Nuclear Weapons Development Tied to Hill Approval

Senate Democrats Fight Administration's Effort to Build 'Mini-Nukes' and 'Bunker-Busters'

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 22, 2003; Page A05
The Senate agreed yesterday to require President Bush to win approval of Congress before ordering full-scale development of a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons but turned back a Democratic drive to retain a decade-old statutory ban on such work.
Democrats vowed to continue fighting what they described as a determined effort by the Bush administration to produce new nuclear weapons, arguing that it would undermine U.S. efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, prompt a new arms race and invite nuclear war.
"We are in this for the long haul," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), suggesting Democrats will try again to halt the weapons development when spending bills are debated this summer and fall.
In response to Democratic attacks, Republicans said the administration is interested only in research at this point and argued that the new weapons could prove critical in modern warfare, especially in dismantling chemical and biological weapons. It makes no sense not to explore all options, they argued.
At issue were two systems: low-yield "mini-nukes" of 5 kilotons or less that Congress put off-limits in 1993; and high-yield, burrowing nuclear "bunker-busters" that target underground military facilities or arsenals.
Funds to continue studies on the bunker-busters and language lifting the mini-nuke ban were included in legislation to authorize $400.5 billion in military programs for next year, an increase of nearly $18 billion over current spending.
A comparable bill before the House would remove the ban on research but retain it for other steps in the process and continue to fund the bunker-buster project. Differences between the two bills will have to be resolved in a conference between the chambers.
Although Senate Democrats conceded defeat in failing to retain the ban on smaller nuclear weapons, they claimed credit for prompting Republicans to strike the compromise requiring congressional authorization before full-scale development.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), one of the leaders in the fight against the administration plans, said the compromise did not go as far as many Democrats wanted but was an improvement over the administration's proposal for repeal of the ban. "It's better than nothing but nowhere near as good as a prohibition" would have been, said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Yesterday's votes came a day after the Senate voted to lift the ban that Congress imposed in 1993 on all future work on low-yield nuclear weapons of less than 5 kilotons, or one-third the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. The ban was originally levied because nuclear scientists wanted to use low-kiloton weapons against deeply buried targets such as Saddam Hussein's bunkers. Studies showed that much higher yields would be needed.
Democrats tried to retain the ban but failed on a largely party-line vote.
As a fallback strategy, Democrats yesterday offered an amendment to permit research but retain the ban on further steps toward development of the weapons. Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) headed off the Democratic initiative with a counteroffer requiring congressional approval for advanced work on the weapons. The Warner plan was approved, 59 to 38.
Warner argued that his proposal would "put Congress entirely in control of this program . . . every step of the way," a claim described as "preposterous" by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who said the Pentagon does not work that way. "I can't think of a more destructive public policy than to continue this nonsense," Dorgan said.
In a subsequent 56 to 41 vote, the Senate decided to keep a $15 million allocation for continued research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or bunker-buster, that Levin said could explode with as much as 70 times the force of the Hiroshima bomb. But it also imposed the same conditions as it did for the low-yield weapons.
Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 22, 2003; Page A05
The Senate agreed yesterday to require President Bush to win approval of Congress before ordering full-scale development of a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons but turned back a Democratic drive to retain a decade-old statutory ban on such work.
Democrats vowed to continue fighting what they described as a determined effort by the Bush administration to produce new nuclear weapons, arguing that it would undermine U.S. efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, prompt a new arms race and invite nuclear war.
"We are in this for the long haul," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), suggesting Democrats will try again to halt the weapons development when spending bills are debated this summer and fall.
In response to Democratic attacks, Republicans said the administration is interested only in research at this point and argued that the new weapons could prove critical in modern warfare, especially in dismantling chemical and biological weapons. It makes no sense not to explore all options, they argued.
At issue were two systems: low-yield "mini-nukes" of 5 kilotons or less that Congress put off-limits in 1993; and high-yield, burrowing nuclear "bunker-busters" that target underground military facilities or arsenals.
Funds to continue studies on the bunker-busters and language lifting the mini-nuke ban were included in legislation to authorize $400.5 billion in military programs for next year, an increase of nearly $18 billion over current spending.
A comparable bill before the House would remove the ban on research but retain it for other steps in the process and continue to fund the bunker-buster project. Differences between the two bills will have to be resolved in a conference between the chambers.
Although Senate Democrats conceded defeat in failing to retain the ban on smaller nuclear weapons, they claimed credit for prompting Republicans to strike the compromise requiring congressional authorization before full-scale development.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), one of the leaders in the fight against the administration plans, said the compromise did not go as far as many Democrats wanted but was an improvement over the administration's proposal for repeal of the ban. "It's better than nothing but nowhere near as good as a prohibition" would have been, said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Yesterday's votes came a day after the Senate voted to lift the ban that Congress imposed in 1993 on all future work on low-yield nuclear weapons of less than 5 kilotons, or one-third the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. The ban was originally levied because nuclear scientists wanted to use low-kiloton weapons against deeply buried targets such as Saddam Hussein's bunkers. Studies showed that much higher yields would be needed.
Democrats tried to retain the ban but failed on a largely party-line vote.
As a fallback strategy, Democrats yesterday offered an amendment to permit research but retain the ban on further steps toward development of the weapons. Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) headed off the Democratic initiative with a counteroffer requiring congressional approval for advanced work on the weapons. The Warner plan was approved, 59 to 38.
Warner argued that his proposal would "put Congress entirely in control of this program . . . every step of the way," a claim described as "preposterous" by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who said the Pentagon does not work that way. "I can't think of a more destructive public policy than to continue this nonsense," Dorgan said.
In a subsequent 56 to 41 vote, the Senate decided to keep a $15 million allocation for continued research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or bunker-buster, that Levin said could explode with as much as 70 times the force of the Hiroshima bomb. But it also imposed the same conditions as it did for the low-yield weapons.
Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company