Congressional Record—Senate S6660

S6660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 ‘‘(E) The total amount that DOD may pay have some disposition of the Reed of pays plus $100 for an enlisted Guard or for the applicable premium of a health bene- Rhode Island amendment sometime Reserve member, $150 for an officer. So fits plan for a member under this paragraph this afternoon. it is a very good deal for the Reserve in a fiscal year may not exceed the amount Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the dis- and Guard families. They pay into the determined by multiplying— ‘‘(i) the sum of one plus the number of the tinguished leader is correct. Efforts are system if they choose to be a member member’s dependents covered by the health being made to see if that can be worked of TRICARE. That way when they are benefits plan, by out. If those good-faith efforts do not called to active duty they do not leave ‘‘(ii) the per capita cost of providing materialize, then, of course, the Sen- one health care plan for another. They TRICARE coverage and benefits for depend- ator is entitled to a recorded vote or a will have continuity of health care. ents under this chapter for such fiscal year, voice vote, whatever is his preference. They do not get bounced around be- as determined by the Secretary of Defense. Mr. REID. It is my understanding tween systems. It would really help ‘‘(F) The benefits coverage continuation Senator KENNEDY will be here early with recruitment and retention. It has period under this paragraph for qualified health benefits plan coverage in the case of this afternoon to offer his amendment been a bipartisan effort like none I a member called or ordered to active duty is or amendments. have ever experienced. the period that— Mr. WARNER. The Senator is cor- I want to add cosponsors, and then I ‘‘(i) begins on the date of the call or order; rect. The Senator from Michigan spoke will yield for Senator DEWINE, who has and to me before he departed the floor say- been a tremendous leader on this issue. ‘‘(ii) ends on the earlier of the date on ing that was his desire and he will be I ask unanimous consent that the fol- which the member’s eligibility for transi- speaking. lowing Senators be added as cosponsors tional health care under section 1145(a) of We can now stand in recess until the to this compromise product: Senators this title terminates under paragraph (3) of such section, or the date on which the mem- hour of 2:15 p.m. CLINTON, DEWINE, KENNEDY, MILLER, ber elects to terminate the continued quali- f ALLEN, LEAHY, STABENOW, MIKULSKI, fied health benefits plan coverage of the de- LANDRIEU, CHAMBLISS, CAMPBELL, COL- pendents of the member. RECESS LINS, and DORGAN. ‘‘(G) Notwithstanding any other provision The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under I compliment Senator DASCHLE for of law— the previous order, the Senate stands his fine efforts in making this possible. ‘‘(i) any period of coverage under a COBRA The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without continuation provision (as defined in section in recess until 2:15 p.m. Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:49 p.m., objection, it is so ordered. 9832(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of The Senator from Ohio. 1986) for a member under this paragraph recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassem- Mr. DEWINE. I thank the entire mili- shall be deemed to be equal to the benefits bled when called to order by the Pre- tary coalition for all their hard work coverage continuation period for such mem- siding Officer (Mr. BENNETT). ber under this paragraph; and and support for this effort. I thank all ‘‘(ii) with respect to the election of any pe- f of my colleagues. I also thank General riod of coverage under a COBRA continu- NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- Smith of the Ohio National Guard for ation provision (as so defined), rules similar TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR all they have done to keep this initia- to the rules under section 4980B(f)(5)(C) of 2004—CONTINUED tive moving forward. such Code shall apply. As my colleagues are well aware, our ‘‘(H) A dependent of a member who is eligi- AMENDMENT NO. 696 amendment would offer a comprehen- ble for benefits under qualified health bene- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under sive approach to health coverage for fits plan coverage paid on behalf of a mem- the previous order, there will now be 5 ber by the Secretary concerned under this members of our military reserve com- paragraph is not eligible for benefits under minutes equally divided prior to a vote ponent. Put simply, it would provide a the TRICARE program during a period of the with respect to the Graham of South critical health care safety net for serv- coverage for which so paid. Carolina amendment. ice members and their families by of- ‘‘(I) A member who makes an election Who yields time? fering uninterrupted, affordable health under subparagraph (A) may revoke the elec- The Senator from South Carolina. insurance. tion. Upon such a revocation, the member’s Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. If it I can’t emphasize enough how impor- dependents shall become eligible for benefits is appropriate with Senator SESSIONS, I under the TRICARE program as provided for tant this is both as a readiness and as under this chapter. will proceed. a retention issue. ‘‘(J) The Secretary of Defense shall pre- Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I un- We know how important it is that we scribe regulations for carrying out this para- derstand we are in 5 minutes debate on fund our military hardware and base graph. The regulations shall include such re- each side and then there will be a vote installations. But, at the same time, quirements for making an election of pay- on this amendment. we can’t ignore our military personnel. ment of applicable premiums as the Sec- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. We can’t ignore the very men and retary considers appropriate. CHAMBLISS). It is 5 minutes evenly di- women who voluntarily lay their lives ‘‘(5) For the purposes of this section, all vided. members of the Ready Reserve who are to be on the line to protect our national se- called or ordered to active duty include all Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield curity. It’s the very least we can do, members of the Ready Reserve. to the Senator from South Carolina on particularly as we continue to rely ‘‘(6) The Secretary concerned shall prompt- his time. more and more on our Reserve and Na- ly notify all members of the Ready Reserve The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- tional Guard. that they are eligible for screening and care ator from South Carolina is recognized. Our amendment is an important sign under this section. Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. of support for those called to serve, as Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask President, I thank the Senator for well as their families. I urge my col- unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. yielding. I have been working with leagues to support it. today, there be a period of 5 minutes Senators on both sides of the aisle to I yield the floor. prior to a vote in relation to the modi- approve a compensation package for Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this fied Graham amendment No. 696; pro- guardsmen and reservists. We have a amendment is intended to close an un- vided further, that if the amendment is modification to Senator DASCHLE’s fortunate and unacceptable gap in agreed to, the underlying amendment amendment. I second-degreed his health insurance coverage for families No. 689 then be agreed to, as amended. amendment last night. We have of Reserve and Guard members who are The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without reached a compromise where we called up for active duty in the Armed objection, it is so ordered. merged the best of the two packages. Forces. The amendment is a needed Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for Basically, what we are trying to do is step forward in taking care of our clarification, the 5 minutes will be make sure that Guard and Reserve troops and their families, and it in- equally divided between the two sides. members, if they choose to, can become cludes most of the provisions of S. 647 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without members of TRICARE, the military that I introduced earlier this year to objection, it is so ordered. health care network for military mem- close the gap. Mr. REID. Also, Mr. President, there bers and their families, by paying a Today’s military relies more heavily are some arrangements being made to premium. It would be what a retiree than ever on the Reserve and Guard.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6661 Over 215,000 Guard and Reserve sol- for the war in Iraq. These volunteer This legislation is cost-effective, diers, sailors, marines, and airmen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines solving the problem with the minimum have been mobilized in support of Oper- have responded with professionalism, necessary expenditures. The Congres- ation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Endur- skill, and honor. In my own State, hun- sional Budget Office has informally ing Freedom, and Operation Noble dreds of members of the Green Moun- scored the entire bill at $4 billion over Eagle. One challenge they should not tain Boys from the Vermont National 5 years, going from about $350 million have to face is maintaining their Guard were deployed to Iraq, Afghani- in the first year and leveling out at health insurance coverage. The prob- stan and throughout the United States about $1.1 billion per year in the fifth lem is that few employers are willing to answer the call to service. Our Na- year. Figures from the GAO report con- to continue health insurance coverage tion’s military would not be as large or firm these cost estimates. for Guard and Reserve employees and as strong without these dedicated—and This Reserve health care amendment family members when they are acti- often-used—soldiers. Time and time will cost far less than increasing ac- vated. again, the Total Force concept that we tive-duty end-strength or than having According to the General Accounting in Congress developed and promoted to substantially increase recruiting Office, nearly 80 percent of reservists has given our military unparalled and retention programs—steps which have health care coverage when they strength and unity. will be necessary if adequate support is are working in the private sector. Al- The increased callups of the Reserves not provided to our Reserves. most all of them would like to main- since September 11 has raised some Let me make sure everyone is clear tain that coverage when they are acti- problems that threaten the long-term about what this vote means. A vote in vated, in order to provide continued readiness of this critical force and—in support of the amendment is a vote to health benefits for their family mem- turn—of our entire military structure. ensure a vibrant future for the Guard bers. The military’s TRICARE cov- A recent GAO study underscored that and Reserve. It is a vote that recog- erage works well for the reservists more than 20 percent of those reserv- nizes, as have all of the major military when they are activated, but it is not a ists ready to deploy at a moment’s no- associations, that we cannot continue realistic alternative for family mem- tice do not have health insurance. At to have a Total Force if the benefit bers since more TRICARE providers least 500 of the 4,000 members of the structure for the Reserves is not im- are located close to military bases that Vermont National Guard currently do proved. A vote against the Daschle are often far from the homes where the not have coverage. These shortfalls amendment means treating the Guard family members of the reservists con- mean that there are reservists who are and Reserve as low-paid contractors to tinue to live. reporting for duty who have not had the militry—the temporary hires who In fact, 95 percent of active-duty routine access to doctors, to treat- can do the job but who cost less be- military families live near bases and ment, or medicine they might need, or cause they do not have the proper sala- health care facilities, so TRICARE is to hospitals. These soldiers—ready to ries, benefits, and protections as their readily available to them. But only 25 make the ultimate sacrifice at any mo- full-time counterparts. percent of Guard and Reserve families ment—may not be in the best physical At a time when the Nation has never live near bases, so TRICARE is inacces- shape because our Government is not relied more heavily on the National sible for them. Nevertheless, the other protecting its investment. Guard and Reserve, I urge all Senators reservists feel they have no alter- At the same time, many families in to vote in support of the Graham- native, since their private insurance Vermont and in other States have told Daschle amendment, which will ensure has lapsed. So they change to me about substantial turbulence from a healthy, effective military into the TRICARE while they are activated, the callups. Even beyond the under- foreseeable future. and then change back to their former standable worry of watching a loved I ask unanimous consent that several plan when the activation ends. one head off for battle and dealing with endorsement letters from various mili- This amendment will enable them to loss of income from the temporary de- tary Reserve associations be printed in parture from a civilian job, families enroll their family members in the RECORD. TRICARE, too. It is the right thing to have had to experience the frustration There being no objection, the mate- do but it solves only part of the prob- and confusion created by switching rial was ordered to be printed in the lem. health insurance plans. This disruption RECORD, as follows: has resonated from the home front to When TRICARE is not a realistic al- NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION the frontlines, becoming a factor in re- ternative for family members, they OF THE UNITED STATES, have the option to maintain their pri- servists’ willingness to stay in service. Washington, DC, April 10, 2003. vate health insurance plan during the These patriots make selfless decisions Hon. PATRICK LEAHY, activation. The frequency and length of to sacrifice time with their families. U.S. Senate, activations for Guard and Reserves are Some sacrifice their own lives in the Washington, DC. disruptive and stressful enough. We line of duty to their country. When we DEAR SENATOR LEAHY. On behalf of the men and women of the National Guard Asso- should do everything we can to enable ask a reservist or a guardsman to an- swer the call, it is our duty to help ciation of the United States (NGAUS), I families to maintain their coverage thank you for the stalwart support you have and avoid unnecessary upheaval. them take proper care of their families given the National Guard over the years. The We had hoped to achieve that goal in and to make the transition to active NGAUS is pleased to offer its support for this amendment as well, but the con- duty as easy as possible. your legislation entitled the National Guard sent agreement means we cannot in- This amendment is a version of S. and Reserve Comprehensive Health Benefits clude it. So I urge the Senate to adopt 852, the National Guard and Reserve Act of 2003. This important legislation would the pending amendment to make Comprehensive Health Benefits Act of offer members of the selected reserve and TRICARE available to Reserve and 2003. I worked closely with Senators their families, the opportunity to participate Guard personnel and families and let us GRAHAM, DASCHLE, DEWINE, CLINTON, in the Tricare on a cost-share basis; provide a partial subsidy of private health insurance and SMITH in crafting this legislation work together to deal with this other premiums for family members of Guardsmen aspect of the problem, too. to deal with medical readiness prob- who wish to retain their private health in- Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise lems for our National Guard in two surance; and improve transition coverage today in strong support of the Graham- main ways. First, the legislation upon deactivation. Daschle amendment to the fiscal year makes members of the Guard and Re- The National Guard and Reserve contribu- 2004 Defense authorization bill. This serve eligible to enroll in TRICARE on tions to the ongoing operations in Iraq, amendment will take a much needed a cost-share basis. Second, it allows fighting the global war on terrorism, pro- step to improve the readiness and families to apply to the Defense De- tecting the homeland, and supporting con- strength of the National Guard and Re- partment to receive reimbursement for tingency operations around the world are a key indicator of the importance of maintain- serve by ensuring that more of our cit- keeping their current health plans dur- ing a high level of readiness. The General Ac- izen-soldiers have adequate health in- ing a deployment. The reimbursement counting Office recently found more than surance. is capped to ensure that the costs are twenty-one percent of National Guard and Almost 220,000 members of the Guard no greater than putting the family on Reserve members do not have health cov- and Reserve answered the call to duty TRICARE. erage. Forty percent of those individuals

