[V]ermont senators approved a resolution Wednesday opposing the basing of nuclear weapons delivery systems in Vermont, a move critics of the F-35 hope leads the federal government to locate the fighter jets elsewhere.
The measure that passed 22-7 was a stripped down version of the original and toned down or removed several claims, including the F-35s were “designed with a requirement to carry a nuclear payload.” Activists in Vermont have claimed the planes coming in the fall have a “nuclear mission.”
Instead, the resolution that went to the Senate floor made reference to the “nuclear capability” of the aircraft and quoted a defense official who said the F-35s “will eventually receive” an upgrade making them capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
“There were times when I felt that this resolution would just find itself a nice place on the wall in our committee and spend the rest of the biennium there,” Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington, told his fellow senators.
But the issue moved forward because of “compelling” testimony his committee heard, including that nuclear weapons had been stored in Vermont for use on earlier planes based in Vermont.
The approved resolution included testimony from a retired Vermont Air National Guard lieutenant colonel who told a Senate committee earlier this month that aircraft based in Vermont before had carried nuclear weapons and that neither the Air Force or Defense Department had informed the state that the weapons were being stored locally.
The newer version of the resolution added Vermonters’ long history of opposing nuclear weapons, going back to the 1982 Town Meeting Day, when 88% of 180 cities and towns approved a nuclear freeze between the U.S. and the former USSR.
Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham, chair of Senate Government Operations, said several weeks ago that the resolution needed to be reworded because the decision to base the F-35s in Vermont “has already been made.”
A House version of the resolution has stalled in a committee. The Senate resolution was passed over three times before being voted on Wednesday.
Despite the changes, a leading F-35 opponent, retired Air Force Col. Rosanne Greco, said she was satisfied. She said the resolution “sends a very strong, beyond symbolic message” and provides the Air Force an out to put the planes in a different location. She said lawmakers had received “incorrect, incomplete, and seemingly purposely misleading information” from members of the state’s congressional delegation.
“I don’t know why they took out so many of the factual statements” that were in the original version, Greco said, “but they kept in enough. The message is there. The Air Force will get it.”
Earlier in the day, members of Citizens Against Nuclear Bombers in Vermont met with Senate Leader Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, for breakfast, bringing him donuts and balloons, to discuss the resolution.
The roll call vote was largely along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposing. Sens. Dick Mazza, D-Grand Isle, and John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans, crossed party lines to oppose the measure. Sen. Jim McNeil, R-Rutland, voted in favor. Sen. Chris Pearson, P/D-Chittenden, was absent.
Pollina said the resolution was not about the F-35s specifically but about “not wanting nuclear delivery weapons systems based in Vermont.” Sen. Allison Clarkson, D-Windsor, said enemies don’t target the weapons, they target the delivery mechanism, specifically “the people and the planes that would be located in Burlington.”
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, said the resolution sent a message to members of the Vermont National Guard, who will fly and maintain the planes, that “we don’t trust them, that we don’t believe they should get the same weapons that their enemies may have.” Sen. Cory Parent, R-Franklin, agreed the resolution would send a “bad message” to military members in the Vermont National Guard.
The House will not act this year on a similar resolution, according to Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, chair of the House Housing, General and Military Affairs Committee.
Greco called that decision “bogus” and said some lawmakers were succumbing to supporters of the F-35s, including its congressional delegation.
“While I appreciate the fears that people have about the nuclear weaponry, we’ve been convinced it’s not really an issue on this,” Stevens said earlier this week. “I understand that people are upset about the F-35, which I’ve always considered a local and federal issue, rather than a whole statewide issue.”
Stevens has said the House resolution contains inaccuracies and would have had to be reworked to be considered. He said his committee had higher priorities. The Senate resolution, Stevens said, was “sufficient to have people’s voices heard on it.”