GLENN SAYS DEEPER NUCLEAR ARMS CUTS COULD SAVE U.S. $22 BILLION BY 2010
Senator Issues New CBO Budget Numbers On Maintaining Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
Senator John Glenn May 14, 1997 News Release
contacts: Jack Sparks (202) 224 7784
Bryan McCleary (202) 224 9799
Washington, DC -- Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) today urged the
United States and Russia to continue efforts to negotiate deeper
cuts in each country's nuclear arsenals. Analyzing the costs of
maintaining a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal. A key finding of
the CBO report is that deep cuts in the nuclear weapon arsenal
will save the U.S. more than $22 billion dollars by the year
2010.
"The report I'm releasing today illustrates an often overlooked
benefit of nuclear arms reduction -- it saves money," Glenn said.
"But we don't see these savings if the Russian Duma fails to
ratify the START II treaty. Ratification of START II is an
essential step to pursue further nuclear arms reduction
negotiations and I urge the Duma to act quickly. I also strongly
urge President Clinton and President Yeltsin to continue their
efforts to develop a START III treaty, further reducing the
number of nuclear weapons.
"I take second place to no one in protecting American security.
The START treaties that I have supported still leave us in a
completely strong national security position. I would never
support anything that would threaten our national security."
The CBO report (entitled "Preserving the Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Under a Comprehensive Test Ban") analyzes the costs
associated with the DOE Stockpile Stewardship and Maintenance
program, designed to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear weapon
arsenal without underground testing. DOE has created the program
in response to the United States becoming a signatory to the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. CBO estimates that this program,
operated by the nation's nuclear weapon labs, will cost $25
billion between 1997-2002, and $61 billion from 1997-2010.
Glenn pointed to CBO estimates that under a hypothetical START
III level reducing arsenals to 1,000 strategic warheads, DOE
would save $6.5 billion through 2010, and DOD would save $16
billion, for a total of $22.5 billion savings when compared to
current plans. Under this 'deep cuts' option, DOE saves money
because it can wait at least 20 years before finding a tritium
production facility. DOD saves because it does not have to deploy
as many bombers, missiles and submarines. The CBO report also
presents two other alternatives to the year 2010. One alternative
would scrap DOE's current program and replace it with a minimal
stewardship program. The report illustrates the effects of
cancelling such big ticket items as the tritium accelerator
(saves $5.4 billion through 2010) and the National Ignition
Facility (saves $930 million by 1998).
"While the 'deep cuts' scenario presents the most attractive
option for cutting our costs in maintaining the nuclear
stockpile, the other alternative developed by the CBO also offer
real budget reductions. I believe these alternatives should be
carefully evaluated. Today I'm asking Secretary Pena for the
Energy Department's views on this report, and I look forward to
the Secretary's reply. I will also be forwarding this report to
every Member of the Senate in the hopes that it will be useful in
the ongoing budget debate," Glenn concluded.
************************************************************
FROM: Disarmament Clearinghouse
1101 14th Street NW #700 Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202 898 0150 ext. 232
Fax: 202 898 0172
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