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 without insurance are in the junior enlisted ramp also requires members of the Guard items reservists have told me that are ranks. and Reserve to maintain their family readi- important to them. I do not think we Units with nearly twenty-one percent of ness plans in order to lessen the complica- have had the kind of serious study its member unable to deploy due to medical tions and distractions during deployments. about what should be our priority in reasons has a major impact on the ability of Providing continuity of health coverage for that unit to complete its mission. Providing family members will ensure those who sup- helping reservists be more willing to Tricare during all phases of service can de- port our service members and make it pos- serve. They are doing a tremendous job crease an already lengthy mobilization proc- sible for them to serve, are provided for at this point in time. We have had 400 ess by ensuring medical readiness is rou- while their loved ones are away. special forces National Guardsmen tinely sustained. Medical readiness is an im- The Military Coalition supports S. 852 and from my State in Iraq and Afghani- portant factor in unit readiness. applauds your efforts to ensure a strong and stan; several have been wounded. They Recent National Guard mobilizations have viable National Guard and Reserve as an in- demonstrated how quickly the guard can be are critical to our Nation. tegral component of our nation’s total force. But we have not thought this ready to fulfill their federal mission. Some Sincerely, through. We do not have the $2 billion of these notifications for mobilization have THE MILITARY COALITION. given Guardsmen hours and days, as opposed to $3 billion to spend on this program to the days and weeks normally required. ADJUTANTS GENERAL ASSOCIATION at this time. I do not believe the con- This reduced ramp also requires members of OF THE UNITED STATES, ferees can take that much out of exist- the Guard to maintain their family readiness Washington, DC, ing active-duty accounts to pay for plans in order to lessen the complications Senator MIKE DEWINE, this. At this point, it is unwise. What and distractions during deployments. Pro- U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, we need to do is continue to study this viding continuity of health coverage for fam- Washington, DC. matter. I chair that subcommittee, and ily members will ensure those who support Senator TOM DASCHLE, our service members and make it possible for U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, we can talk about it and come back them to serve, are provided for while their Washington, DC. with priorities that benefit all reserv- loved ones are away. Senator PATRICK LEAHY, ists in a fair and equitable way and As always, the NGAUS stands ready to as- U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, fund those expenditures. sist you and looks forward to our continued Washington, DC. I yield the remainder of my time to relationship ensuring a strong and viable Na- Senator GORDON SMITH, the Senator from South Dakota. tional Guard. U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader Sincerely, Washington, DC. RICHARD C. ALEXANDER, time, but I thank the Senator from DEAR SENATORS DEWINE, DASCHLE, LEAHY Alabama for his kindness. Major General (RET), AUS, AND SMITH: On behalf of the Adjutants Gen- President. eral of the 54 states and territories I want to Let me thank and congratulate all thank you for your introduction and support Members who have had so much to do THE MILITARY COALITION, of S. 852, National Guard and Reserve Com- with offering this amendment—Senator Alexandria, VA, April 15, 2003. prehensive Health Benefits Act of 2003. The GRAHAM of South Carolina, Senator Hon. MIKE DEWINE, introduction of S. 852 brings the Adjutants DEWINE, Senator LEAHY, and so many U.S. Senate, General Association of the United States an- others who have made this effort over Washington, DC. other step closer to its goal of providing op- the course of the last several months. DEAR SENATOR DEWINE: The Military Coa- tional, contributory TRICARE coverage to lition (TMC), a consortium of nationally The distinguished Senator from Ala- members of the Guard and Reserve and their bama said we need to think this prominent uniformed services and veterans families. organizations representing more than 5.5 The provision of health care to Guard and through. This has been the subject of a million current and former members of the Reserve members has been a priority of our great deal of study. The GAO has stud- seven uniformed services, plus their families Association since our Strategic Planning ied it; various economic analyses have and survivors, would like to thank you for Committee introduced the issue to the Adju- been done on it. introducing S. 852, the National Guard and tants General in August 2000. Your legisla- There are three numbers I call to my Reserve Comprehensive Health Benefits Act tion encompasses all of the essential ele- colleagues’ attention. The first is 700. of 2003. This important legislation would ments that our Association has sought since offer members of the Selected Reserve and There has been a 700 percent increase that time. in the utilization of Guard and Reserve their families the opportunity to participate All of my fellow Adjutants General have in the Tricare program on a cost-share basis; indicated their support of your initiative. We in active-duty and law enforcement provide a partial subsidy of private health pledge our support in securing passage of S. roles since September 11—700 percent. insurance premiums for family members of 852 and we will continue to request addi- The dislocation caused by that new Guardsmen and Reservists who wish to re- tional co-sponsorship of the bill by the sen- role has been remarkable in all of our tain their private health insurance; and im- ators from our respective states. Please States. We are asking them to be law prove transition coverage upon demobiliza- share this letter of support with your Senate enforcement officers. We are asking tion. This initiative to improve healthcare colleagues as you consider further action. readiness for members of the National Guard them to be soldiers. We are asking Once again, we thank you for your out- them to fight in wars. We are asking and Reserve components and their families is standing effort on behalf of the Guard and at the forefront of TMC’s priorities for that Reserve. them to play a role they did not play community. Sincerely, before. The National Guard and Reserve compo- JOHN F. KANE, The second number I ask my col- nents’ contributions to the ongoing oper- Major General, President. leagues to remember is one-tenth of 1 ations in Iraq, fighting the global war on ter- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who percent. That is what the cost of this rorism, protecting the homeland, and sup- porting contingency operations around the seeks time? The time of the sponsors amendment would be, one-tenth of 1 world are key indicators of the importance has expired. percent of the Defense Department of maintaining a high level of readiness. The Who yields time in opposition? The budget. We can afford one-tenth of 1 General Accounting Office recently found Senator from Alabama. percent to say to all of those Guard more than 21 percent of National Guard and Mr. SESSIONS. Two and a half min- and Reserve personnel: You are playing Reserve members do not have health cov- utes per side? a role; you have never played a role be- erage. Forty percent of those individuals The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and fore by seven times. without insurance are in the junior enlisted a half minutes in opposition. Now we are going to give them the ranks. Providing Tricare during all phases of serv- Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I chance just to purchase health insur- ice can decrease an already lengthy mobili- served as a reservist for over 10 years. ance. That is all they are going to do, zation process by ensuring medical readiness Some of my best friends are reservists. purchase TRICARE insurance. We are is routinely sustained. Medical readiness is a My Army Reserve partner is now my not going to give it to them, but we critical factor in mission readiness. chief of staff. I have a lot of good will let them purchase it. Recent National Guard and Reserve mobi- friends in the Army Reserve and Na- The final number is this: 30; there is lizations have demonstrated how quickly tional Guard. They have a lot of needs. a 30 percent uninsured roster right now these forces can be ready to fulfill their war- fighting mission. Some notifications for mo- There is much we can do for them. I among the National Guardsmen who bilization have given Guardsmen and Reserv- have not specifically been hearing in are under 30. Thirty is an important ists hours and days, rather than weeks and my State this insurance question, al- threshold. We have a vast number of months once required. This reduced alert though I can list half a dozen other people we have called upon to serve

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6663 their country in war and in peace, in The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Spratt-Furse language which prohibits roles involving National Guard, as well objection, the underlying amendment, the development of so-called low-yield as in the military. All we are saying as amended, is agreed to. nuclear weapons. This prohibition of through this amendment is: You have a The amendment (No. 689), as amend- nuclear development was adopted in chance to buy health insurance, so you ed, was agreed to. the 1994 Defense authorization bill. It can do it better. And when you do it, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- has been the law of the land for the you are going to be healthy. ator from Virginia. last decade. I urge my colleagues to support this Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we ac- The language of Spratt-Furse—I amendment. cept the expression of the will of the would like to read it—says that with The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time Senate on this matter. I had the dif- respect to U.S. policy, ‘‘it shall be the having been yielded back, the question ficult position to oppose it, which I did. policy of the United States not to con- is on agreeing to the amendment. As we look toward the benefits for duct research and development which Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and the Guard and Reserve, they are de- could lead to the production by the nays. served, richly, in most instances, but United States of a new low-yield nu- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a there is a balance that is somewhere clear weapon, including a precision sufficient second? not clearly definable between what we low-yield warhead. The Secretary of There is a sufficient second. do for the regulars and what we do for Energy may not conduct or provide for The clerk will call the roll. the Guard and Reserve. If it gets out of the conduct of research and develop- The assistant legislative clerk called balance, we could precipitate a bit of ment which could lead to the produc- the roll. civil strife between these two magnifi- tion by the United States of a low-yield Mr. MCCONNELL. I announce that cent categories of men and women who nuclear weapon which, as of the date of the Senator from Nevada (Mr. ENSIGN) proudly serve in the uniform for our the enactment of this act, has not en- and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. VOINO- country and carry out their duties side tered production.’’ VICH) are necessarily absent. by side on the battlefield and here at And then it has a section on the ef- Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen- home. We will move on. fect on other research and develop- ator from Florida (Mr. GRAHAM), the It is my intention to carefully con- ment, and it says that nothing in this Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE), and sider this amendment, which was section shall prohibit the Secretary of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. strongly adopted by the Senate, in the Energy from conducting or providing KERRY) are necessarily absent. context of the overall bill and such for the conduct of research and devel- I further announce that, if present other amendments in the House and opment necessary to design a testing and voting, the Senator from Massa- the Senate as may contribute to the device that has a yield of less than 5 chusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote benefit of the men and women of the kilotons; secondly, to modify an exist- ‘‘aye’’. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there Armed Forces. ing weapon for the purpose of address- I yield the floor. any other Senators in the Chamber de- ing safety and reliability concerns, or, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- three, to address proliferation con- siring to vote? ator from California. The result was announced—yeas 85, cerns. AMENDMENT NO. 715 President Bush is right when he says nays 10, as follows: Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I the greatest threat facing the United [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.] send an amendment to the desk on be- States lies in the global proliferation YEAS—85 half of Senator KENNEDY and myself, of weapons of mass destruction and ter- Akaka DeWine Lieberman and we are joined by Senators FEIN- rorist access to these weapons. But by Alexander Dodd Lincoln Allen Dole Lott GOLD, DAYTON, and STABENOW. adopting a new approach to national Baucus Domenici Lugar The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without security in the wake of 9/11 that Bayh Dorgan McCain objection, the pending amendment is stresses unilateralism and preemption Bennett Durbin McConnell set aside. The clerk will report. and increases U.S. reliance on nuclear Biden Edwards Mikulski The assistant legislative clerk read weapons, I am deeply concerned that Bingaman Enzi Miller Boxer Feingold as follows: Murkowski this administration may actually be Breaux Feinstein Murray The Senator from California [Mrs. FEIN- encouraging the very proliferation we Brownback Fitzgerald STEIN], for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. FEIN- Bunning Frist Nelson (FL) seek to prevent. Burns Graham (SC) Nelson (NE) GOLD, Mr. DAYTON, and Ms. STABENOW, pro- This bill, left intact, clearly opens Byrd Grassley Pryor poses an amendment numbered 715: the door to the development of new nu- Campbell Gregg Reed (Purpose: To strike the repeal of the prohibi- clear weapons and will, if left as is, Reid Cantwell Hagel tion on research and development of low- begin a new era of nuclear prolifera- Carper Harkin Roberts yield nuclear weapons) Chafee Hatch Rockefeller tion, as sure as I am standing here. Chambliss Hollings Sarbanes Strike section 3131. A couple of weeks ago, former Sec- Clinton Hutchison Schumer Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I retary of State Madeleine Albright Cochran Inhofe Shelby think the Senator probably knows this talked with the Democratic Senate Coleman Jeffords Smith would strike the Spratt-Furse lan- Collins Johnson Snowe Caucus and she said something inter- Conrad Kennedy Specter guage. esting. She said, in all of American his- Cornyn Kohl Stabenow Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we un- tory, there never has been a greater Corzine Landrieu Stevens derstood a number of Senators were Crapo change in foreign policy and national Lautenberg Talent Daschle Leahy going to introduce it. security than between this administra- Wyden Dayton Levin Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was 12 years old tion and the last one. NAYS—10 when the Enola Gay went out of the Indeed, I deeply believe this bill Pacific. I remember that big mushroom Allard Nickles Thomas places America at a crossroad in the Bond Santorum Warner cloud on the San Francisco Chronicle conduct of foreign policy, and how we Craig Sessions and then, for months afterward, I re- determine nuclear weapons policy will Kyl Sununu member the pictures that came back go a long way to determining whether NOT VOTING—5 from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It may we control nuclear proliferation or ex- Ensign Inouye Voinovich well be that we are too far removed pand it. This bill will expand it. Let Graham (FL) Kerry from that day to really understand the there be no doubt. The amendmentl (No. 696) was agreed repercussions of what this bill is going To my mind, even considering the to. to begin to allow to happen in the use of these weapons threatens to un- Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to United States. What is going to be al- dermine our efforts to stop prolifera- reconsider the vote. lowed to happen is a reopening of the tion. In fact, it actually encourages Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that mo- door to nuclear development which has other nations to pursue nuclear weap- tion on the table. been closed for decades. ons by emphasizing their importance. The motion to lay on the table was This amendment would strike section For decades the United States relied agreed to. 3131, and that is the repeal of the on its nuclear arsenal for deterrence

