U.S. military leaders from taking common sense steps to put America’s nuclear posture on a post-Cold War footing. It also adds billions of dollars in unneeded military spending.

While we do not know all of the amendments that will be offered, two amendments we urge you to support are:

Sanchez amendment to reduce by $323 million the nuclear weapons activities account of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

1. The amendment would reduce this account to the administration’s request.

2. This is the amount that both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have adopted for FY 2013—without dissent.

3. The increased spending in the McKeon/Turner bill cannot be sustained under the Budget Control Act, which is why NNSA has stretched out several major projects.

Garamendi amendment to strike a provision that requires building a missile defense site on the East Coast.

1. The facility would cost billions of dollars.

2. Iran has no nuclear weapons today and has no land-based missiles capable of reaching the United States.

3. The Defense Department does not support this proposal.

4. The proposal has more to do with the 2012 elections than it does national security.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director
Arms Control Association

Katie Heald, Coordinator
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

William D. Hartung, Director, Arms and Security Project
Center for International Policy

John Isaacs, Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director of Security and Sustainability
Global Green USA

Christopher Paine, Nuclear Program Director
Natural Resources Defense Council

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director
Nuclear Watch New Mexico

Kevin Martin, Executive Director
Peace Action

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director
Peace Action West

Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Don Hancock, Nuclear Program Director
Southwest Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, NM

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist and Co-Director, Global Security Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

Catherine M. Kelleher, College Park Professor
University of Maryland

Read the letter below.

March 19, 2012

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Chairman
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, Ranking Member
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
U.S. House of Representatives
2362 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Cut MOX Plutonium Fuel Program – Spiraling Costs, Technical Hurdles, Impacts to Nonproliferation Programs

Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky:

We request that the subcommittee substantially reduce funding for the Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel (MOX) program and direct funds to essential nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Costs for the Department of Energy’s MOX program are increasing at an alarming rate. The estimated cost of MOX plant construction at the Savannah River Site has increased from $1.6 billion in FY2004 to the current $4.9 billion. The DOE’s FY2013 overall request for MOX and associated plutonium disposition programs is $887 million and the budget indicates a funding request of $3.6 billion from FY2014 to FY2017.

The estimated annual operating cost for the MOX plant jumped to $499 million per year in the FY2013 budget request, up from $356 million in FY2012 and $156 million in FY2011 - more than a 200 percent increase in just two years. If DOE’s current prediction that the MOX plant will operate for 20 years is accurate, operating costs alone could total over $10 billion, placing continuing pressure on nuclear non-proliferation programs.

DOE attributes increased costs to such things as higher equipment costs, MOX plant design changes and “higher than expected professional/technical staff turnover due to demand for nuclear trained personnel at other projects.” Yet it is far from clear if costs are under control.

After years of effort, no reactors are contracted to test or use MOX fuel. Given the risks associated with MOX use, it is far from certain if the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will test or use MOX in any of its reactors. MOX made from weapons-grade plutonium has never been tested or used in a boiling water reactor (BWR) such as TVA’s Browns Ferry, a GE Mark I (Fukushima Daiichi) design, necessitating a lengthy testing period. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently made it clear that they expect test data will be necessary to support an application for commercial use of the fuel. In-reactor MOX testing would severely impact the MOX plantoperational schedule and delay the NRC’s licensing review of full-scale commercial use, resulting in additionalcost increases.

The plutonium disposition request for FY2013 represents over one-third of the NNSA’s Defense NuclearNonproliferation budget of $2.5 billion. The result is that critical programs such as the Global Threat ReductionInitiative and the Nonproliferation and International Security program are under severe budgetary strain.Experts have made a strong case that projected funding for key non-proliferation budgets this year and incoming years is inadequate. The relentless budget pressure caused by MOX, which does nothing to addressloose fissile material, is a large part of the problem.

Given the cost, schedule and technical vulnerabilities of the MOX program and the possibility that the programwill fail, it is essential DOE be directed to review viable options to manage surplus plutonium as waste. In thepast, immobilization of plutonium in high-level waste was shown to be less expensive than MOX.

Thank you for intensifying oversight of the MOX program and for significant cuts to the MOX plant constructionand administrative budgets. Please do not allow important nonproliferation programs that have been proveneffective to suffer because of the MOX program’s out-of-control costs.

Sincerely,

Tom Clements, Nonproliferation Policy Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Lisbeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist and Co-Director, Global Security Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director
Arms Control Association

Mia Steinle, Investigator
Project on Government Oversight

Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Kathy Robinson, Public Policy Director
Women's Action for New Directions

Damon Moglen, Climate and Energy Project Director
Friends of the Earth

Mary Olson, Director, Southeast Office
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs

Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance

Amanda Hill-Attkisson, Managing Director
Georgia Women's Action for New Direction

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South

Judith Mohling
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center
Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War

Sara Barczak, High Risk Energy Choices Program Director
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Louis Zeller, Executive Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

Susan Corbett, Executive Committee Chair
Sierra Club, South Carolina Chapter

Lisa Crawford, President
Residents for Environmental Safety & Healthy

Christoper Thomas, Executive Director
HEAL Utah

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director
Peace Action West

Katie Heald, Coordinator
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Joni Arends, Executive DIrector
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

Garry Morgan
Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation/Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team

Read the letter below.

March 20, 2012

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Chairman
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, Ranking Member
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
U.S. House of Representatives
2362 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: USEC Funding in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Budget

Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky,

We ask that the subcommittee delete the $150 million for USEC and transfer those funds to higher priority programs in the core nuclear nonproliferation accounts of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

USEC is a private company and should be treated as most other private companies, not propped up repeatedly by the federal government. At a time that the Obama administration is proposing to cut funds to other truly essential nonproliferation programs, the proposed funds for USEC represent the worst kind of corporate welfare and protectionism. They not only take taxpayers' money that would be better spent in the private sector to create jobs, they actually undermine U.S. nonproliferation goals. The fact that the U.S. can rely on foreign companies (some of which have or are planning to build facilities in New Mexico, North Carolina and Idaho) to provide its enrichment services is a useful counterargument to Iranian and North Korean claims that they need to enrich nuclear material themselves (putting them in a position to make nuclear weapons) and cannot rely on the international market.

