Today, Congressman Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces requested that Rep. Ed Markey “publicly repudiate and correct the inaccurate and misleading information” contained in an October 11th letter that he and 64 other Members of Congress sent to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Rep. Markey’s letter stated that the U.S. “spend[s] over $50 billion a year on the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” and called on “the Super Committee to cut $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next ten years, from the U.S. nuclear weapons budget.”
“As I pointed out in a letter to the Super Committee on November 4, this $50 billion per year figure is incorrect—and deeply harmful to a fully informed and accurate debate. In fact, cutting $20 billion a year from the nuclear weapons budget, as your letter calls for, would result in the immediate and unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States,” writes Turner.
Today, Glenn Kessler’s Washington Post “The Fact Checker” column gave the $700 billion figure generated by Ploughshares, and used in the Markey letter, a rating of “two Pinocchios”—meaning there are “significant omissions and/or exaggerations” and factual errors. Mr. Kessler’s article said:
“But the administration of President Obama—who won a Nobel Peace Prize in part for calling for a world without nuclear weapons—has flatly rejected the $700 billion figure. James Miller, principal deputy undersecretary of defense, told Congress on Nov. 2 that…‘I've had an opportunity to look at some of the materials that were referenced in the cost estimates just before coming over here and I—without giving this more time than it deserves—suffice it to say there was double counting and some rather curious arithmetic involved,’ Miller said.”
Furthermore, Mr. Kessler also interviewed Stephen Schwartz, who conducted an analysis of nuclear weapons funding in 2009 for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - an analysis that Ploughshares used as a foundation for its own data. According to the Washington Post, “Schwartz said that he warned Ploughshares and Markey’s office to be careful with these estimates, especially when lumping many things together. ‘Unfortunately, things get shorthanded,’ he said. ‘Ploughshares wanted a large number to make their case for political reasons.’”
The Washington Post makes clear that Mr. Markey would be well-suited to take his own advice, when he criticized Mr. Turner and the Obama Administration for “using Enron-style accounting” in an earlier Wall Street Journal article. Turner further “welcome[d] Mr. Markey’s attendance at any of [his] subcommittee’s oversight briefings on the nuclear weapons budget.” Those briefings provide information on our nuclear deterrent which aren’t discussed before the Natural Resources Committee, of which Markey is the Ranking Member.
The text of the letter to Rep. Ed Markey follows below:
November 30, 2011
The Honorable Ed Markey
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Markey:
On October 11, you and 64 of our colleagues sent a letter to the members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction claiming that we “spend over $50 billion a year on the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” and calling on “the Super Committee to cut $20 billion a year, or $200 billion over the next ten years, from the U.S. nuclear weapons budget.” As I pointed out in a letter to the Super Committee on November 4, this $50 billion per year figure is incorrect—and deeply harmful to a fully informed and accurate debate. In fact, cutting $20 billion a year from the nuclear weapons budget, as your letter calls for, would result in the immediate and unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United States.
The correct figure is approximately $21.4 billion per year, or $214 billion over the next ten years. Indeed, the $214 billion figure is the Obama Administration’s own estimate—an administration that vocally and strongly supports global elimination of nuclear weapons. As the administration’s Section 1251 Report to Congress makes clear, this figure is for “sustainment and modernization” of the triad of delivery vehicles in then-year dollars, and “includes research, development, testing, and engineering; procurement; operations and support; and personnel” costs. The Section 1251 Report also outlines expected spending by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration of $88 billion over ten years. Therefore, the total spending planned for nuclear weapons from FY12 through FY21 is approximately $214 billion.
Incorrect and misleading information on this matter, which you relied upon in your letter, has been published by private advocacy groups seeking elimination of U.S. nuclear weapons, including the Ploughshares Fund. I believe this factually incorrect information is preventing a full and honest debate on a vital matter for our national security. I am sure you’ll agree that accurate facts are important to our democratic process.
Today, Glenn Kessler’s Washington Post “The Fact Checker” column gave the $700 billion figure generated by Ploughshares, and used in your letter, a rating of “two Pinocchios”—meaning there are “significant omissions and/or exaggerations” and factual errors. Mr. Kessler’s article said:
“But the administration of President Obama—who won a Nobel Peace Prize in part for calling for a world without nuclear weapons—has flatly rejected the $700 billion figure. James Miller, principal deputy undersecretary of defense, told Congress on Nov. 2 that…‘I've had an opportunity to look at some of the materials that were referenced in the cost estimates just before coming over here and I—without giving this more time than it deserves—suffice it to say there was double counting and some rather curious arithmetic involved,’ Miller said.”
Mr. Kessler also interviewed Stephen Schwartz, who conducted an analysis of nuclear weapons funding in 2009 for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that Ploughshares used as a foundation for its own data. The Washington Post article says:
“Schwartz said that he warned Ploughshares and Markey’s office to be careful with these estimates, especially when lumping many things together. ‘Unfortunately, things get shorthanded,’ he said. ‘Ploughshares wanted a large number to make their case for political reasons.’” (emphasis added)
Joe Cirincione, President of Ploughshares, admits in the article that the Ploughshares analysis might result in “some double counting,” as Dr. Miller suggested. The Washington Post Fact Checker article concluded:
“Moreover, considering how widely circulated the $700-billion figure has become, Ploughshares has a responsibility to rethink its use of the $125 billion for ‘modernization’ in light of this month’s congressional testimony, especially because its figure has been cited so often without the caveat that it includes more than just the nuclear arsenal.”
Of course, it isn’t just Ploughshares that has such a responsibility; that responsibility is also shared by anyone who uses its analysis without careful or thoughtful scrutiny.
The testimony of senior Obama administration officials, the Administration’s 1251 Report to Congress (which is available to all Members of Congress), and today’s Washington Post fact check makes it plain: the figures you cited in your October 11 letter are incorrect. The Ploughshares Fund analysis you relied upon and cited in your letter was grossly and intentionally inaccurate, according to Stephen Schwartz, the author of the original analysis for the Carnegie Endowment. The total estimated cost to sustain, operate, and modernize our nuclear forces and their supporting infrastructure is less than half of what you claimed in your letter. As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to the American people to stop using these distorted figures generated by “using Enron-style accounting” of lobbying groups with dangerous political agendas.
I respectfully request that you publicly repudiate and correct the inaccurate and misleading information contained in your October 11 letter, and inform the recipients and co-signers of your letter of these corrections. I would be happy to make the Strategic Forces Subcommittee staff available to you or your staff should you desire a detailed briefing on the actual cost of our nuclear deterrent.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL R. TURNER
Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
House Armed Services Committee