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 only. In the symmetric world of the velop weapons which dig deeper, the sein’s underground lairs in Operation Cold War, we faced the Soviet Union administration is suggesting we can Iraqi Freedom. In fact, the U.S. mili- with nuclear weapons and a conven- make nuclear weapons less deadly. It is tary possesses a conventional bunker tional military that was stronger than suggesting we can make them more ac- buster, the GBU–37, which is thought ours. Nuclear weapons were used to ceptable to use. But there is no such to be capable of taking out a silo-based deter not only a nuclear attack on our thing as a clean nuclear weapon that ICBM. With this conventional arsenal homeland but also a conventional at- minimizes collateral damage. at our disposal, there is little military tack against our allies in western Eu- Consider the following facts: Accord- utility that a low-yield nuclear weapon rope and Asia. ing to a Stanford physicist, Sidney provides to the U.S. military. Today the Soviet Union is gone, but Drell, destroying a target buried 1,000 While I agree that nuclear weapons the world is not a safer place. Rather, feet into rock would require a nuclear may have some military utility in cer- we have seen new nuclear states weapon with the yield of 100 kilotons. tain circumstances, the benefit of the emerge—India, Pakistan, and lately That is 10 times the size of the bomb development of new mini-nukes ap- North Korea. As we continue to pros- dropped on Hiroshima. pears to me to be far outweighed by the ecute the war on terror, it should be a According to Dr. Drell, even the ef- costs. But with the sought-for repeal of central tenet of U.S. policy to do ev- fects of a small bomb would be dra- Spratt-Furse, the administration erything at our disposal to make nu- matic. A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon det- seems to be moving toward a military clear weapons less desirable, less avail- onated 20 to 50 feet underground would posture in which nuclear weapons are able, and less likely to be used. dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in considered just like other weapons—in This bill will do exactly the opposite. New York and eject 1 million cubic feet which their purpose is not simply to Instead of ratcheting back our reliance of radioactive debris into the air. serve as a deterrent but as a usable in- According to models done by the Nat- on nuclear weapons, this administra- strument of military power, like a ural Resources Defense Council, deto- tion is looking for new ways to use nu- tank, a fighter aircraft, or a cruise nating a similar weapon on the surface clear weapons and to make them more missile. of a city would kill a quarter of a mil- usable. Does anyone in this Chamber But there are several things wrong lion people and injure hundreds of doubt that others will follow? I do not. with that logic. Nuclear weapons are The administration’s Nuclear Posture thousands more. So there really is no such thing as a different. Review, released in January of 2002, did ‘‘usable nuclear weapon.’’ First, using them—even small ones— not focus solely on the role of nuclear Moreover, nuclear weapons cannot be would cross a line that has been in weapons for deterrence. It stressed the engineered to penetrate deeply enough place for 60 years. If the Spratt-Furse importance of being prepared to use to prevent fallout. Based on technical prohibition is repealed, the develop- nuclear weapons in the future. In fact, analysis at the Nevada Test Site, a ment of new nuclear weapons could the review noted that we must now weapon with a 10-kiloton yield must be lead to the resumption of underground plan to possibly use them against a buried deeper than 850 feet to prevent nuclear testing in order to test the new wider range of countries. spewing of radioactive debris. Yet a weapons. This would overturn the 10- The Nuclear Posture Review said weapon dropped from a plane at 40,000 year moratorium on nuclear testing that we need to develop new types of feet will penetrate less than 100 feet of and could lead other nuclear powers, nuclear weapons so we can use them in loose dirt and less than 30 feet of rock. and nuclear aspirants, to resume or a wider variety of circumstances and Ultimately, the depth of penetration start testing, actions that would fun- against a wider range of targets such is limited by the strength of the mis- damentally alter future nonprolifera- as hard and deeply buried targets or to sile casing. The deepest our current tion and counterproliferation efforts. defeat chemical or biological agents. earth penetrators can burrow is 20 feet I understand Secretary of State Pow- And indeed, a few months after issuing of dry earth. Casing made of even the ell has written a letter supporting this, the Nuclear Posture Review, President strongest material cannot withstand and I must express my profound dis- Bush signed National Security Presi- the physical forces of burrowing appointment. I must restate something dential Directive 17, saying the United through 100 feet of granite, much less he said last year on ‘‘The NewsHour States might use nuclear weapons to 850 feet. With Jim Lehrer.’’ I quote Secretary respond to a chemical or biological at- In addition, the United States al- Powell: tack. ready has a usable nuclear bunker I mean, the thought of nuclear conflict in In the past, U.S. officials have only buster, the B61–11, which has a ‘‘dial-a- 2002, with what that would mean with re- hinted at that possibility. But this ad- yield’’ feature, allowing its yield to spect to loss of life, what that would mean to ministration has made it formal pol- range from less than a kiloton to sev- the condemnation—the worldwide con- icy. In doing so, it has telegraphed the eral hundred kilotons. When configured demnation—that would come down on what- importance of nuclear weapons and the to have a 10-kiloton yield and deto- ever nation chose to take that course of ac- administration’s apparent willingness nated 4 feet underground, the B61–11 tion, would be such that I can see very little to use them. military, political, or other kind of justifica- can produce a shock wave sufficient to tion for the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear In the legislation before us today, crush a bunker buried beneath 350 feet weapons in this day and age may serve some there is language requested by the ad- of layered rock. We have the weapons deterrent effect, and so be it; but to think of ministration asking Congress to repeal to do the job. We don’t need another. using them as just another weapon in what the Spratt-Furse provision—a decade But the U.S. military, the strongest might start out as a conventional conflict in old law that bans research on weapons and most capable military force the this day and age seems to me something that with yields of 5 kilotons. Now, that is world has ever seen, bar none, has plen- no side should be contemplating. a third the size of the bomb used at ty of effective conventional options at This was 1 year ago. What has Hiroshima. hand designed to penetrate deeply into changed, Mr. President? Why would we I believe Spratt-Furse is an impor- the earth and destroy underground open the door to nuclear development tant prohibition with positive security bunkers and storage facilities. at the very time we are trying to say equities for the United States. Since it Those conventional bunker busters to North Korea this is unacceptable, at has been in effect, no nation has devel- range in size from 500 to 5,000 pounds, the very time we are worried as to oped lower yield nuclear weapons. and most are equipped with either a whether Pakistan can securitize its nu- This administration wants to repeal laser or GPS guidance system. A 5,000- clear weapons, and whether there may Spratt-Furse for one reason, and one pound bunker buster like the Guided be a nuclear holocaust between Paki- reason only: to build new nuclear weap- Bomb Unit 28/B is capable of pene- stan and India? ons, particularly for missions against trating up to 20 feet of reinforced con- I have never been more concerned the hardened bunkers that rogue states crete or 100 feet of earth. It was used about where this Nation is going than may be using to store chemical and bi- with much success in Operation Endur- I am today. Let me give another exam- ological weapons. ing Freedom in Afghanistan. ple. China has a no-first-use nuclear By seeking to build nuclear weapons Other conventional bunker busters policy. Their warheads have been sta- that produce smaller explosions and de- were used to take out Saddam Hus- ble at between 18 and 24 ICBMs. Yet we

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6665 have a policy document, the Nuclear the United States is going to get back would have annihilated the United Posture Review, that says we would into the nuclear arms business. States and the Soviet Union as we countenance a first use of nuclear I urge this Senate to join Senator knew it. It came dangerously close, and weapons against China if they were to KENNEDY and I in support of this since that time Republican and Demo- use military action against Taiwan, amendment. I yield time to Senator crat leaders have said, OK, we do not and we said the same thing about KENNEDY, as much time as he requires. want to see an escalation of the nu- North Korea going into South Korea. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- clear arms race. We have seen step This is in writing. ator from Massachusetts. after step to contain it. One of the Does no one think anybody reads Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. most important ways of containing it these things? Does no one believe that Mr. President, over the past years, is to have a moratorium on testing and we do not set the tenor of the world we have had the opportunity to con- also to have a battle against the pro- with respect to weapons? We are the sider the Defense authorization bill, liferation of weapons. largest weapons seller on Earth, and I and a number of extremely important What we have with this administra- do not want to see us develop more nu- weapons systems have been debated on tion is basically an effort to lift what clear weapons, nor do I believe the the floor of the Senate. By and large, they call the Spratt amendment, which American people want to see it either. over that period, we have seen the re- is a prohibition for research and devel- This bill allows that to happen. sults in our military. opment into the nuclear weapons. One I do not believe this side of the aisle All of us recognize the extraordinary can call them mini nukes. One can call can sit by and let it happen to our chil- performance of our military in these them small nukes. Basically, I call dren and our grandchildren. Tactical past weeks where they performed with, them low-death weapons because that nuclear weapons in the most sophisti- first, extraordinary courage; second, is what they are. We are talking about cated military in the world should play with extraordinary leadership; and the killing of thousands of individuals no part. third, with the latest and the best of with these weapons systems, and the I cannot think of a single issue that technology. I think all of us want to administration is attempting to open should more define the political agenda make sure those are the items which this whole process again. today than whether the United States are going to be there for the security of Over the period of the last 5 years we should go back into the nuclear busi- our military. They are going to be the have not had any testing of nuclear ness again, and repeal of Spratt-Furse best trained, best led, and best weapons by India or by Pakistan, two is the first step in that direction. equipped with the latest technology. nuclear powers. We have not seen any In the Energy Committee, I sus- We ought to consider the various pro- testing either by the United States, pected this was coming, and I asked posals that are before us and ask what Russia, or China probably for the last Secretary Abraham: Are there any is the military significance of any of 15 years. Progress was being made. We plans? He said no. Last Wednesday, in the matters we are asked to consider have seen five countries that have basi- Defense Appropriations, I asked Sec- on the Defense authorization bill. It is cally gone nonnuke, basically re- retary Rumsfeld what is going on. He against the background that the Sen- nounced their nuclear weapons in the said: Oh, it is just a study. Just a ator from California has pointed out world. We have been making real study, baloney. Does anyone really be- that we ought to examine what is the progress. lieve that? possible need for this kind of a weapons What do we hear from the other side? The repeal of Spratt-Furse opens the system and another opening of the de- We are living in a dangerous world. door for America to begin to develop bate on the testing of nuclear weapons. Well, I hope on the other side they are nuclear weapons again, and I for one do Make no mistake about it, we may going to be able to tell us how nuclear not believe we should sit by and see hear that all we are interested in is the weapons are going to solve the problem that happen. design of the nuclear weapon, but we of dealing with al-Qaida, how nuclear We are telling others not to develop will come back to that because it is the weapons would have solved our prob- nuclear weapons. We are telling others clear intention of the administration lem in dealing with the threats in Mo- not to sell fissile materials. We are to move ahead with not only the design rocco this week or Saudi Arabia, for concerned when North Korea has pluto- but also the testing of nuclear weap- example, the last week. nium and uranium and Iran begins to onry. What do they intend to do with these start up refining uranium. Yet it is all We have to ask: How does that affect nuclear weapons? Well, we hear maybe right for us to go out and begin to de- our national security? How does that they can be used in our new, dangerous velop weapons that are one-third the affect our national defense? First of world to deal with the problems of bio- size of the weapon that hit Hiroshima all, we ought to be asking ourselves, logical and chemical weapons. and killed instantly 175,000 people? I do given the fact that our Armed Forces Have my colleagues read the reports not think so. And I do not believe that were in battle over the past weeks, re- on what would happen if we have nu- is what the American people stand for sulting in an enormous success: What clear weapons incinerating large stor- either. came out of that conflict that would age spaces of gas or chemical weapons, This is a big vote. This is a vote that make us take this step of lifting the and if those were to fractionate into opens the door. How we can repeal lan- ban on any kind of nuclear test? What the air in terms of critical masses, the guage that says to all the world the happened in Iraq? What was the objec- amount of devastation and death that United States is not in the nuclear de- tive? What was the military objective would mean to thousands or tens of velopment business, I do not know, but in Iraq that would make us say what thousands of troops if they were near I find it absolutely chilling and even we want to do on the Defense author- or hundreds of thousands of civilians diabolical, particularly when we preach ization bill is move us back from the who were near? to other nations. successful negotiations over the last 50 What is the singular purpose? What At a time when we brand as evil cer- years of Republican and Democratic is the military necessity? What do the tain countries based in part on their Presidents in moving us away from nu- Joint Chiefs want to do with this weap- pursuit of nuclear arms and weapons of clear proliferation and moving us away ons system? mass destruction, we must be careful from the possibility of nuclear con- We will hear the other side say, let’s how we consider our own options and frontation? That is what the record has not get all worked up about this be- our own contingencies regarding nu- been over the last 50 years under Re- cause all we are trying to do is some clear weapons. So I urge my colleagues publican and Democratic Presidents research on this issue. to think very carefully about the im- alike. Listen to what some of the principal plications this defense bill is going to The Senator from California has re- spokespeople for the administration carry throughout the world. viewed that. We remember times when say about that. In February, the Penta- The 10-year old prohibition on study, we came dangerously close—I certainly gon’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for on testing, and on developing nuclear do—in the Cuban missile crisis to the Nuclear Affairs, Fred Celec, was asked: weapons is going to be thrown out the real possibilities of nuclear conflict What would happen if a nuclear bomb window, and it is a major signal that and nuclear exchange which effectively could be developed that would crash