Moreover, the remaining USEC arguments are questionable from a national security viewpoint. In particular, there are other ways to provide the low enriched uranium for producing tritium for nuclear weapons than maintaining a failing and inefficient company. These include establishing a stockpile now that will last many years, using the Energy Department's substantial supplies of such material or blending down its vast supplies of highly enriched uranium.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Susan Gordon, Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Ambassador Kenneth C. Brill (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA and former Director of the U.S. NationalCounterproliferation Center

Katie Heald, Coordinator
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Mark D. Stansbery, Secretary
Community Organizing Center, Columbus, OH

Joni Arends, Executive Director
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, NM

John Isaacs, Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Paul Walker, Director of Security and Sustainability
Global Green, USA

Alan J. Kuperman,* Ph.D.
Coordinator, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention ProjectUniversity of Texas at Austin

Christopher E. Paine, Nuclear Program Director
Natural Resources Defense Council

Henry Sokolski, Executive Director
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Oak Ridge, TN

Kevin Martin, Executive Director
Peace Action

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director
Peace Action West

Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ann Suellentrop, Program Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Kansas City, MO

Miles A. Pomper,* Senior Research Associate
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Vina Colley, President
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, Portsmouth, OH

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs

Frank von Hippel,* Professor of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

Susan Shaer, Executive Director
Women’s Action for New Directions

Bobbie Paul, Executive Director
Women’s Action for New Directions-GA

*Affiliation is listed for identification purposes only.

Read the letter below and check out two related letters asking the subcommittee to reconsider funding for a $150 million bailout of the uranium enrichment company USEC, and to reduce funding for the troubled MOX program.

March 20, 2012

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Chairman
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, Ranking Member
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
U.S. House of Representatives
2362 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Budget Priorities in the NNSA Nuclear Nonproliferation Accounts

Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky,

We ask the subcommittee to fund fully the core nuclear nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

A 2011 Harvard University report authored by American and Russian experts found that the threat of nuclear terrorism is greater today than at any point during the Cold War.¹ The possibility of terrorists using a stolen nuclear bomb is relatively low. However, the risk of an explosion of a crude nuclear bomb made with stolen or diverted nuclear material remains high. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that, “[e]very senior leader, when you're asked what keeps you awake at night, it's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.”² The subcommittee’s continued commitment to nuclear nonproliferation programs decreases this risk.

Two core programs within the NNSA nuclear nonproliferation accounts, the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation (INMP&C) program and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) are particularly important to this effort. These two programs have a history of success in part due to strong Congressional support. The INMP&C program provides for the protection of nuclear materials and warheads at more than 100 sites, mostly in Russia.³ GTRI has removed more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--enough to produce 16 nuclear weapons--from 10 countries since April 2010.⁴

We ask the subcommittee to fund fully these two important nuclear nonproliferation programs. The President’s combined FY 2013 budget request for the INMP&C and GTRI programs is more than $290 million less than the final appropriation for FY 2012.⁵ In addition, the President’s out-year funding budget requests for both the INMP&C and GTRI are down significantly from the FY 2012 request.⁶ The FY 2014-2016 out-year requests for the INMP&C program are down by an average of $319 million per year from last year’s budget request. Similarly, the requests for GTRI over those same years are down an average of $184 million per year from the FY 2012 request.

However, these two programs still have important work to do. The INMP&C program is expected to complete security upgrades on over 200 buildings containing weapons-grade nuclear material in Russia. The INMP&C program will also complete installation of equipment designed to detect smuggled nuclear material at nearly 500 sites in FY 2013. GTRI plans to remove an additional 380 kilograms of weapons-grade nuclear material from vulnerable sites and provide protection for an additional 150 buildings containing weapons-grade nuclear material in FY 2013.

In addition, the subcommittee should carefully consider the best use of other funds under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. In particular, the subcommittee should examine closely the $150 million the Administration has requested for Domestic Uranium Enrichment Research, Development, and Demonstration. This money is slated for a program at USEC, formerly the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, a privately owned uranium enrichment program. On the day of the budget release, USEC issued a press release thanking the Administration for this request, describing the program as, “the next-generation U.S. uranium enrichment technology.”⁷ This program has limited application to addressing nuclear nonproliferation and security concerns. Funding for USEC should not come at the expense of higher priority nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Finally, the President’s budget request calls for an increase of $236 million for the troubled Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) program. This is an increase of more than 34 percent over the final FY 2012 appropriation. We ask that the subcommittee reconsider this increase in light of the reduction in funding for core nonproliferation programs.

The INMP&C and GTRI programs are the core nuclear nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. The subcommittee should fully fund these two programs. We also ask that the subcommittee closely examine the $150 million requested for USEC and the requested increase in funding for the MOX program. In the current budget environment, maintaining full funding for core nuclear nonproliferation programs should be a priority.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director
Arms Control Association

Ambassador Kenneth C. Brill (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA and former Director of the U.S. National Counterproliferation Center

Katie Heald, Coordinator
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Amy Echeverria, Director
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach

T. Michael McNulty, SJ, Justice and Peace Director
Conference of Major Superiors of Men

John Isaacs, Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

Marie Lucey, OSF, Director of Advocacy
Franciscan Action Network

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Paul Walker, Director of Security and Sustainability
Global Green, USA

Peter Weiss, President
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

Christopher E. Paine, Nuclear Program Director
Natural Resources Defense Council

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director
Nuclear Watch New Mexico

Marie Dennis, Co-President
Pax Christi International

Kevin Martin, Executive Director
Peace Action

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director
Peace Action West

Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Miles A. Pomper,* Senior Research Associate
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Michael Neuroth, Policy Advocate on International Issues
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

Mark W. Harrison, Peace with Justice Program Director
United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

Lisabeth Gronlund, Senior Scientist and Co-Director, Global Security Program
Union of Concerned Scientists

Frank von Hippel,* Professor of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University

Susan Shaer, Executive Director
Women’s Action for New Directions

* Affiliation is listed for identification purposes only.

¹Bunn, Matthew, et al., The U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, May 2011, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Joint-Threat-Assessment%20ENG%2027%20May%202011.pdf.

²“Gates Warns States Against Giving Terrorists Nuclear Bomb,” Space Daily, June 10, 2008, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Gates_warns_states_against_giving_terrorists_nuclear_bomb_999.html.

