AFF/THREAT REDUCTION: SOLVENCY

THE PROGRAM IS VERY COST EFFECTIVE

DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH RUSSIA ARE THE BEST SECURITY WE CAN GET

Don Melvin March 30, 2001 The Atlanta Journal and Constitution SECTION: News; Pg. 1B HEADLINE: Nuclear arms risk still high, Nunn says;

He urges U.S. to help Russia shield arsenal //VT2002acsln

Nunn said he welcomed the president's review of the programs. "I believe that they can be better coordinated and made more effective," he said.

But reducing funding for them would be a mistake, he said. "No investment pays a higher dollar-for-dollar dividend in national security than investment in threat reduction," he said. "None."

BETTER TO SPEND MONEY TO REDUCE RUSSIAN NUKES THAN TO DEFEND AGAINST THEM

St. Louis Post-Dispatch March 30, 2001, SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A5 HEADLINE: BUSH IS REVIEWING PROGRAMS TO HELP RUSSIA DISARM; REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS QUESTION WISDOM OF MOVE //VT2002acsln

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the author of the Energy Department program, issued a strong defense of such efforts as Baker's and Cutler's.

"We can either spend money to reduce the threat or spend more money in the future to defend ourselves," Domenici said. "I am a strong believer that threat reduction is the first and best approach."

STOPPING LOOSE RUSSIAN NMD MATERIALS WILL BE COSTLY BUT COSTS WILL BE SHARED, AND IT WILL HAVE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PROTECTING AMERICAN CITIZENS

2. The estimated cost is $30 billion, which would be provided not only from the U.S. budget, but also by Russia and other countries. The national security benefits to U.S. citizens from securing 80,000 nuclear weapons and potential nuclear weapons would constitute the highest return on investment in any current national security and defense program.