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 through rock and concrete and still ex- East. It depicts a hypothetical attack how that kind of activity has worked plode? outside of Damascus, Syria, using the in the recent past, how that kind of He said: It will ultimately get field- nuclear weapon with a yield of 5 kilo- threat has resulted in other countries ed. tons. The threshold of this ban ex- being cowed and intimidated into lay- And you are talking about all we are ploded at a depth of 30 feet. This is the ing off on that. It will be the contrary. trying to do is a little research in this level, approximately 50 feet. This is at Now, should these systems ever need area? Come back to us later on; we will 30 feet. to be developed, other colleagues want come back and talk to you if we are This blast would cause 230,000 fatali- to speak about what the dangers would really going to get into testing of nu- ties and another 280,000 casualties from be, as to the possibilities of terrorists clear weapons. radiation exposure within 2 years of being able to purloin, steal, a small This is what the head of the nuclear the blast. weapon system and being able to use affairs weapons system at the Pen- This is a plume pattern developed by that more effectively. We all know it is tagon said: It will ultimately get field- the Defense Threat Reduction Agency enormously complicated and difficult ed. computer model. We are talking about for them to do it today—not an impos- Then we go to Linton Brooks, who is tens of thousands—hundreds of thou- sibility—and we are realistic in terms the administration’s nuclear weapons sands—of casualties. That is what we of trying to do more to make sure that chief at the Department of Energy, are talking about with this weapon is done, but there is a whole range of who said the same thing to the Armed system. additional threats by smaller systems Services Committee in April: I have a What is the challenge? Are we finding that can cause devastation to hundreds bias in favor of the lowest usable yield that the Russians are building up to of thousands of people. because I have a bias in favor of some- develop this kind of capability? No, we Finally, we see what this administra- thing that is the minimum destruction. have not heard that. Have we heard the tion will do; they will deploy the dan- I have a bias in favor of things that Chinese are now trying to build up gerous nuclear weapons. They could be might be usable. their capability somehow to be a developed to penetrate, according to There he is, Linton Brooks, the ad- threat to us? No, we have not heard their Deputy Assistant Secretary of ministration’s nuclear weapons chief at that. Have we heard the Pakistanis are Defense for Nuclear Affairs. Linton the Department of Energy. Come on, going to do it? No. The Indians are Brooks: ‘‘I have a bias in things that now. You are talking about we are just going to do it? No, we have not heard might be usable.’’ going to do a little research and then they are going to do it. They have ac- And there is the administration’s nu- we will come back and talk to you? Do tually complied with the test ban trea- clear policy review that indicates de- you think our friends and adversaries ties by not having any explosions, and ployed warheads reduce collateral dam- around the world are going to believe they have been working with us in age. That is what we are talking about. that is what is going to happen in the terms of the reduction. Certainly the This is a matter of enormous risk. United States? They will read those Russians have in terms of reducing the If this risk were balanced by the dan- statements and they will start their total number of nuclear weapons. ger, sign me up. But that case has not programs of testing. That is what we We stood on the floor and passed an been made. This would be a remarkable are risking. agreement with Russia not many step backward from the firewall estab- For what? We still have not heard weeks ago. So what is out there? What lished going back to GEN Eisenhowser, from the military as to what it is our is out there that is going to put us on all the way through, a firewall between conventional bombs cannot do. What is the track toward the reassumption of conventional and nuclear. it that our conventional artillery can- nuclear testing? What is the threat to This administration, this policy, will not achieve and accomplish? Where us today? break that down. It is wrong. It is not were their failings? Where is the poten- It seems to me we do live in a dan- in our national security interests. That tial target out there somewhere in the gerous world, with what is called al- ought to be the test. This fails to meet world? It was never told to us in the Qaida. Everyone in the United States that test. Armed Services Committee. It was understands it, if they read the news- I hope our amendment is acceptable. never revealed to us in the Armed papers in the last few days and they see The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Services Committee. what has happened in the Middle East CRAPO). The Senator from California. Nonetheless, we want to find out if and what has happened in Morocco. We Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous we want to go ahead—with all of the have to ask ourselves: How in the consent that Senator REED from Rhode potential dangers that we know in world will this particular weapon sys- Island be added as a cosponsor, Senator terms of the dangers of proliferation of tem help us deal with that particular DURBIN of Illinois, I believe Senator weaponry and the dangers from test- threat? That reason has not been made. DAYTON already is, and Senator BINGA- ing. The reason for this weapon system MAN, as well. We have the administration’s own other than, well, let’s take a chance, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Nuclear Posture Review in January of we can move ahead, it will be nice to objection, it is so ordered. last year outlining the plans for devel- add this to our stockpile, add one more The Senator from Alabama. oping new nuclear weapons, including weapon system, seems to be the argu- Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is improved weapons and warheads that ment. We have the possibility of going an issue we have considered in the reduce collateral damage. Do you know ahead; why not go ahead and do it. Armed Services Committee, of which I what that means in layman’s language, I don’t hear the other questions being am a member. I note it passed on a reduced collateral damage? That raised about the range of activities vote of 15 to 10 with bipartisan support. means these smaller nuclear weapons. that are going to take place in coun- I hear the opponents to this amend- That is what it means. tries around the world. Make no mis- ment using words such as ‘‘these mat- Now, let us look at what these low- take, this will release a chain of reac- ters should not even been con- death weapons—I call them low-death tions across this world in nuclear test- templated.’’ ‘‘We should not even think weapons—could do. We have seen the ing. On the one hand, the United States about a new type of nuclear weapon administration talk about not explod- says, look, we are trying to negotiate that may be less dangerous, have less ing them even in their testimony be- with the North Koreans in order to re- collateral damage than the ones we al- fore the Armed Services Committee. duce the possibilities of nuclear ex- ready have. That is not where the They refused to rule out the use of any change and miscalculation on the Ko- United States should be.’’ nuclear weapons in the battle with rean peninsula. But do not pay atten- I note for my colleagues, the cold war Iraq; although Tony Blair did, our Sec- tion to what we do. We are going over approach to life has changed. We are in retary would not. here to develop some new nuclear a new world environment. We need to Well, now we have the 5-kiloton, weapons. How does that work? What be thoughtful about how we go for- earth-penetrating nuclear explosion. kind of message does that send in this ward. We should not shut off any study, This chart depicts the average wind world today? Who will buy that? Maybe any evaluation, of nuclear weapons in patterns for a winter day in the Middle those who support it are going to say what we might need in the future, what

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6667 would be better, what could create one wants to go to the DMZ up there language does not authorize testing. It peace in a more effective way than the and look into that depraved country of does not authorize building of a nu- current armament system we have. North Korea, stand in that wonderful, clear weapon. They say if we do anything, if we free, progressive country of South We have also to be concerned in this study, if we go out and do any research, Korea, and see what he has done to the age of increasing knowledge about nu- if we even think about what other na- people of North Korea and has no clear power, with the increasing ability tions might be doing, we can no longer moral rejection of him and his would- through technology and other capabili- encourage countries not to proliferate be empire, his regime, and has no sense ties to transmit that knowledge around their weapons. I don’t think so. of compassion for the people he op- the world. We ought to be aware that What is happening now? They say presses, and now we are going to blame others could step forward and make Pakistan, they talk about India, Korea, ourselves for his misbehavior? And we breakthroughs in nuclear power that Iran, and other countries that are, in are sending him food to feed his own could in many ways undermine the fact, working on nuclear weapons. people because he cannot raise the food leadership we have in the world today. They are doing that now, are they not? to do so? I don’t think so. We do not need to have other nations Aren’t they doing that right now, this I believe this country has a moral re- studying nuclear power, nuclear weap- very minute? The fact we have not sponsibility to lead in this world and onry, and us not. done any research or development or we will not be an effective leader if we Think about this. We have cut our built any weapons in over a decade, I don’t maintain leadership in all forms power down substantially. We are cut- suppose, how has that had any impact of weaponry—yes, including nuclear ting down the number of our weapons on what they decide to do? These coun- weaponry. It is just that simple. very substantially—half or more than tries make decisions on what they I hope we do not have to develop any half. We absolutely cannot make a think might be in their best interest. new systems, but I don’t see anything commitment that we will never do any- We have to work with them and en- wrong with doing some research. We thing else in the future. That would courage them not to do certain things. might learn what others are doing out simply set out a marker that would be If a lot of countries around this there, too, and that might be impor- the goal any nation could seek to at- world—a lot of them are our Allies like tant to our national defense. tain and then they would be on equal Japan—if they felt we did not have an We are the premier nuclear power in power with the United States of Amer- adequate military capability or option the world—premier power in general ica militarily, in terms of nuclear or weapon system that would allow us and the premier nuclear power in the weapons. We should not do that. We need to make it clear to the en- to effectively defend their interests, world. If we ever got to the point where tire world we care about peace, we care they may decide they have to have nu- we had some smaller weapons, why about world harmony, but we will not clear weapons, too. The United States would that make the world more dan- allow our Nation to be vulnerable to has a peacekeeping role in the world. It gerous than the big ones we have, let attack because our Nation—I can say it is a high calling. It requires us to be me ask you? I think that is not where with confidence—our Nation stands for very thoughtful. We cannot exercise we need to be heading. We need to be peace, prosperity, trade, and freedom blind fear about the world we are in rational about where we are. Nuclear in this world. That is what we stand and the technology that is out there power remains a part of our arsenal. A for. A lot of nations don’t. If somebody and what is going to happen. growing number of nations around the A lot of people may not know, of all world, as they have been from time to in this body is not capable of making the nuclear powers in the world, this time since nuclear power became avail- that value judgment, then I think they country is the only one incapable at able, are studying ways to develop need to go back and study their history this moment of building a new weapon. their own nuclear power. a little bit. So we can stand for right in We do not have the capability at this They say we can’t use it against al- this dangerous world; we simply have point to build new weapons. Despite Qaida. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t. to be militarily strong. Americans expect us to be thinking that, the President has called for a re- Probably we would not use a nuclear about it and going forward. President duction in our nuclear stockpile by one weapon against a group like al-Qaida. Bush supports this amendment that half or more. We are in an unprece- But who would have thought we would passed with bipartisan support in the dented reduction in the nuclear capa- have been at this level of conflict in committee. Secretary of State Powell bility of this country, removing thou- Afghanistan or Kosovo or Bosnia 15 supports this amendment, as do Admi- years ago? Who knows what the future sands of weapons from our inventories. ral Ellis and General Jumper, two of may bring? A great nation, a great However, we do not need to stick our our key military people who deal with Congress, who has a responsibility to head in the sand. We do not need to as- these issues. sume other countries are not out there protect and defend this Constitution I simply think it would be irrational studying nuclear weapons and will and this Nation, should be thinking to prohibit research that could inform study nuclear weapons whether we ahead to make sure we have the capa- future decisions as to whether such study nuclear weapons. That is silly. bility, as time goes by, to deal with weapons would enhance the national That has no logical basis. any threat that faces us. To do other- security of our country. It would not Think about it. Whether we have a wise would be irresponsible. prejudice our Congress to decide these laboratory somewhere that is studying Let’s be clear about this. This questions in the future. Let us not fear nuclear weapons, this is going to deter- amendment we passed 15 to 10 in com- greater knowledge that would inform mine whether Kim Jong Il decides to mittee does not authorize building our future decisions. Let’s make sure build new weapons? Whether Iran or small weapons. It does not authorize this Nation does not have its head in China decides to build more weapons? testing weapons. It talks about study the sand. Let’s make sure our Nation is No sir, not at all. That makes no sense and research. If any step further than alert to what our capabilities are, what whatever. that has to be taken, this Congress our enemies’ capabilities are, and to We have had smaller weapons in the would explicitly have to approve it. the need for change if that need arises. past. They have been removed from Then we can hear these debates about I think that is the right approach. I stockpiles. I don’t think that desta- whether or not we want to go forward, think that is why the Armed Services bilized the world during that period. depending on what the state of the Committee sent this amendment to the They say, well, even though we are world is at that time. floor as part of this bill. reducing our stocks by half, even I used to be a Federal prosecutor. As I thank Senator WARNER for his lead- though we have no weapons program, I understand the law, it would be a ership. He has led us in this way, in a even though we are not doing nuclear crime to utilize the language in this careful way. There is nothing extreme testing, it is our fault. We are somehow bill to build one of these weapons or to about this amendment. It is the right destabilizing the world. We are causing test one of these weapons because it step at this time. Kim Jong Il to create weapons. I don’t would not be authorized in law. You I yield the floor. think it is our fault. I am not part of cannot use money appropriated by Con- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the ‘‘blame America first’’ crowd. Any- gress for things not authorized. This ator from Illinois.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Sen- powerful than the bomb dropped on I hope my colleagues, despite their ate considers a myriad of topics. Every Hiroshima, what does this bill do? warm and strong feelings for the Presi- week those who follow our debates will Mr. LEVIN. The so-called bunker dent and his administration, will pause hear us discuss far-reaching topics busters, which is a total misnomer in for a moment and think about what we from the farm bill to a transportation my book because these are city bust- are doing today and the road and the bill to a tax bill, how to move the econ- ers—they may indeed be nation busters course we are about to follow. omy, how to deal with health care and or world busters, but nevertheless the This bill is a declaration that the education. All of those are critically so-called bunker busters are two weap- United States is prepared to launch a important issues. But I cannot believe ons. There is a so-called B–61 weapon, nuclear arms race in the world again— I have witnessed in my time on Capitol which is about the power of 28 a nuclear arms race which is no longer Hill a more historic debate than what Hiroshimas, and the other one is the B– the province of a handful of nations. we are undertaking at this moment. 