³“International Material Protection and Cooperation,” National Nuclear Security Administration, March 2012, http://bit.ly/Itx6Of.

⁴“Update on 4-Year Plan Efforts,” National Nuclear Security Administration, January 2012, http://fcnl.org/assets/issues/nuclear/gtriplan.pdf.

⁵Department of Energy, FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request. February 2012.

⁶Department of Energy, FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request. February 2011.

⁷“USEC Applauds $150 Million Funding Request for American Centrifuge in President’s FY 2013 Budget,” USEC, February 13, 2012, http://bit.ly/HBeDnn.

TAKE ACTION: Write your Senators a letter reinforcing the report's findings and asking them to speak out for the treaty on the Senate floor.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War the United States is still spending billions of dollars a year maintaining an oversized nuclear arsenal to fit outdated strategic needs. On February 8, 2012 Representative Markey (MA) introduced the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act (SANE Act). The SANE Act makes cuts to spending on nuclear weapons totaling more than $100 billion over the next ten years.

Please urge your representative to cosponsor this legislation!

Check below to see if your representative has cosponsored the SANE Act.

H.R. 3974-The SANE Act Cosponsors

Markey, Edward J. (MA-7)
Baldwin, Tammy (WI-2)
Bishop, Timothy H. (NY-1)
Blumenauer, Earl (OR-3)
Bonamici, Suzanne (OR-1)
Brady, Robert A. (PA-1)
Braley, Bruce L. (IA-1)
Christensen, Donna M. (VI-AL)
Chu, Judy (CA-32)
Clarke, Hansen (MI-13)
Clarke, Yvette D. (NY-11)
Conyers, John, Jr. (MI-14)
DeFazio, Peter A. (OR-4)
Dogget, Lloyd (TX-25)
Ellison, Keith (MN-5)
Eshoo, Anna G. (CA-14)
Farr, Sam (CA-17)
Filner, Bob (CA-51)
Frank, Barney (MA-4)
Grijalva, Raul M. (AZ-7)
Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)
Hinchey, Maurice D. (NY-22)
Holt, Rush D. (NJ-12)
Honda, Michael M. (CA-15)
Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. (IL-2)
Kaptur, Marcy (OH-9)
Kucinich, Dennis J. (OH-10)
Lee, Barbara (CA-9)
Lewis, John (GA-5)
Maloney, Carolyn B. (NY-14)
McDermott, Jim (WA-7)
McGovern, James P. (MA-3)
Nadler, Jerrold (NY-8)
Norton, Eleanor Holmes (DC-AL)
Olver, John W. (MA-1)
Payne, Donald M. (NJ-10)
Polis, Jared (CO-2)
Price, David E. (NC-4)
Rangel, Charles B. (NY-15)
Richardson, Laura (CA-37)
Schakowsky, Janice D. (IL-9)
Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (NY-28)
Speier, Jackie (CA-12)
Stark, Fourtney Pete (CA-13)
Tierney, John F. (MA-6)
Woolsey, Lynn C. (CA-6)

A total of 46 cosponsors as of 4/27/2012.

2011 was a successful year for FCNL's nuclear disarmament program. Although budget pressures have threatened many government programs, FCNL's efforts have helped to maintain funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs. In the coming year, the effort to maintain funding will continue.

Budget

There is enough bomb-grade nuclear material around the world to build more than 100,000 Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons. The United States has been working for more than 20 years to contain and secure that material, and to disarm nuclear weapons around the world, especially in the former Soviet Union. Since 2004 funding for such nuclear nonproliferation programs has more than tripled. However, in this difficult economic climate, funding for such successful programs could be threatened. FCNL will work throughout the year to make sure that funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs is maintained in FY 2013. FCNL will also work to reduce the budget for nuclear weapons and related delivery systems.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

At the beginning of his term in office President Obama declared it a priority that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) be ratified by the Senate. The treaty bans nuclear weapons testing around the world. The United States signed the treaty in 1996, but has yet to ratify it. Ratification is necessary for the treaty to come into force. FCNL will work in 2012 to lay the groundwork for ratification of the CTBT.

Continued Education

Although the Cold War is long over, there are still thousands of nuclear weapons around the world and vulnerable nuclear material threatens our security. FCNL will work in 2012 to maintain awareness of nuclear weapons issues. For example, FCNL publishes the weekly Nuclear Calendar which is distributed to over 14000 people including many government officials. The Nuclear Calendar tracks important events in the nuclear disarmament world.

Read the letter below.

Representative
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

December 8, 2011

Dear Rep.,

On behalf of our 47 organizations and the members that we represent, we would like to express our gratitude to you for your principled call for reducing the amount of money that our country spends on nuclear weapons and related programs.

In the letter that you signed on October 11 to the Supercommittee members about this issue, you expressed a view that—based on moral, security and fiscal grounds—our country can no longer justify current levels of spending on nuclear weapons programs. We endorse that position.

As you noted in the letter, the hundreds of billions of dollars that our country is slated to spend on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next decade will damage our country's economic vitality and national security. We should be spending less on nuclear weapons systems designed to fight the Cold War. Your vision for constraining outmoded programs, as expressed in the letter, is a bold step in that direction.

We applaud you for your leadership on this issue, and we strongly urge you to continue to seek cuts to our country's bloated nuclear arsenal in the months ahead. You have our sincerest support.