83, which is up to 71 Hiroshima weap- There was a time when ownership of We are literally talking about wheth- ons, in terms of power. a nuclear weapon reflected a pros- er the United States will initiate a nu- Mr. DURBIN. If I could put that in perous country with great military ca- clear arms race again. Nothing I can context, if the bomb in Hiroshima pability. Look at North Korea today, think of meets this, in terms of gravity killed 140,000 people instantly, can the as poor as they come, suffering from and its impact on the future of the Senator even calculate how many peo- famine. This country is in the process world. ple may be casualties from the largest of developing a new nuclear weapon If I might, I would like to ask the nuclear weapon which is envisioned by every single month. To think that the ranking member of the Armed Services this new piece of legislation? United States could initiate a new nu- Committee, my colleague from the My calculations are that up to 9 or 10 clear arms race with our research and State of Michigan, if he would be kind million people could be killed with development and not see this rep- enough, before I say a few words here, that type bomb. licated around the world in other coun- Mr. LEVIN. I don’t have a calculator. since he was in on the committee de- tries is naive and wrong and dangerous. Whatever 140 times 70 would amount to bate on this bill and understands what That is what is wrong with this pro- would be that number, assuming the is included in it, if he would answer a posal of the Bush administration. same approximate density in Hiro- couple of questions relative to this I also ask my colleagues to put in shima. context the Bush administration’s issue of nuclear weapons so we can put Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator this debate in context. overall view of foreign policy, which is from Michigan for his diligent work on a departure from 200 years of thinking Is it a fact, I ask the Senator from this committee. in America. President Bush came to Michigan, without yielding the floor— Consider the gravity of this debate. this office and said we will no longer is it a fact we are embarking on at Consider for a moment what we are least two dramatic changes in the pol- embarking on if we accept President wait for nations that are an imminent icy of the United States of America to- Bush’s vision and the administration’s threat to the United States. Since 9/11, ward research and building of nuclear vision of the future of America and the we need to change the strategy, and weapons in this legislation? world. We have just come off a war in change the rules. We will now be en- Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. Iraq—a war which once again proved gaged in preemption. That is, we will There are at least two provisions here. decisively the strength of the Amer- attack those countries which we think Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator be ican military. We have a military oper- could be a threat to the United States. kind enough to tell me, when we use ation without peer in the world, the That is dramatic change. With that the term low-yield nuclear weapons, is very best in skill when it comes to men dramatic change, coupled with this it not true these are weapons which and women in uniform, and the best change in policy, think about what we have about one-third of the killing technology on Earth. We spend up- are saying to the rest of the world. power of the nuclear weapon used, the wards of $400 billion a year and more to Whether you are a threat to the United atomic bomb used in Hiroshima which develop this weaponry and this na- States, if we perceive you to be a killed, in a matter of seconds, 140,000 tional defense. When called upon as in threat to the United States, we can at- people? Is that true? Iraq, as in the Persian Gulf, and so tack you. Whether you are a threat to Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. many other times, they have shown the United States, if we perceive you to The so-called low-yield weapons indeed they are decisive in their goals. Frank- be a threat, we can use nuclear weap- are about one-third the power of the ly, there is nothing on Earth to match ons in attacking you. And we are about weapon that was used at Hiroshima. it. I don’t think there was a moment in to develop several new generations of Mr. DURBIN. Could the Senator from the invasion of Iraq when people said, nuclear weapons to do it. Michigan tell us how we are changing If we just had another weapon, perhaps Step back for a second, as any ration- our policy in relation to the building or this would go more smoothly. Within 3 al person would do, and ask, What does research on these types of low-yield nu- weeks, we conquered that nation. We some other country in the world do in clear weapons? brought to bear a dictator and his response to that? I know I am about to Mr. LEVIN. Under the law that exists army. No one ever questioned that we be attacked. Whether I threaten the today, the so-called Spratt-Furse lan- have the most powerful military in the United States, I have to be on guard. If guage which exists in law today, there world prepared to do that. I know they will use nuclear weapons, is a prohibition on research and devel- What the Bush administration tells even if I don’t, then what are you going opment which could lead to the produc- us is it is not enough. Whatever con- to do? You are going to arm yourself to tion of a so-called low-yield weapon. ventional weaponry we own, it is not the teeth, as the North Koreans have Under the bill, that language would be enough when we consider the future of done. Develop as many weapons as stricken from the law and there would the world; and we, as the United quickly as you can to let the United be no such prohibition. States, need to move forward, as the States know that if they use preemp- Mr. DURBIN. Could the Senator also Senator from Michigan has told us, to tive foreign policy and nuclear weapons tell me in relation to even more power- develop so-called ‘‘low-yield nuclear in that preemption, there will be an an- ful nuclear weapons, the so-called weapons’’—these compact nuclear swer coming back from that country. bunker busters—which name, I think, weapons and these bunker buster nu- That is a recipe for a global arms race. does not do justice to the gravity of clear weapons some 70 times the power There is no end in sight, if we allow the weapon, the severity of the weapon of what was detonated in Hiroshima. I that to occur. It is exactly what is we are considering—I am told by some think this is a dramatic departure in being suggested by this policy. these weapons have detonation power American foreign policy. The Senator from Alabama came to up to 70 times the power of the bomb I agree with the Senator from Cali- the floor and said we should be think- we dropped on Hiroshima. Could the fornia and thank her for her leadership ing ahead. That is why he supports Senator from Michigan tell me, in in offering this amendment, which I co- this. I would say to the Senator I agree terms of developing and building these sponsored with the Senator from Mas- with him completely. We should be new doomsday weapons, 70 times more sachusetts. thinking ahead, and that is why we

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6669 should oppose this. The United States mittee adopted an amendment that clarifies Let me go back to the point made by ought to make it clear we are not the wording of the law. We urge you and the Senator from Massachusetts. The going to initiate any nuclear testing to your colleagues to support such a clarifica- threat we face today is not a threat of develop new weapons, that we are not tion in the Senate to make clear that the nuclear power against the United ban permits research and early stages of de- looking for a new generation of nuclear velopment, while prohibiting the engineering States. It is a threat of terrorism. No weapons, and that we, frankly, don’t and development of new low-yield nuclear one has rationally suggested that the believe it makes for a stable and a weapons for deployment. development of these nuclear weapons peaceful world for other countries to Arguments that low-yield weapons serve can be used as a deterrent against al- develop these nuclear weapons either. U.S. interests because they produce less col- Qaida and terrorism. How could our If we set an example with this new lateral damage and are therefore more usa- possession of even a low-yield nuclear generation of nuclear weapons called ble than high-yield weapons are short- weapon have stopped September 11? It for by this bill, how do we then turn to sighted. Any use of nuclear weapons would demolish a firebrake that has held for nearly could not have. We are dealing with the rest of the world, and say, Stand in 60 years and would be a disaster for the asymmetrical power, to use a cliche place, don’t change, let the United world. The United States should be seeking which you find on Capitol Hill in most States develop new nuclear, but you to increase the barriers to using nuclear committee hearings involving the mili- don’t do the same? That isn’t going to weapons, not decreasing them. tary. It just says you don’t have to work. It is not rational. It doesn’t show Moreover, it is counter to U.S. interests match the United States strength. You the kind of direct thinking I think we for the United States to pursue new nuclear can find a vulnerability where you should ask from this administration weapons at a time when the highest U.S. pri- ority is preventing other countries or groups have the strength to inflict casualties and every other administration. from obtaining them. The perception that and damage. That is what happened on I support the amendment offered by the United States is pursuing these weapons September 11. my colleagues to strike the section of and considering their use would give legit- Otto Bismarck once said, ‘‘Preven- the bill that repeals the prohibition on imacy to the development of similar weap- tive war is like committing suicide out R&D of low-yield nuclear weapons. ons by other countries, and would be an in- of fear of death.’’ I believe we should This is calling for a study for the devel- centive to countries that are concerned they remember those words of wisdom. opment of nuclear weapons. may be a target of such weapons to develop Let me elaborate on a few points. Sadly, we know the spokesmen for their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The act of repealing this 10-year-old law The September 17, 2002 National Se- the administration have made it clear would send a strong, negative message to the curity Strategy of the United States that after one study they will be devel- rest of the world about U.S. intentions with stated as a matter of self-defense that oped, in no uncertain terms. That, of respect to maintaining the existing inter- America will act against such emerg- course, is an invitation for a global national moratorium on nuclear testing. If ing threats before they are fully arms race. the pursuit of new low-yield weapons leads formed to forestall or prevent such hos- I ask unanimous consent to have to the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing, tile acts by our adversaries. The United printed in the RECORD a letter of May this would inevitably lead to testing by States will, if necessary, act preemp- other countries—thereby reducing U.S. secu- 19 of this year from several prominent tively. scientists across the United States in rity and undermining U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. When you put together a policy of support of this amendment. Given the technical realities and limita- preemption, a policy of first use of nu- There being no objection, the mate- tions of low-yield nuclear weapons, as well as clear weapons, and a new generation of rial was ordered to be printed in the the likely security costs of developing new nuclear weapons, which this bill calls RECORD, as follows: low-yield nuclear weapons, we urge you to for, it does not make for a safer world. May 19, 2003. retain the Spratt-Furse law. It is an invitation for a world of uncer- DEAR SENATOR, As scientists and engineers Sincerely, tainty and a world of danger we will be with long experience on nuclear weapons and HANS BETHE, defense issues, we are writing to urge you to Professor Emeritus, Cornell University. leaving our children. retain the Spratt-Furse law banning develop- SIDNEY D. DRELL, I have watched this administration ment leading to the production of nuclear Professor Emeritus, Stanford Linear come forward with many proposals I weapons with yields of less than five kilo- Accelerator Center, Stanford University. disagree with. I cannot think of any tons. RICHARD L. GARWIN, proposal they have suggested which is There is no need for the United States to Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow and Director, more dangerous than what we are con- develop new low-yield nuclear weapons be- Science and Technology Studies Program, sidering today. yond those it has already developed and test- Council on Foreign Relations. ed. Opponents of the law argue that the ban For those who are following this de- MARVIN GOLDBERGER, bate, this is not another routine bill. impedes exploration of nuclear weapons con- President Emeritus, California Institute of cepts for attacking deep underground targets Technology. This bill is about to discard 50 years of and destroying chemical and biological JOHN P. HOLDREN, American foreign policy and 50 years of agents. However, technical analysis shows Professor and Director, Program on Science, American nuclear policy. It is going that low-yield weapons would not be effec- Technology, and Public Policy, Kennedy into uncharted territory with a new ap- tive for these tasks. Low-yield earth pene- School of Government, Harvard University. proach which invites danger, retalia- trating weapons cannot burrow deep enough ALBERT NARATH, tion, and proliferation. It will, in my and do not have a large enough yield to de- Former Laboratory Director, Sandia National stroy deep underground targets; moreover, mind, increase the likelihood of nu- Laboratories. clear confrontation in the future. the explosion would not be contained for WOLFGANG K.H. PANOFSKY, even low-yield earth-penetrating weapons, Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus, I hope on a bipartisan basis the Sen- and would necessarily result in large Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford ate will adopt the amendment offered amounts of radioactive fallout. If a nuclear University. by the Senators from California and weapon was used to attack chemical or bio- BOB PEURIFOY, Massachusetts. logical agents, it is far more likely that this Former Vice-President, Sandia National I yield the floor. would result in the dissemination of these Laboratories. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- agents rather than their destruction. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me ator from Minnesota. Moreover, the law does not restrict re- search and early development of low-yield also say the policy implications of Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I want- weapons, and places no restriction at all on crossing the line toward the use of nu- ed to say to the distinguished chair- work on higher yield weapons. The law only clear weapons and actually making man of the Armed Services Committee, prohibits later stages of development and en- them useful weapons argues most who suggested earlier that we alter- gineering that are geared toward production forcefully against developing such nate back and forth, even though there of a low-yield weapon. weapons. is no agreement, I would be more than Some opponents of the law argue that I am particularly concerned that this happy to defer to someone on his side. maintaining expertise at the U.S. weapons administration’s policy of preemption, Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank labs requires weapons scientists to explore and develop new weapons concepts, and that combined with the policy of first use of our colleague. I am perfectly contented ambiguities in Spratt-Furse law have had a nuclear weapons, is an incentive to and listening carefully to the debate. ‘‘chilling effect’’ on such efforts. However, proliferation of weapons of mass de- At the appropriate time I will make last week the House Armed Services Com- struction, especially nuclear weapons. my remarks and then move to table. I

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 want to in no way inhibit the debate on own next generation of nuclear bombs? We can’t prevent the use of one of this important subject. I feel very It is crazy. It is crazy to do it. And it these nuclear weapons once it has been strongly a contrary form of view, as do is crazy to think that the rest of the produced, which is why we can and a majority of the colleagues I know. world would stand idly by while we must stop their production before. We We certainly witnessed in the Armed proceed to do so. still have a chance to do that. We still Services Committee a strong vote in Why do we need to do this? We have have that opportunity, and that is favor of going ahead with this provi- the most overwhelming military force what this administration’s priority sion in our bill. I am respectful of the in the world, as we just demonstrated should be, to put an end to the nuclear views of others, but I am mindful of in Iraq. We have the greatest, most arms race and those who want to enter what we did on the Committee on overwhelming military dominance of it and to negotiate these agreements. Armed Services in our vote on this any nation in the history of the world But to do that, we have to set the ex- issue. over every other nation. We must ample. We have to lead the world in the Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, if the maintain that overwhelming military direction we want it to go. chairman wants to wait, I will look for- superiority, and we will. President We can’t say, we are the exception; ward to hearing his remarks. I have the Bush has proposed increasing our mili- everybody else follow this set of rules, greatest respect for him, and also tary spending every year that he has but we are different. We know that our many of my colleagues from the other been in office, and this Congress has intentions are honorable. We know side of the aisle who will offer their provided him with every dollar he re- that we would not use them inappropri- comments at a later time. quested. I voted for every one of them ately. But we are not viewed that way At the request of Senator FEINSTEIN, myself. by anyone else, as we would not view I ask unanimous consent that Senator We are now spending this year more anyone else that way. We have to lead JEFFORDS be added as an original co- money on our military strength than by our actions as well as by our words. sponsor of the amendment. the next nine nations of the world com- As others have pointed out, if we The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without bined. I agree with my colleague from were to do this now as we try to put objection, it is so ordered. Alabama who is properly vigilant the lid on other nations’ development Mr. DAYTON. I am proud to rise with about what other nations are doing. We of their nuclear industry weapons in- my very distinguished colleagues who do need to look ahead and make sure dustry, it would be catastrophic. In the have introduced this measure, Senator that we maintain the kind of superi- eyes of the world we would look as FEINSTEIN and Senator KENNEDY; they ority and dominance which we can though we don’t really understand how who have eloquently stated, along with then use to prevent nuclear wars or we are viewed by them. the Senator from Illinois, the reasons any kind of wars around the world. But This is an historic opportunity. It is why this drastic change in American we don’t need those devices today, and so critical that this administration, policy is so ill-advised—to resume the we don’t see anybody else in the world which has proven that it knows how to testing, development, and deployment developing them. So we should be try- win wars with military might—that we of nuclear bombs. That would put the ing to stop it, not move it forward. have established—which they inherited United States back into the front of We don’t need the so-called low-yield from President Clinton’s administra- the world pack of nations now pro- nuclear devices to win a war, not any tion, shows that we know how to win ceeding with nuclear weapons develop- war anywhere in the world and not for the peace. ment. We should be leading the world any time in the foreseeable future. Par- We know how to win the peace in Af- in the opposite direction, to stop the enthetically, there is no such thing as ghanistan, where our efforts to rebuild future proliferation of nuclear bombs. a low-yield nuclear device. It is an the country have been minimal, trag- We can’t do both. oxymoron, low-yield nuclear device. ically, in the last year and a half com- We can’t tell other nations around There is only one description of these pared to the scope of the need and the the world not to build even a single nu- devices: They are nuclear bombs. They opportunity to showcase the American clear weapon and then do it ourselves. are nuclear bombs more powerful than economic social system, our way of We already have thousands of nuclear the ones used in Hiroshima and Naga- life, so that the people of that country bombs. Yet we are going to tell other saki 58 years ago. My understanding is can benefit, and people especially in governments: You can’t have even one. that in terms of yield, in terms of ra- the Arab nations can see the benefits We should be negotiating those dioactive fallout they may be more and advantages of our system. We need agreements. We should prevent other constrained, but in terms of the explo- to do the same in Iraq—seize control nations that do not presently have nu- sive power of these advanced weapons, and security there and bring in the clear weapons from developing them. they go beyond anything that was used U.N. and other nations in efforts to We should negotiate agreements with in World War II, which is, as we recall, bring that country over to a democracy North Korea, Iran, whereby they would the only time in the history of the and a stable government, encourage stop and dismantle their nuclear weap- planet that nuclear bombs have ever and assist their economic recovery, and ons production in return for economic been unleashed by one nation against negotiate with others. assistance, food, technological develop- another. That is the direction in which we ment, whatever it is we can do to im- It is our responsibility as the leader need to go, but it is not the direction prove their peaceful standard of living of the world to assure that they are this administration is going, or cares and help bring them back into the civ- never used again. Nothing is more dan- to go, or knows how to go. It is the ilized world. gerous to our national security than wrong signal to send to the rest of the We should proceed to carry out the the continued development and produc- world that we intend to proceed further agreement which President Bush and tion and ultimately proliferation of down the path of our domination mili- President Putin reached over a year more nuclear weapons anywhere in the tarily and our use of weapons of any ago to consolidate and reduce the nu- world. The reality is we can’t prevent level of destruction in order to achieve clear weapons which our two countries their use once they are produced. We future goals; and if we proceed in that have. We should discuss with the new can try, and we have. And we will con- direction, we must expect that the rest Chinese leadership their doing the tinue to do so. With treaties, through of the world will follow. That would be same. We should redouble our efforts to negotiation, we can build a national more dangerously destabilizing to this track down and purchase and to lock missile defense system as the President Nation and to the planet than anything up the nuclear weapons and materials has proposed, as Congress has appro- I can imagine. that are loose from the old Soviet priated initial funding. But even if it I yield the floor. Union or from any other source, before could be made to work perfectly, a ter- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. they fall into the very dangerous hands rorist group could put a nuclear weap- CHAFEE). The Senator from South of terrorist organizations which, if on in a briefcase or in a car’s glove Carolina is recognized. they get nuclear weapons, will use compartment and annihilate New York Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a them against us. How can we do all City or San Francisco or Mobile, AL, number of speakers who wish to speak that if we ourselves are developing our or Minneapolis, MN. on this legislation. I wonder if it would

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6671 be more orderly if we tried to arrange amendment. As quickly as I can—a lot clear weapon, or fissile materials, and the time so that people—— of people want to speak—I will frame they will most likely be successful. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the debate for those who are listening. People are going to enhance their bio- Chair recognized the Senator from The Armed Services Committee was logical and nuclear weapons ability. South Carolina. asked by the Pentagon to give some re- I argue that to stop research and de- Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I lief on a 10-year prohibition on re- velopment on a potential weapon that am glad to yield to the Senator for a search and development of low-yield could destroy a terrorist group or pre- moment. nuclear weapons for a specific military vent a rogue nation from creating a Mr. REID. I am sorry, I didn’t know. purpose. The Pentagon and others tell chemical or biological capacity that is We might be better off—we have a us that the warfare of the future is deep underground is illogical—just to number of Senators waiting, so that going to have a component to it about take it off the table in a blind fashion, there will be some order—I wonder how which we need to be thinking. trying to say we are doing something long the Senator from South Carolina As we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, that is going to spread nuclear weap- is going to speak approximately. and other places, the enemies of tomor- ons. I don’t believe we are. Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. row and today have gone underground Secretary Powell has written a letter About 5 minutes. in a deep fashion—underground not on this matter, on May 5, in which he Mr. REID. I am wondering if it would only to hide their forces, but to hide says: be appropriate, I say to my friend from weaponry and to potentially build I do not believe that repealing the ban on Michigan, if we had one on our side, chemical or biological weapons facili- low-yield nuclear weapons research will com- Senator BINGAMAN, for 20 minutes, and ties, underground to develop hydrogen plicate our ongoing efforts with North Senator FEINGOLD wishes 20 minutes, nuclear weapons, underground to pro- Korea. and Senator DORGAN wants 5 minutes. I tect their troops from the awesome It is a reality that the enemies of am wondering—if there is someone power that we have today. today and tomorrow will go under- from the Republican side who wishes to The committee, after listening to the ground. They will go deep into the speak interspersed with ours, they Pentagon’s request, in the bill we have earth, and they will have laboratories would be allowed to speak. before us, lifted the ban on research and research facilities available to I ask unanimous consent that fol- and development to allow the Pentagon them to develop weapons of mass de- lowing the statement of the Senator to do research and development in this struction. I hope the Senate will listen from South Carolina, Senator BINGA- area as they could on any other weap- to the Pentagon and develop a weapon MAN be recognized for 20 minutes, and ons system. that counteracts that threat. Whether following him, the Senator from Wis- The question becomes for the Senate, or not we deploy that weapon we will consin for 5 minutes, and then the Sen- after having received input from our decide later. But to take the research ator from North Dakota for 10 minutes. Department of Defense and those ex- component off the table and not even Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to perts who are paid to follow such mat- plan for that possibility is very irre- object, Mr. President, I just suggest ters, whether saying no to their re- sponsible. We will take up as a body two things: One, the interspersed order quest to do research and development whether or not to authorize this devel- include Republican speakers, should only is a wise decision. opment, as we should. they desire—— My colleague who previously spoke I implore my colleagues, please do Mr. REID. That was part of the re- mentioned the word ‘‘crazy.’’ I think it not ignore the threats that exist today, quest. would be incumbent upon us to listen, an enemy going deep into the Earth Mr. LEVIN. Secondly, there will be as the committee has done. And the where conventional weapons may not additional speakers beyond that. I committee, in a bipartisan fashion, be able to destroy that chemical or bio- would not want to suggest that the de- after listening, voted to lift the ban on logical factory or that nuclear weapons bate would end then because we have research and development, to go for- program. Let’s at least look at the pos- additional speakers. ward and look at the ability to combat sibility of having a weapons mix in the Mr. REID. Senator FEINSTEIN is here. the threats of the future by having a future that protects us from the evil She wishes to speak for a considerable low-yield nuclear weapon that could go that exists today. period of time. We need to confer with to the underground chemical or bio- I think what the committee has done the Senator. logical weapons factory that may exist is very responsible. I congratulate the Mr. LEVIN. Prior to that, Senator in the future—to go to the underground chairman and all those involved in lift- BYRD wanted to speak. I wanted to nuclear weapons facility that may ing this ban at the Pentagon’s request. speak for 10 minutes, and Senator JACK exist in the future. History will judge us poorly—who REED of Rhode Island and Senator As we have seen from Afghanistan knows what is going to happen down AKAKA want to speak as well. and Iraq, the enemy has dug deep into the road—if we as a political body do Mr. REID. Why don’t we lock these the earth. From the last gulf war to not listen to what I believe to be a real in? Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have seen threat and try to at least talk about Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wish the oppor- how the military has modernized and and develop a counteraction to that tunity to speak at the end for 1 hour. transformed itself. In the first gulf Mr. REID. I say to my friend, a num- threat for the future. That is what this war—Desert Shield and Desert Storm— ber of other people wish to speak. debate is about. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. At the end. If it is only about 10 percent of the weapons If this amendment is adopted, it a unanimous consent agreement, I used were precision-guided munitions. would tie the hands of the American don’t want to be cut off. That changed to the point where 90 military in looking at weapons systems Mr. REID. You will not be cut off. percent of the weapons used in Oper- to combat a real threat at a time when This is just to line speakers up for an ation Iraqi Freedom were precision the threats we face are growing, not hour or so. There is plenty of time for guided. I argue that that moderniza- lessening. I think that would be a very debate after that. tion effort, keeping that technological bad move on the Senate’s part. It Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Re- edge, saved a lot of American and Iraqi would tie the hands of the Department serving the right to object, what was lives. of Defense unnecessarily. the last thing the Senator said? I suggest to my colleagues that this We are not talking about deploying a Mr. REID. Senator FEINSTEIN wanted is a dramatic moment in our Nation’s weapon. We are talking about research- to be protected for future time. history. We have just upgraded the ing and developing a weapon that may The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there threat level to orange. We have seen save lives in the future, and I hope the objection to the request? last week what is going on in the Senate as a whole will follow the lead Without objection, it is so ordered. world—al-Qaida is still alive. They are of the committee and vote this amend- The Senator from South Carolina is on the run, but they have the ability to ment down. I yield the floor. recognized. hurt people. They desire nuclear weap- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. ons. There are a lot of rogue states the previous order, the Senator from President, I rise in opposition to the that are going to try to pursue a nu- New Mexico is recognized.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. was a weapon capable of being viable part of our warfighting capa- Mr. President, I start by saying I launched that way. One could send it bility. I do not see the justification for have always been a strong supporter of off anywhere. The range was 1.2 to 2.5 it; I do not think it makes sense; and it maintaining our nuclear arsenal. I do miles. As I say, it had a yield of up to poses enormous additional risks for us believe that nuclear weapons have a 1,000 tons of TNT. This, to me, is an ex- in terms of proliferation potential. significant role in our defense strategy, ample of some of the history we know One of the other comments the Sen- but their use for us in that defense about on low-yield nuclear weapons. ator from Alabama made a few minutes strategy is to deter others from using Let me also point to a second exam- ago was: We already have a great many nuclear weapons. That has been the es- ple. This is the so-called MADM, the nuclear weapons. What can be so wrong sential role they played. Medium Atomic Demolition Munition. about developing some that are small? It has been a very important role. It Looking at the photograph, you might One thing that could be wrong is that was an important role in winning the say I am talking about the one in the the risk of proliferation of much small- cold war, and it remains an important center. I am not. I am talking about er, more portable weapons, is substan- role for our military. But the amend- the much smaller warhead that is over tially greater. The smaller the weapon, ment that has been put forward by on the left in this photograph. This the easier it is to move. These weapons Senator FEINSTEIN and Senator KEN- could go up to as high as 15,000 tons of are not sophisticated. These are not NEDY is not dealing with nuclear weap- TNT. It was in our arsenal until 1986. It like the very large, high-yield weapons ons as a deterrent. What it is trying to was intended for use in destroying that are difficult to reproduce. There get at is the change in philosophy that dams or bridges, and it was entirely are many countries in this world that seems to have taken place among some portable. As one can see from the size have the capability to produce low- in the administration that nuclear of this warhead, this would be easily yield nuclear weapons, and many of weapons are not just to be used as a de- carried by a single person. them, I am sure, will get more inter- terrent; they are also to be used as a The third example, and the last ex- ested as time goes on if they see this is weapon. They are to be used in ample I want to show, is this W–79. the direction in which we are moving. warfighting. They are to be used to This is one of the weapons that was in I think Senator KENNEDY made ref- counter preemptive threats that may our arsenal and was taken out of our erence to the speech Mr. Putin gave present themselves to us, and that is a arsenal. This is the so-called neutron last Friday. The article in the New substantial change from what we have bomb. We have heard of the neutron York Times on Saturday summed it up done with nuclear weapons in the past. bomb. There was a lot of discussion well when speaking of President Putin. I strongly believe it is important to about the neutron bomb a couple dec- He appeared to be responding to the maintain in law the ban that was put ades ago. It had what was then des- Bush administration’s new nuclear in law sometime ago. ignated a C-plus safety rating because strategy announced last year when he This Spratt language, named for Con- they determined after a while that said Russia, too, was considering devel- gressman SPRATT, whom we all know they could detonate one of these if oping new variants of nuclear weapons. and respect, was developed in 1994, and there was a stray bullet that hit the This was his statement to the Rus- it was developed as a follow-on to an high explosive and, therefore, one of sian Duma. He said: I can inform you action by George H. W. Bush, Sr., our the reasons it was taken out of the that at present the work to create new current President’s father, when he field as an artillery shell was because types of Russian weapons, weapons of was in the White House. He made the of the safety problem involved. the new generation, including those re- decision on September 27, 1991, to take To give an idea of the detonation of garded by specialists as strategic weap- out of our inventory nuclear artillery this neutron bomb, it is pictured in ons, is in the practical implementation shells, tactical bombs, landmines—the this photograph. One can see that the stage. various tactical low-yield nuclear amount of radioactivity, the amount of He did not elaborate, nor did his ad- weapons we had fielded at that time, damage, the collateral damage from it visers, though some analysts said he primarily in Europe. was very substantial. appeared to be referring to