Sincerely,

Susan Gordon, Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Carol Blythe, President
Alliance of Baptists

R. Aura Kanegis, Director, Office of Public Policy and Advocacy
American Friends Service Committee

Eric Sapp, Executive Director
American Values Network

Michael J. Wilson, National Director
Americans for Democratic Action

Karen Showalter, Executive Director
Americans for Informed Democracy

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director
Arms Control Association

Ambassador Robert Grey, Director
Bipartisan Security Group

William D. Hartung, Director, Arms and Security Initiative
Center for International Policy

Jordan Blevins, Advocacy Officer
Church of the Brethren

Michelle Melcher Knight, MSW, Advocacy Associate
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach

Joni Arends, Executive Director
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, NM

T. Michael McNulty, SJ, Justice and Peace Director
Conference of Major Superiors of Men

John Isaacs, Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

Charles D. Ferguson, President
Federation of American Scientists

Marie Lucey, OSF, Director of Advocacy
Franciscan Action Network

David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Bobbie Paul, Executive Director
Georgia Women's Action for New Directions

Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director, Security and Sustainability
Global Green USA

Jonathan Granoff, President
Global Security Institute

Stephen I. Schwartz, Editor, The Nonproliferation Review
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Marie Dennis, Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach, Director
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office

Jordan Blevins, Ecumenical Peace Coordinator
National Council of Churches of Christ, USA

Christopher Paine, Nuclear Program Director
Natural Resources Defense Council

Marge Clark, BVM, Lobbyist
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

David Krieger, President
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director
Nuclear Watch New Mexico

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South

Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Oak Ridge, TN

Sr. Patricia Chappell, SNDdeN, Executive Director
Pax Christi USA

Kevin Martin, Executive Director
Peace Action

Alicia Godsberg, Executive Director
Peace Action New York State

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director
Peace Action West

Jerry Stein, President
Peace Farm, Amarillo, TX

Peter Wilk, MD, Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Catherine Gordon, Associate for International Issues
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Office of Public Witness

Judith Mohling, Coordinator
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, CO

Jean Stokan, Director, Institute Justice Team
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas

Liz Woodruff, Executive Director
Snake River Alliance, Boise, ID

Duane Shank, Senior Policy Advisor
Sojourners

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Rev. Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, Director
Two Futures Project

Rev. Craig C. Roshaven, Witness Ministries Director
Unitarian Universalist Association

Michael Neuroth, Policy Advocate on International Issues
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

James E. Winkler, General Secretary
United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

Kathy Crandall Robinson, Public Policy Director
Women’s Action for New Directions

December 2, 2011

Re: Draft Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

To whom it may concern,

The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is commenting on the site-wide environmental impact statement (SWEIS) for the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS).

FCNL is a religious lobby in the public interest based on the values of the Quaker faith. FCNL has tens of thousands of constituents across the United States, including Nevada. One of FCNL’s chief policy concerns is nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. We are providing comment for the SWEIS on this basis.

FCNL rejects all three alternatives outlined in the SWEIS. All three policy alternatives outlined for the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in the SWEIS will “[m]aintain readiness to conduct nuclear tests.” Instead of strictly adhering to any one of the three proposed alternatives, FCNL supports the dismantling of facilities meant for use in testing nuclear weapons at NNSS.

I. Nuclear Stockpile is Reliable Without Explosive Testing

The nuclear bomb testing facilities do not need to be maintained because further tests of the country’s nuclear stockpile are not required to ensure reliability. Current and past administration officials agree that there is no need for further tests. During a speech in June of this year, Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, stated that technological advances ensure reliability without testing:

“Today, through the extensive surveillance methods and computational modeling developed under the Stockpile Stewardship Program over the past 15 years, our nuclear experts understand how these weapons work and the effects of aging better than when explosive nuclear testing was conducted.”¹

Former administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Linton Brooks also recently expressed confidence that the nuclear stockpile remains safe and reliable without the need for nuclear testing. In a November 2011 interview, Brooks stated that:

“There is no plausible situation in which current stockpile stewardship and the deep scientific understanding … will not be enough to ensure the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.”²

In 2010, the directors of the three U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories also expressed confidence that the nuclear stockpile will remain reliable into the future without explosive testing. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) by the Obama administration in 2010 calls for the continuation of the nuclear testing moratorium. Lab directors said that the proposed policies in the NPR “provide the necessary technical flexibility to manage the nuclear stockpile into the future with an acceptable level of risk.”³Furthermore, the NPR reports that since the United States stopped explosive nuclear testing in 1992, U.S. “nuclear warheads have been maintained and certified as safe and reliable through a Stockpile Stewardship Program.”⁴

II. U.S. Policy Excludes Further Testing: Moratorium and CTBT Ratification

The United States has not explosively tested a nuclear weapon since 1992. The most recent NPR also makes clear the administration’s guiding principle that, “[t]he United States will not conduct nuclear testing.”⁵ Furthermore, the NPR sets out the ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as an explicit policy goal. President Obama announced plans to seek the ratification of the CTBT in his April 5, 2009 speech in Prague.⁶

Since President Obama’s speech in Prague, administration officials have repeatedly made public statements in support of the CTBT and reaffirmed the administration’s intentions to move toward that goal. Such statements include those made by Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation Rose Gottemoeller in July 2011⁷ and by Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher in September 2011.⁸ It is uncertain when the CTBT will be brought before the Senate for ratification. However, it is clear that the current administration does not intend to conduct another nuclear test but will continue the moratorium established in 1992.

Many administration officials and experts agree that nuclear testing is not necessary, and it is clear that the administration does not intend to conduct nuclear tests. If there are not going to be future tests of nuclear weapons, it makes little sense to continue to operate a nuclear testing facility.

III. Wasted Resources

Maintaining NNSS for resumption of nuclear testing is a waste of federal resources at a time of flat budgets. Test site readiness does not have a separate line item in the NNSA budget request for FY 2012, but instead is included in the larger “Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities” account at NNSS. That request was $119.6 million for FY 2012.⁹ The funds being used to prepare for the resumption of nuclear testing should be used for the more urgent nuclear nonproliferation goals at NNSA.

III. History of Success in Dismantlement of Nuclear Test Sites

Two other countries have successfully dismantled nuclear test sites. Kazakhstan closed the former Soviet nuclear testing site at Semipalatinsk in 1991.¹⁰ France also completed the dismantling of its nuclear testing facility on the atolls of Muroroa and Fangataufa in the South Pacific in 1998.¹¹ Both Kazakhstan and France are now considered leaders in the field of nuclear nonproliferation, and are strong participants in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).

IV. Former Nuclear Testing Site Usage Possible

NNSA should not maintain the readiness of the Nevada Nuclear Security Site for explosive nuclear testing. This does not mean that the site needs to be abandoned. The SWEIS proposes many uses for the Nevada Site not involving nuclear tests. NNSA should also should work with the CTBTO to use the former nuclear test site for nuclear test verification simulations. Kazakhstan has led the way in this field by working with the CTBTO on four occasions to use the Semipalatinsk site for this purpose.¹² By conducting such simulations at the nuclear test site, the United States could help strengthen the nuclear test verification abilities of the international community. In turn, the administration’s argument for ratification of the CTBT would be bolstered. By failing to follow Kazakhstan’s example by dismantling the nuclear test site and working with the CTBTO, the United States sacrifices an opportunity to be a leader on nuclear nonproliferation.

Conclusion

The Nevada National Security Site SWEIS should include an alternative under which readiness to conduct nuclear tests is not maintained. The United States has not tested a nuclear weapon in nearly 20 years. It is evident that the current administration does not intend to change that. In fact, the administration is moving toward further barriers to nuclear testing by pushing for the ratification of the CTBT. Experts in the field, from State Department officials to the directors of the three national nuclear labs, have expressed confidence that further testing is not necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. There is no sense in maintaining a site for nuclear testing when there are no plans to test again. Resources are wasted on maintaining the nuclear testing facilities at the NNSS. The examples that France and Kazakhstan have set by dismantling their nuclear tests sites should be followed by the United States. There are other uses for the site that would position the United States as a leader on nuclear nonproliferation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

David Culp
Legislative Representative

¹Rose Gottemoeller, “Leadership and the Future of Nuclear Energy,” University of Chicago, Chicago, June 9, 2011, http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/165433.htm.

²Diana Barnes, “Further U.S. Nuclear Tests Highly Unlikely: Former NNSA Chief,” Global Security Newswire, November 29, 2011, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20111129_2394.php.

³Sandia National Laboratories. “Tri-Lab Directors’ Statement on the Nuclear Posture Review,” April 9, 2010, https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/tri-lab-directors%E2%80%99-statement-on-the-nuclear-posture-review/.

⁴U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April, 2010, http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf.

⁵U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report.

⁶Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama,” Prague, April 5, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/.

⁷Rose Gottemoeller, “The Status Quo is Unacceptable,” United Nations, New York, July 27, 2011, http://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/07/28/rose-gottemoeller-the-status-quo-is-unacceptable/.

⁸Ellen Tauscher, “The New START Treaty and the CTBT: Two Essential Steps Toward Fulfilling the Prague Agenda,” Women’s Action for New Directions, Washington, September 19, 2011, http://www.state.gov/t/us/173967.htm.

⁹U.S. Department of Energy, FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request. February 2011.

¹⁰Togzhan Kassenova, “Semipalatinsk: From Nuclear Testing to Test Ban Treaty Support,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 29, 2011, http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/08/29/semipalatinsk-from-nuclear-testing-site-to-test-ban-treaty-support/4x6s.

¹¹“Fifteenth Anniversary of France’s Last Nuclear Test,” CTBTO Preparatory Commission, Vienna, January 27, 2011, http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fifteenth-anniversaryof-frances-last-nuclear-test/.

¹²Togzhan Kassenova, “Semipalatinsk: From Nuclear Testing to Test Ban Treaty Support.”

FCNL has joined with arms control groups and individual experts to send a letter to the administration. The letter asks the administration to take stronger action to support its budget goals for nuclear nonproliferation programs. Foreign Policy magazine has also published an online article about the letter.

See the letter below:

October 27, 2011

The President of the United StatesThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We strongly urge you to make every effort to ensure that threat reduction and nonproliferation programs are funded at the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved level in the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.

Based on reports from Hill staff, we are concerned that while the final funding level remains unresolved, the Administration is not forcefully making the case for the Senate version of the bill, which in key respects is identical to your request. Put together with bipartisan agreement by Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and ranking member Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and supported by Senators from both parties who want to help it attain its objectives, the levels in this bill need your active support to be enacted.

In a challenging fiscal environment when so many issues are bitterly partisan, the Senate Committee made difficult choices on a bi-partisan basis while protecting the key non-proliferation programs.

The disparity between the Senate and House levels for two particular programs stands out. The Senate approved the Administration's request of $508.3 million for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative while the House cut the program by $85 million.

The Senate also approved the Administration's request of $571.6 million for the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program while the House cut that amount by $75.2 million.

In both cases, the House appropriation is less than the Fiscal Year 2011 levels, damaging the programs.

We highly commend your personal commitment to preventing nuclear terrorism, which has led the global community to take unprecedented action to secure and eliminate weapon-usable nuclear materials around the world.

Thanks to your leadership, the April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. was an unprecedented event during which the leaders of 47 nations pledged their support to secure vulnerable nuclear materials on their soil and to work in tandem to decrease threat levels.

As you noted in your State of the Union address, “Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Failure to approve the Senate-passed levels would significantly hamper U.S. efforts to secure vulnerable weapons and materials around the world. For example, NNSA’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative could face delays in converting dozens of reactors around the world that use bomb-grade highly enriched uranium to use low enriched uranium, compromise our ability to protect and eliminate radioactive materials at universities and hospitals that could be used in a dirty bomb, and hold up efforts to remove dangerous highly enriched uranium from sites around the globe.

Nuclear terrorism is the ultimate preventable catastrophe. If highly enriched uranium and plutonium are adequately secured or eliminated, they cannot be stolen for use in a nuclear device.

We urge you to ensure that threat reduction and nonproliferation programs in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill are funded at the FY 2012 requested level. No less than America’s national security is at stake.

Sincerely,*

Ambassador Kenneth C. Brill Former Ambassador to the IAEA

David Culp, Legislative RepresentativeFriends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Jenefer Ellingston, DelegateGreen Party

Charles D. Ferguson, President Federation of American Scientists

Lt. General (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr.Chair, Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation

Howard L. Hall, Ph.D., Director of Global Security Programs at the Howard Baker Jr CenterThe University of Tennessee

William D. Hartung, Director, Arms and Security ProjectCenter for International Policy

Katie Heald, CoordinatorCampaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Paul Ingram, Executive DirectorBritish American Security Information Council (BASIC)

John Isaacs, Executive DirectorCouncil for a Livable World

William W. Keller, DirectorCenter for International Trade & Security

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive DirectorArms Control Association

Robert K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H.Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, American University

Christopher Paine, Nuclear Program DirectorNatural Resources Defense Council

Jon Rainwater, Executive DirectorPeace Action West

Patricia Taft, Senior AssociateThe Fund for Peace

Paul F. Walker, Ph.D., Director, Security and SustainabilityGlobal Green USA

Dr. Jim Walsh, Research Associate MIT Security Studies Program

Peter Wilk, MD, Executive Director Physicians for Social Responsibility

Michael J. Wilson, National DirectorAmericans For Democratic Action

James E. Winkler, General SecretaryGeneral Board of Church and SocietyThe United Methodist Church

Stephen Young, Senior Analyst, Global Security ProgramUnion of Concerned Scientists

*Organization listed for affiliation purposes only

FCNL has joined with dozens of other arms control groups, NGOs and experts to issue a letter in support of Rep. Ed Markey's efforts to encourage the budget “super committee” to reduce spending on the nuclear arsenal by $20 billion per year over the next ten years. The super committee, a group of six senators and six representatives, is charged with developing legislation to cut the country’s deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. On October 11, Rep. Markey announced that 65 other representatives had signed onto a "Dear Colleague" letter to the super committee on the issue.