Russia’s ef- That decision was made as a follow- Let me go to the last of these charts forts to modernize its nuclear arsenal on to the end of the cold war. It was a just to make another point. and to develop low-yield nuclear de- decision which was intended to reduce My colleague from South Carolina vices. That remark was greeted with the risk of some kind of nuclear was saying what we need is a nuclear applause. misstep by a field commander or by ac- weapon; we need to see about devel- This is a dangerous road we start cident. It was a step intended to reduce oping a nuclear weapon that can be down if we decide to rely more on tac- the risk of a nuclear weapon being det- used to go deep underground and, tical nuclear weapons and once again onated when, in fact, it was not de- thereby, get at chemical weapons fab- commence the development of tactical sired. rication activities or perhaps biologi- nuclear weapons. I think it is an un- There is a lot of history behind this cal weapons fabrication activities. wise course. My own view of our over- issue. Some might think, if they just The truth is, if you put one of these all defense strategy is that we have al- tune in and watch this debate, this is a weapons on a rocket and send it off, ways thought it served our interests to new idea this administration has come you cannot get it very deep into the emphasize those areas in which we up with: Let’s develop new low-yield ground. If it is a 12-foot long weapon, have a comparative advantage. nuclear weapons; let’s do the research the maximum it can go is 48 feet into We know today, more than perhaps and gear up for development. the ground. If it is 100-ton TNT equiva- ever in our history, that we have an The truth is, we have had many so- lent, the experts tell us you have to enormous comparative advantage over called low-yield nuclear weapons in our bury that at least 140 feet under the any potential adversary in the world in stockpile in the past. Let me review a ground or else you are going to have the area of conventional weaponry. We little bit of that history. radioactive fallout. If you have a 1,000- have precision-guided weapons. We This first paragraph I have repro- ton weapon, you have to bury it at have smart weapons. We have dem- duced for folks to look at is the Davy least 450 feet when it is exploded to onstrated their use extremely effec- Crockett MK–54 warhead which was a contain the fallout. The truth is, we tively in the recent conflict in Iraq. nuclear warhead that was capable of cannot put this on a rocket and get it Our comparative advantage does not producing the same damage as up to down 450 feet. It is just not practical. lie in developing small, easily trans- 1,000 tons of TNT. When they talk The points I am making are these are portable nuclear weapons. Many other about low-yield nuclear weapons, they not sophisticated weapons. This is not countries have the capability to do are talking about up to 5,000 tons of a new technology all of a sudden which that, and not only countries but per- TNT. So this is substantially less pow- someone decided to develop. haps groups as well. erful than that. This was developed This is technology that was in our ar- Once development of those weapons back in the fifties. It is technology senal. We are now seeing this adminis- is pursued by us, the likelihood of pro- about which everyone knows. It was tration say, OK, let’s come back and liferation increases and the likelihood launched from a recoilless rifle. This once again begin to look at this as a of similar activities by other countries

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6673 increases. Those types of weapons can Mr. DOMENICI. I understand. the same scientists I just spoke of, in- be easily fabricated. They can be easily Mr. WARNER. Because he brings to cidentally—it will be the same labora- transported. They can be easily con- this debate a very important aspect of tories. They will not invent some new cealed. It is certainly not in our inter- many years in the Senate dealing with ones. In addition to everything you are est. this subject. doing, you will be given permission to I know several of my colleagues have The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sen- think about, to hypothesize, to ponder, said all this provision is, that everyone ior Senator from New Mexico. to make pictures of, draw diagrams of is getting upset about, is a provision to Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ac- low-yield bombs and what they are all repeal the ban on research and develop- knowledge upfront the very astute and about. ment, so what could be so wrong with academically sound argument of my Does it make sense, in the kind of repealing the ban on research and de- colleague from New Mexico, Mr. BINGA- world we live, to say to the greatest velopment? MAN. While I have been working in this scientists in the world—we are spend- I do think that the reason many of us field for the last 25 to 26 years in par- ing about $6 billion a year for them to are concerned is we believe very much ticular, and the last 10 with more em- make sure the current nuclear weapons that if one of these weapons—if a new phasis, this has occurred in the last pe- are OK, safe, and will deliver, if called type or a new suite of these weapons is riod of time. My work has come as the upon, without underground testing, but developed, it will ultimately be fielded. United States has prepared its great to say to that same group, you cannot We believe that is the wrong way to go nuclear weapons laboratories to use spend any time—you cannot have a de- to maintain our security and to main- new kinds of science to determine the partment, you cannot have a division, tain the security of the world in gen- viability and credibility of the existing you cannot have your smartest people eral. warheads without underground testing. or even any people in those institu- Fred Celec, who is the Deputy Assist- As everyone recalls, this body passed tions thinking about low-level nuclear ant to the Secretary of Defense for Nu- an amendment, rather overwhelmingly, bombs—not making them, not pre- clear Matters, recently said that the saying we should not use underground paring to deploy them, for this statute administration wants the weapon; that testing for our weapons. I have learned forbids it. Our laboratories are filled with dedi- is, the robust nuclear earth pene- since then how little we knew about cated Americans. They want to do trator—and that is a separate amend- that proposition when we cast that their jobs. They want to do no more or ment. Senator DORGAN from North Da- vote. Nonetheless, it is the law of the no less than they are authorized. They kota is going to be offering an amend- land. It has cost the American tax- do not want to be called upon by a con- ment relating to the robust nuclear payer, in my way of looking at it, bil- gressional committee to respond to earth penetrator sometime later this lions of dollars. doing more than they had authority to afternoon. But Mr. Celec said the ad- Frankly, as I look at the risk in the do; and clearly they never want to be ministration wants the weapon and world, I do not think it has saved the accused of having done less than they will move forward with its develop- world from nuclear weapons as people had thought. Already with that ban, were supposed to. ment and production. If a hydrogen On the other hand, does it seem pos- there are new countries with new nu- bomb can be successfully designed to sible we should be saying to these most clear weapons, and they did not need survive a crash through hard rock or brilliant of scientists, here on the wall underground testing. At least they did concrete and still explode, it will ulti- is a statute and regardless of what mately be fielded. That is a news arti- not need it as we had assumed they comes to your great minds about low- cle from the San Jose Mercury. would need it when we stopped our- level nuclear bombs, stop thinking So there is reason to be concerned selves from doing it. Yet we have the about it. It is against the law. We do with this provision. Congressman greatest scientific community of men not want you thinking about it. SPRATT, I believe, showed good judg- and women in the world, believe it or Maybe that is a little farfetched. But ment when he proposed this provision not, accumulated in three laboratories, it is not farfetched to say thinking in 1994. The Congress showed good and about 85 percent of their work goes about it and writing something down judgment when it adopted this provi- to that one item. about it is against the law, at least if sion as a follow-on to the decision by How can we make sure that the what my colleague from New Mexico former President Bush to take these weapons we have are valid without says on the floor prevails. kinds of weapons out of our arsenal. I testing, all of which was done in the Those scientists know so much more believe we would do well to keep this hope that nobody else would get than us about the world and the ban on research and development in bombs, get any nuclear weapons, be- changes occurring, and we are won- place. I hope my colleagues will agree cause an underground test would pro- dering about what Russia is going to be and support the amendment by the liferate the desire, if nothing else, for doing. There is apt to be 3 or 4 nuclear Senator from California and the Sen- more nuclear weapons? powers in the next 10 years and there is ator from Massachusetts. I was not on the Senate floor for the nothing in the world we can do about I yield the floor. entire argument when that amendment it. We can sit on the floor and talk The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- of nonnuclear testing occurred. My about low yield; maybe that is what ator from Virginia. great friend Mark Hatfield was a pro- they are after. There will be nuclear Mr. WARNER. In terms of alter- ponent. But I do know the argument devices that can be delivered long dis- nating now, I think we should have the was of the type that if we did not do tances causing huge amounts of dam- Senator from New Mexico address the that, we would be inviting other coun- age. They are going to happen. The Senate on this issue. tries to do what is necessary to develop people working on those are not going I yield the floor. nuclear weapons. If we did not do it, we to spend one iota of concern on wheth- Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator could dampen that. er we have this provision in our law. from New Mexico will yield for an in- Now, I do not suggest the arguments Some of our scientists might just quiry. are analogous. come up with a great idea about a low- Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to. It is interesting that this enormous level bomb that could be great for Mr. LEVIN. Can the Senator give an debate is taking place regarding an America considering what they see approximation of how long he will amendment that says nothing in the going on in the world, converse to what speak? repeal of the previous amendment re- the argument has been. The argument Mr. DOMENICI. I will be very brief. garding low-yield weapons. ‘‘Nothing in has been, we will teach the world to do An hour and a half. the repeal made by subsection (a) shall what we are doing. I am suggesting our Mr. LEVIN. An hour and a half? be construed as authorizing the test- scientists will say to us, we are learn- Mr. DOMENICI. No, sir. About 15 ing, acquisition, or deployment of low- ing from the world what we might minutes. yield nuclear weapons.’’ want to do in order to keep the peace Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the We could say we do not believe what longer and better and be able to tell Senator can take such time as he feels we are saying, that it is not true, if our adversaries what you are thinking necessary. America wants to direct its scientists— of doing.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 I thought that was what we were all about them as if we ought to be afraid ons program, including underground about. I thought that is what Los Ala- of that, because if we do not do it, they testing by the United States. mos scientists are all about. I thought will not do it. If anyone believes that, These decisions send dangerous sig- they were part of this great deterrent. they probably would believe almost nals to our allies and adversaries alike. I still believe they are. I believe to per- anything. They are busy looking at The United States has urged non- mit them to work in this area is part of whatever kind of new nuclear weapons nuclear states and rogue operators not the deterrent. It does not commit the that do not break any of the agree- to pursue nuclear programs. But if we, country to build new kinds of weapons. ments with us. We will soon be greatly as a nuclear power with enough of It does not permit us to produce or test reducing our arsenals of heavy weap- these weapons to destroy the world new weapons. It does not suggest we ons, and at the same time other coun- many times over, begin developing should deploy new weapons. It allows tries and their scientists will develop mini-nukes or other new forms of these our scientists to study and perform re- nuclear weapons. They will be devel- dangerous weapons, I think we run the search and development options that oping low yield ones, too. They will be risk of inviting other countries and policymakers in the administration developing low yield ones with very other organizations to do so as well. and even in the Congress may want to different ways of using them than we I supported the Moscow Treaty ear- know more about. ever thought. We ought to have the lier this year because, while it is not I know this for sure when I say ‘‘may very best looking at how that might perfect, it does move us closer to the want to know more about it.’’ I say happen, if it might happen. goal of reducing the strategic nuclear that because these smart people might I yield the floor. arsenals of the United States and Rus- come to us and tell us, believe it or The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- sia. I don’t think we should undermine not, something we do not know. Would ator from Wisconsin. this worthy goal by now starting down that be preposterous to some of us sit- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the the path toward smaller, more easily ting in the Senate? Would it be prepos- Senator from Wisconsin yield just for a transported nuclear weapons that terous that after this prohibition is unanimous consent request? could fall into the wrong hands. lifted in 5 years they could come to us Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield. I recognize that the underlying bill and say, We have been studying and Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask would lift the ban on research and de- here is what we have found. It is some- unanimous consent that after Senator velopment of low-yield nuclear weap- thing you never had in mind, we never FEINGOLD, Senator INHOFE be recog- ons without authorizing that such had in mind. But think about it. All of nized and then Senator BYRD be recog- weapons be tested, acquired, or de- that seems to me to come on the good nized after that Senator, and then Sen- ployed by the United States. But I still side. ator TALENT be recognized after Sen- think this is a perilous first step to- On the negative side, I cannot see ator BYRD. ward a new class of nuclear weapons. It where researching, thinking about, in- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there is one we should not take. I, therefore, tellectualizing about low-level waste, an objection? Without objection, it is urge my colleagues to support the is adding to the proliferation of nuclear so ordered. amendment offered by the Senators weapons problem in the world. Remem- The Senator from Wisconsin. from Massachusetts and California. ber, even if someone in the administra- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise I yield the remainder of my time and tion wanted the new weapons, they in support of the amendment offered by I yield the floor. could not proceed to full-scale develop- the Senator from California and the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ment, the production and deployment, Senator from Massachusetts. I am ator from Oklahoma. unless Congress authorizes and appro- pleased to have cosponsored it. I com- Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let priates funds required to do so. This mend the Senators for offering this im- me make real clear things that some- has not been done. It should not be portant amendment, and I am ex- how get lost in the discussion. I have done without more information or de- tremely pleased to be one of a large heard it said by the last four or five bate, and it will not be done. group of Senators who have come to speakers that doing this is moving for- Finally, there are very important in- the floor to express their concern about ward with the development and produc- telligence, nonproliferation reasons this policy and to support this amend- tion of low-yield nuclear weapons. why our scientists should be able to de- ment. velop their thinking in these important Nothing could be further from the I share their concern, as I know that areas of research. If anyone in this truth. many of our colleagues do, about the By repealing the ban on low-yield nu- world is thinking about low-level weap- provision in the underlying bill that clear weapons research, our nuclear ons, we must know as much as we can would repeal the 10-year ban on re- about them. I just said that in a dif- weapons experts will be able to explore search and development of low-yield ferent way a moment ago. weapons concepts that could help us to NNSA, the new semiautonomous nuclear weapons. Lifting this ban could respond to new threats. We ought to agency that controls our weapons de- be the first step in the resumption of treat research and development of low- velopment, should challenge their sci- nuclear testing and the creation of new yield nuclear weapons like research entists and engineers to think, to ex- classes of nuclear weapons which I op- and development of any weapon. For plore, to discover, to innovate. By re- pose. any weapon that we have had, any moving the prohibition on research and Our men and women in uniform are weapon, conventional or otherwise, we development on low-level yield weap- facing new threats, but our defense have had to go through this period of ons, our experts will expand their own procurement policy remains planted time. That doesn’t mean we are going understanding and capabilities without firmly in the cold war by calling for to make one. It means we are going to artificial restrictions. more nuclear weapons. We should not be prepared if need be. I repeat, if anything comes out of endorse a policy that could start or By repealing the ban as we did in the this that is surprising, it will be what spark another nuclear arms race. Senate bill, the administration is still we will be able to do to prevent pro- I am deeply concerned that the ad- required to specifically request funding liferation from happening somehow, ministration’s Nuclear Posture Review at each phase of the research and de- somewhere in the world. In fact, I represents a departure from this coun- velopment as required by the National think that is more apt to happen as a try’s longstanding nuclear weapons Advanced Authorization Act of Fiscal result of the thinking and the develop- policy. Lifting the ban on low-yield nu- Year 2003. The Congress has the prerog- ment that occurs here by our scientists clear weapons and funding a feasibility ative whether to authorize and appro- than the reverse. We have no idea what study on the so-called robust earth priate for such activities. With the these great minds can be thinking, but penetrator and directing the Secretary many new and emerging threats in the the great minds of the other scientists of Energy to accelerate the readiness world, we cannot afford to be unpre- in the world are thinking about them posture for the Nevada Test Site from pared. also. 24 to 36 months to 18 months all point I was listening to the Senator from As a matter of fact, we heard some toward a disturbing destination—the Wisconsin talk about how, somehow, statements about Russia thinking resumption of an active nuclear weap- this starts some kind of a nuclear race.