See the letter of support below.

October 11, 2011

Dear Representative,

We, the undersigned organizations and experts, ask you to cosign Rep. Markey’s (D-MA) letter to members of the Super Committee urging them to reduce nuclear weapons spending and use the resulting savings to invest in higher priority programs.

There is broad bipartisan agreement that few national security issues are as critical as how to deal with America’s crippling debt. Getting America’s fiscal house in order will require difficult budgetary choices. This means that we need to make smart decisions about what is most needed to safeguard U.S. national security in the 21st century.

The United States currently spends over $50 billion per year on maintaining and upgrading a nuclear weapons force of 5,000 nuclear weapons and weapons related programs. These costs are expected to increase in light of the Obama administration’s plan to spend at least $200 billion over the next decade on new nuclear delivery systems and warhead production facilities. Much of this spending is designed to confront Cold War-era threats that no longer exist while posing financial and opportunity costs that can no longer be justified.

In the current economic environment, it will be counterproductive to make unsustainable, open-ended commitments to hugely expensive programs that are irrelevant to the most likely threats we face. “We’re not going to be able to go forward with weapon systems that cost what weapon systems cost today,” Strategic Command chief Gen. Robert Kehler said recently “Case in point is [the] Long-Range Strike [bomber]. Case in point is the Trident [submarine] replacement. . . . The list goes on.”

Fiscally responsible Republicans are also proposing to rein in spending on nuclear weapons. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who voted against the New START nuclear reductions treaty in December 2010, has proposed a deficit reduction plan that would cut $79 billion in spending on nuclear weapon systems over the next decade by reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to below the New START limit of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and cutting the number of delivery systems and warheads in reserve and by delaying procurement of a new long-range bomber until the mid-2020s.

The United States could save billions by canceling or scaling back new nuclear weapons programs such as the plan to build 12 new nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, which the Pentagon estimates could cost nearly $350 billion over their 50-year lifespan and new facilities to support the nuclear weapons force. For example, by building and deploying no more than 8 new SSBN(X) nuclear-armed submarines, the United States could still deploy the same number of strategic nuclear warheads at sea as is currently planned (about 1,000) under New START and save roughly $26 billion over 10 years, $31 billion over 30 years, and $120 billion over the life of the program.

By responsibly pursuing further reductions in U.S. nuclear forces and scaling back plans for new and excessively large strategic nuclear weapons systems and warhead production facilities, the United States can help close its budget deficit. And by reducing the incentive for Russia to rebuild its arsenal, these budget savings will make America safer and more secure.

Please sign Rep. Markey’s letter calling on the Super Committee to increase U.S. security by reducing spending on outdated and unaffordable nuclear weapons programs.

Sincerely,*

Joni Arends, Executive Director, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

David C. Atwood, Former Director and Representative for Disarmament and Peace Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva

Mavis Belisle, Coordinator,JustPeace

Peter Bergel, Executive Director,Oregon PeaceWorks

Harry C. Blaney III, Senior Fellow, National Security ProgramCenter for International Policy

Beatrice Brailsford, Nuclear Program Director, Snake River Alliance, Idaho

Jay Coghlan, Executive Director,Nuclear Watch New Mexico

David Culp, Legislative Representative,Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Jenefer Ellingston,Green Party Delegate

Matthew Evangelista, President White Professor of History and Political Science, Cornell University

Honorable Don M. Fraser,Former Member of Congress from MN

Susan Gordon, Director,Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, USA, Ret., Chairman,Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Jonathan Granoff, President,Global Security Institute

Ambassador Robert Grey,Former US Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

Don Hancock, Director, Nuclear Waste ProgramSouthwest Research and Information Center

William D. Hartung, Director, Arms and Security ProjectCenter for International Policy

Katie Heald, Coordinator,Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator,Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance

John Isaacs, Executive Director,Council for a Livable World

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director,Arms Control Association

Kevin Knobloch, President,Union of Concerned Scientists

Honorable Mike Kopetski,Former Member of Congress from OR

Don Kraus, Chief Executive Officer, Citizens for Global Solutions

David Krieger, President,Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Hans M. Kristensen, Director, Nuclear Information ProjectFederation of American Scientists

Jan LodalFormer Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Paul Kawika Martin, Political Director,Peace Action (formerly SANE/Freeze)

David B. McCoy, Executive Director,Citizen Action New Mexico

Mark Medish,Former NSC Senior Director

Marian Naranjo, Director,Honor Our Pueblo Existence (H.O.P.E.)

Sister Dianna Ortiz, OSU, Deputy Executive DirectorPax Christi USA

Christopher Paine, Nuclear Program Director,Natural Resources Defense Council

Bobbie Paul, Executive Director, Georgia WAND

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director, Peace Action West

Taylor Reese,Pax Christi USA

Susan Shaer, Executive Director,Women’s Action for New Directions

Karen Showalter, Executive Director,Americans for Informed Democracy

Nancy E. Soderberg, former Ambassador to the United Nations and Deputy National Security Advisor

David C. Speedie, Director, U.S. Global Engagement ProgramCarnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

Carla Mae Streeter, OPAquinas Institute of Theology

Ann Suellentrop, Director,Physicians for Social Responsibilities-KC

Gerald Warburg, Professor of Public Policyand co-author of arms control initiatives

Paul Walker, Director, Security and SustainabilityGlobal Green USA

Peter Wilk, MD, Executive Director,Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)

Michael J. Wilson, National Director,Americans for Democratic Action

James E. Winkler, General Secretary,General Board of Church and SocietyThe United Methodist Church

=====================

*Organizations listed for affiliation purposes only

A group of religious leaders in Utah, including Salt Lake City Monthly Meeting, have called on Utah Senators Hatch and Lee to support the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CTBT would ban testing of nuclear weapons above and below ground. The treaty was signed by the U.S. in 1996 but the Senate failed to ratify the treaty in 1999. The U.S is one of less than a dozen countries, including countries such as Pakistan and Iran, that has yet to ratify the treaty.

See the letter below:

Aug. 15, 2011

Dear Senator Hatch/Lee:

As religious leaders in Utah, we have been entrusted by our various faith communities to address the issues of peace and justice. For this reason, we have joined together in urging your support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Our denominations join a diverse group of former policy-makers, technical experts, academics and other religious leaders in calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. We believe that ratification and entry into force of the CTBT is one important step in curbing the development and proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction. Most importantly, we believe that the United States has a moral responsibility to ensure that humanity and God’s creation are made safe from the terrible specter of nuclear weapons.

Sixty years ago, on January 27, 1951, the Nevada Test Site went into operation by exploding an atomic bomb. Nuclear testing resulted in a terrifying arms race as well as having a devastating effect on the environment and those exposed to the radioactive fallout, especially here in Utah.

In 1992, a U.S. moratorium on nuclear weapons testing was initiated which remains in force today. In 1996, the U.S. became one of the early signatories to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CTBT has now been ratified by Russia and all NATO members except for the U.S.

In 1999, the Senate considered the CTBT, but withheld its support. We believe that the initial concerns expressed by the Senate have all been addressed. There is no military justification for resuming U.S. testing, and the United States does not need to test in order to maintain the reliability of its nuclear deterrent. The international verification regime has the ability to adequately monitor compliance with the treaty and to restrict further proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The treaty will make permanent the moratorium already being observed by the majority of nuclear states and obligate other states to refrain from nuclear testing.

Given all the dramatic changes in the world since the Senate last considered the CTBT, we are interested in knowing what your current concerns regarding this treaty might be. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss your position on the treaty and earnestly implore you to give your advice and consent to the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Yours faithfully,

Most Rev. John C. Wester, Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City

Rt. Rev. Scott Hayashi, Episcopal Bishop of Utah

Dr. Iqbal Hossain, President, Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake

Rev. Erin Gilmore, Pastor , Holladay United Church of Christ

Rev. Eun-sang Lee, Senior Pastor, First United Methodist Church of Salt Lake City

Rev. Dr. France Davis, Pastor, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc

Rev. Thomas Goldsmith, Minister, First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City

Randolph Holladay, Clerk, Salt Lake Monthly Meeting of Friends

Rev. Marian Edmonds, Pastor, Cathedral of Hope Salt Lake City

Rev. Steve Klemz, Pastor, Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church

Rev. Scott Dalgarno, Pastor, Wasatch Presbyterian Church

Rev. David Nichols, Pastor, Mount Tabor Lutheran Church

On October 11, Rep. Ed Markey (MA) announced in a press conference that 64 representatives have joined with him to call on the budget “super committee” to reduce spending on the nuclear arsenal by $200 billion over the next ten years. The super committee, a group of six senators and six representatives, is charged with developing legislation to cut the country’s deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.

FCNL, as well as other arms control groups, NGOs and experts helped Rep. Markey to gain the support of other representatives.

Rep. Markey and arms control NGO's 10/11/2011

If your representative signed on (check here to find out) please write a short e-mail to him or her in thanks!

See Rep. Markey's press release below:

Markey to Super Committee: Freeze the Nukes, Fund the Future

65 members of Congress sign letter to Super Committee calling for cuts to nuclear weapons budget, preservation of programs for seniors, families and Americans with disabilities

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Exactly 25 years ago today, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev met in Reykjavik to discuss how to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Today, Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) was joined by military leaders, national security experts, and health and nonproliferation advocates to call on the Super Committee to continue the unfinished work of that summit. Rep. Markey and 64 House members will send a letter this week to the Super Committee calling on the group to cut $200 billion from the nuclear weapons budget over the next decade before targeting programs for seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable.

“American needs another nuclear weapon like Lady Gaga needs another outfit,” said Rep. Markey, top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “With enough nuclear firepower to blow the world up 5 times over, the real choice is between continuing to spend billions on weapons we no longer need and cannot afford or funding programs that put us on the path to a more prosperous future. We need to stop pouring billions into these radioactive relics and start funding the cures and technologies that truly will secure our future.”

A copy of the letter to the Super Committee can be found HERE.

Currently, America is the financial caretaker for 5,000 nuclear warheads. The U.S. will spend an estimated $700 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years. The proposed cut of $200 billion will enable the U.S. to remain safe without further straining the budget. For example, reducing America’s submarine fleet from 14 to 8 and delaying procurement of new submarines will save $27 billion over the next ten years. And the New START Treaty already will reduce America’s level of deployed strategic to warheads to 1,550. This is a 25 percent cut from today’s levels. Less weapons should equal less funding.

“Representative Markey's proposal is not only militarily responsible but it also would enhance U.S. national security,” said Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, ret.), Chairman and Senior Military Fellow, The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

“Spending $700 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next decade is neither affordable or necessary,” said Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione. “Continuing to pour money into Cold War systems will strangle the defense programs we need to defeat today's threats. It is irresponsible to pretend otherwise. We applaud Rep. Markey and his colleagues for their strong leadership and sensible vision.”

Congressman Markey’s call to the Super Committee is supported by 48 individuals and organizations. Their letter to members of Congress can be found HERE.

Statements of Support

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association:

“We agree with Congressman Ed Markey and other members of the House and the Senate that we can and should trim billion of dollars on outdated Cold War nuclear weapons projects that are ill-suited to address 21st century security challenges. This includes proposals for new nuclear-armed subs and bombers that could cost taxpayers more than $400 billion in the coming decades.

“ By rightsizing its operational fleet of Trident nuclear-armed subs to 8 or fewer from 12 and building no more than 8 new nuclear-armed subs, the United States could still deploy the same number of strategic nuclear warheads at sea as is planned (about 1,000) and save roughly $26 billion over 10 years, $31 billion over 30 years, and $120 billion over the life of the program. By delaying work on a new long-range penetrating bomber beyond the next 10 years, Congress could save at least $3.7 billion in research and development costs, and if the program were canceled, it would save at least $50 billion in procurement costs alone. Because the Pentagon will continue to deploy 60 already proven B-2s and B-52s, delaying the new bomber program would not have any effect on United States nuclear force deployments. Deeper nuclear reductions - below New START levels - are prudent and would save still more money that could be used for other important national priorities.

“By responsibly reducing strategic nuclear forces we no longer need and can’t afford, we can help close the budget deficit and reduce Russia’s incentive to maintain a larger nuclear arsenal.”

James E. Winkler, General Secretary, The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society:

“The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society stands with Rep. Edward Markey and the 61 members of Congress in their timely call for the Super Committee to cut $200 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over ten years. The threat to destroy a nation or people with nuclear weapons is against the will of God. Our leaders should not be hemmed into a fallen world. Rather they must lead us in a new direction away from nuclear weapons into a world where justice and peace reign. We call on the Supper Committee to adopt the cut in their legislation to the whole Congress.”

Pax Christi USA:

“Pax Christi USA lends its full support to Representative Markey’s proposal. As Archbiship Francis Chullikatt, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, has stated: ‘With developing needs across the globe far outpacing the resources being devoted to address them, the thought of pouring hundreds of billions of additional dollars into the world’s nuclear arsenals is nothing short of sinful.’ As Americans and as Catholics, we will not be a silent party to this Administration’s obscene nuclear weapons modernization policy, which crushes the poor and entrenches us in a suicidal and outdated deterrence posture.”

Ambassador Robert Grey, Director, Bipartisan Security Group:

“Every dollar we spend on nuclear weapons is a dollar we do not spend confronting the security challenges of the 21st century. Spending $700 billion on a relic of the Cold War would not make sense in boom times, doing so in this budget environment is quixotic.”

Diane E. Randall, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers):

“The Cold War is over. The Super Committee can cut the deficit by not dumping money into antiquated weapons systems that don't serve any purpose in today's world and could potentially lead to a nuclear catastrophe.”

Susan Shaer, Executive Director, Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND):

“Today, the Pentagon is not a target for spending cuts, even though it engulfs way over half of annual discretionary spending, and looms as growing in future budgets.

This is not fair, nor effective. Worse, much of the unchecked Pentagon spending is directed at last-century strategies, leaving us vulnerable as we fail to address 21st century security needs. America needs Pentagon spending discipline to contribute to deficit reduction and to maintain our nation’s strength and security and be smart for new strategies.”

“Today, WAND strongly supports Congressman Ed Markey’s ‘Freeze Nukes and Fund the Future’ letter signed by 64 U.S. Representatives calling on the super committee to look for cost savings in excessive nuclear weapons spending.

“The one area where obvious spending restraint stands out is on redundant and out dated nuclear weapons. News flash – the Cold War is over. Yet, twenty years after the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States plans to spend an estimated $700 billion on nuclear weapons and related costs in the coming decade. Thank you to Congressman Markey for leading the call for sensible budget priorities that strengthen our country.”

Peter Wilk, M.D., Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility:

“As a physician, the health perspective on nuclear weapons is clear. These weapons are a liability, not an asset, and pose an unacceptable risk to human health. We endorse meaningful cuts in the nuclear weapons budget.”

The following members of the House of Representatives have co-signed Rep. Markey's letter as of October 12, 2011:

Markey, Edward J. (MA-7)

Baldwin, Tammy (WI-2)

Bishop, Timothy H. (NY-1)

Blumenauer, Earl (OR-3)

Brady, Robert A. (PA-1)

Braley, Bruce L. (IA-1)

Capps, Lois (CA-23)

Capuano, Michael E. (MA-8)

Chu, Judy (CA-32)

Clarke, Hansen (MI-13)

Cohen, Steve (TN-9)

Conyers, John Jr. (MI-14)

Cummings, Elijah E. (MD-7)

Davis, Danny K. (IL-7)

DeFazio, Peter A. (OR-4)

Edwards, Donna F. (MD-4)

Ellison, Keith (MN-5)

Eshoo, Anna G. (CA-14)

Farr, Sam (CA-17)

Filner, Bob (CA-51)

Frank, Barney (MA-4)

Grijalva, Raul M. (AZ-7)

Hastings, Alcee L. (FL-23)

Hinchey, Maurice D. (NY-22)

Hirono, Maize K. (HI-2)

Holt, Rush D. (NJ-12)

Honda, Michael M. (CA-15)

Jackson, Jesse L. Jr. (IL-2)

Jackson Lee, Sheila (TX-18)

Johnson, Henry C. (GA-4)

Keating, William R. (MA-10)

Kucinich, Dennis J. (OH-10)

Lee, Barbara (CA-9)

Lewis, John (GA-5)

Lynch, Stephen F. (MA-9)

Maloney, Carolyn B. (NY-14)

Matsui, Doris O. (CA-5)

McDermott, Jim (WA-7)

McGovern, James P. (MA-3)

Meeks, Gregory W. (NY-6)

Michaud, Michael H. (ME-2)

Miller, George (CA-7)

Moore, Gwen (WI-4)

Moran, James P. (VA-8)

Nadler, Jerrold (NY-8)

Neal, Richard E. (MA-2)

Norton, Eleanor Holmes (DC-AL)

Olver, John W. (MA-1)

Pallone, Frank (NJ-6)

Payne, Donald M. (NJ-10)

Pingree, Chellie (ME-1)

Polis, Jared (CO-2)

Price, David E. (NC-4)

Richardson, Laura (CA-37)

Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)

Schakowsky, Janice D. (IL-9)

Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (NY-28)

Speier, Jackie (CA-12)

Stark, Fourtney Pete (CA-13)

Tierney, John F. (MA-6)

Tonko, Paul (NY-21)

Towns, Edolphus (NY-10)

Welch, Peter (VT-AL)

Woolsey, Lynn C. (CA-6)

Yarmuth, John A. (KY-3)

Total of 65 co-signers.