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6675 Really that is just not true. People What happens if all of a sudden there clear weapons. Is there someone here argue that research on nuclear weap- is a changing threat out there and we who can’t sleep because we don’t have ons would encourage nuclear prolifera- discover we need to be able to develop enough nuclear weapons? There is tion. Since 1993, when the ban went a low-yield nuclear weapon, if every roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons on this into effect, the ban we are seeking to Senator in here, every Democrat and Earth. repeal right now, several nations have every Republican, agreed that we had About 2 years ago, or 11⁄2 years ago, sought and in some cases achieved nu- to have this? If we don’t do research our intelligence community thought clear capabilities—in other words, and development now, it could be years one was missing. They thought that countries such as India and Pakistan before we would be able to have it. If one from the Russian stockpile had and North Korea. There is no correla- we go ahead, then we would be able to been stolen. At least there was the tion between U.S. weapons research have it in a very short period of time. rumor. They had an epileptic seizure and proliferation. More significant is I chaired the Senate Armed Services about one nuclear weapon missing. the U.S. track record of nuclear reduc- Subcommittee on Readiness for quite a Would it be detonated in an American tions. number of years. I see my colleague city? They were concerned about one Our top military people and diplo- from Hawaii over there, who is my nuclear weapon. matic leaders support repeal of this ranking member. Of course he chaired There are 30,000, roughly, nuclear prohibition: ADM James Ellis, GEN it also. We know that the threats weapons, and we have people here wor- John Jumper, Secretary of State Colin change all the time. The whole idea of ried about not having enough of the Powell. readiness is to be ready for anything right kind. I just do not understand. In 1994, Congress prohibited any re- that should come up. Unfortunately, We just heard there is a change in threat. There may be a change in search and development which could we cannot predict what the future threat. Everybody knows the threat lead to the production of a low-yield holds. nuclear weapon. That is less than 5 We predicted it wrong 10 years ago. isn’t being addressed in this bill. There kilotons. This is an arbitrary restric- We predicted it wrong 5 years ago. We is $9 billion in this bill to build a big, old antiballistic missile system; a na- tion and it impedes the ability of sci- could predict it wrong this time. Just tional missile defense system. Take a entists and engineers who support our by doing research and development, we look at the threat meter and find out national defense to explore a full range are not coming out with any kind of what the least likely threat against of scientific and technical concepts for production on any kind of low-yield nu- this country is. It isn’t that a terrorist the nuclear weapons stockpile. clear weapon. It is just a matter of It has a chilling effect on creative or terrorist group will have access to being prepared in the event that every- thinking when scientists have to con- an ICBM with a nuclear tip on it and one should decide that we have to have sult a lawyer before exploring concepts fire it against the United States. A nu- this capability. involving nuclear weapons. It restricts clear weapon, if sent here by a ter- I hope we vote down this effort to the ability of this or any administra- rorist, isn’t coming in here at 14,000 stop our ability to be able to do re- tion to explore options to modify our miles per hour on an intercontinental search and development in this area. nuclear weapons capability to prepare ballistic missile. It will be pulled up at Again, on every weapons system we for changing defense needs in the 21st 2 miles an hour at a dock at an Amer- have, we have had to go through an ex- century. ican city in a container loaded by ter- These needs are changing. I remem- tensive and long period of time on re- rorists. Yet we are going to spend $9 ber 8 years ago, sitting in the Senate search and development. It doesn’t cost billion on national missile defense. Armed Services Committee hearings, us any more to be ready in the event I understand we have been doing that when there was a proposal that said we that capability should be required. for the last several years. It doesn’t would no longer need ground troops in I thank you very much. make any sense to me. We are unpre- the next 10 years. It was about 10 years The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. pared in other areas. At a time when ago. Yet here we come up with the DOLE). The Senator from North Dakota we ought to be leading, to say to the problems that we had in Afghanistan. is recognized. rest of the world, don’t build more nu- We had the great battles there, ground Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I clear weapons, don’t use nuclear weap- troop battles. We went into Iraq. That ask unanimous consent to modify the ons, this country is sending a signal to was on the ground; it wasn’t in the air. previous agreement: That I be recog- the rest of the world in dozens of ways Now we are looking at other options nized next and the next Senator to be saying, you know, we will not renounce and possible risks and we don’t know recognized following the movement first use. We believe in the opportunity what they are going to be. back and forth on our side would be for preemptive attack, if we are chal- The point is, we have to be ready for Senator AKAKA. lenged; we ought to study new nuclear whatever does come. It is prudent na- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without weapons, a bunker buster design of nu- tional security policy to allow the ad- objection, it is so ordered. clear weapons. ministration to consider weapons con- Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I Again, this issue of low yield is nuts. cepts that would hold at risk deeply am listening to this debate, and I guess I don’t want to hear people talk about buried and hardened targets to defeat I just do not understand. We are hear- low yield. The people who talk about chemical and biological agents and re- ing that it is important for our country low-yield nuclear weapons are the same duce collateral damage. to begin studying or developing, re- people who talk about the ability to Reducing collateral damage—if we searching a new class of nuclear weap- use nuclear weapons. If anybody here were to be able to do this research and ons, a new design of nuclear weapons, thinks there is an ability in this world ultimately it became necessary to have low yield—which is an oxymoron—low- to use nuclear weapons in a war, then this, we would be able to penetrate yield nuclear weapons, bunker buster I don’t know what planet you are liv- deeply into the ground to knock out nuclear weapons. ing on. Once the movement of nuclear chemical threats, to knock out biologi- I was thinking of something Martin weapons goes back and forth between cal threats, maybe even nuclear Luther King said, which was: ‘‘The adversaries, I am sorry, your children threats, and not cause any collateral means by which we live have out- will have no future. If 30,000 isn’t damage. In the absence of that, you distanced the ends for which we live. enough, I am just wondering what would have to use something else, a We have learned the secret of the atom hours of the night you are awake wor- MOAB, for example, that would clear but forgotten the sermon on the ried about your lack of protection. an area of maybe 5 or 10 square miles, Mount.’’ I do not understand this at all. If killing everything within that range. I don’t understand what we are ever this world needed this country in So it would be an effort to reduce col- thinking about here. At a moment in all of its majesty and in all of its won- lateral damage. history when we need to be the world ders of leadership capability, if ever Repealing this prohibition would not leader in stopping the spread of nuclear this world needed this country, it is authorize the administration to build weapons and reducing the threat of nu- now. any nuclear weapon. I think it is very clear weapons, we are debating whether My colleagues are no doubt tired of important people understand that. we ought to begin producing more nu- this. I will point out again what I have

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 in this desk. I have some pieces of part of a country and a legacy, in my Mr. LEVIN. Senator REED of Rhode metal that were given to me that came judgment, in a very negative way. Island. from an ICBM. This came from an My hope is that before we go too far Mr. WARNER. In that order. ICBM which used to have a warhead on we will have the votes on this amend- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without it aimed at the United States. It could ment and subsequent amendments. I objection, it is so ordered. have destroyed an American city. We intend to offer another amendment in a Mr. KYL. Madam President, I appre- didn’t shoot it down. It was never group of four. I hope we will have the ciate the cooperation of my colleagues. launched. That is how I have this. votes to begin to turn this country in a This is a very serious debate. We need We, with Nunn-Lugar funds, de- constructive direction in this debate on to be careful of the language we use stroyed this missile in its silo. Where the authorization bill. and the arguments we make. I would this missile used to exist, there is now This is about judgment. There is an like to respond to a couple arguments planted sunflowers. Yes. This missile is unending appetite in this Chamber just made. I think we can clearly be gone. We sawed wings off bombers. We right now to do all of these things. But, sending some very bad signals to some have destroyed submarines, and we in my opinion, this is about using good very bad countries of the world in the paid for it. We didn’t shoot them down. judgment as a nation to assume our re- Senate. When a Member of the Senate We paid for their destruction under sponsibility in the world. speaks about low-yield nuclear weap- arms control agreements and arms re- I regret very much that if the work ons as ‘‘nuts,’’ we make a grave mis- duction agreements. of the committee prevails on the floor take. Our job at the moment is to continue of the Senate today, then we will this The majority of the Armed Services the Nunn-Lugar program and continue evening find a world that is much less Committee of the Senate, the Sec- these efforts to say to other countries secure than it was before this com- retary of Defense, the Chairman of the that all of us must back away from mittee began its work. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of this madness. We have the capability to do awfully Energy—these are very serious people This is not modernization; it is mad- good things. But it requires our leader- who have a very serious reason for ask- ness. How many more nuclear weapons ship. It requires our character and our ing that this language be retained in do we want? What kind of an additional judgment to decide there is a right di- the bill. The reason low-yield weapons re- signal do we want to give to countries rection and a wrong direction. The search is being sought is because the around the world that it is OK to build wrong direction, in my judgment, is for world has changed since the time we nuclear weapons and it is OK to be our country to say to the rest of the developed these huge megaton nuclear doing research on classes of new nu- world, let us all build some more nu- weapons that can kill millions in just a clear weapons? clear weapons. Let us worry about few seconds. Instead of wanting to use I say to those of you and to the ad- some threat or some rogue nation those kinds of weapons, the United ministration that I guess they are get- digging tunnels so deeply we can’t States would prefer, if it had to, to use ting the message. We hear it from Rus- catch them or explode them. So let us a much smaller weapon, a low-yield sia. They got the message. We are deal with new nuclear weapons. I can’t think of a more destructive weapon. going to do some research on these so- course or a more destructive set of There are several potential uses for called low-yield nuclear weapons. They policies than those coming to us in this this kind of weapon. To digress for a can do some research on low-yield nu- bill dealing with these issues. Some say moment, we used to have a lot of these. clear weapons. I guess they are getting it is irrelevant; it doesn’t matter; this They are called tactical nuclear weap- the message. I suppose the Chinese got is only research. Are you kidding? That ons. Russia still does. The United the message. All of them will get the is what the other countries will say as States got rid of ours. Russia says it is message. Then our children will have a well as they begin to ramp up their going to be getting rid of its tactical much less bright future because we will programs. It is only ‘‘research’’ on nuclear weapons as well. Tactical nu- have not seized the opportunity and their next group of designer nuclear clear weapons are not new. Low-yield the responsibility as the world’s lead- weapons. It is only research. But we nuclear weapons are not new. But the ing power, economic and military, to will have taken the cork out of the bot- United States, in order to have a cred- steer us in a direction away from nu- tle, and it won’t be easily put back in. ible deterrent against a strategic nu- clear confrontation, away from build- I hope my colleagues will support the clear attack, developed these very ro- ing more nuclear weapons, and away amendment. This is a very important bust weapons that can take out cities, from first use. We will not have done vote, perhaps one of the most impor- that can take out huge military tar- that. We will have instead flexed our tant votes on the Defense authoriza- gets with one weapon. One of the rea- muscles and said that we have unlim- tion bill. sons was because we were not very ac- ited money. Let us just go ahead and I yield the floor. curate 20 years ago when the weapons spend billions here and billions there. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- were designed. We could get pretty I found it interesting. Last week I ator from Arizona. close but nothing like the precision couldn’t get one-fourth of $1 billion Mr. KYL. It is my understanding that with which our weapons can be tar- through this Senate that had been ap- the debate has been going back and geted today. proved previously to try to feed hungry forth. Senator ALLARD was in the In the most recent conflict in Iraq, kids in Africa who are on the abyss of queue but has graciously allowed me to we literally saw missiles flying starvation. Forty-thousand people a get in front of him. What I would like through windows of buildings in down- day die because they do not have to do is propound a very limited re- town Baghdad. The kind of precision enough to eat, mostly kids. That is the quest. I ask unanimous consent that we have today enables us to use much equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb after I speak, Senator AKAKA be recog- smaller yield weapons to achieve the every 3 days. nized to speak, and after he has com- same results that large conventional We have plenty of money for all the pleted, Senator ALLARD be recognized weapons are being used for today. But things we are talking about today. We to speak. they can do so much more effectively. didn’t have enough money to deal with Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I For example, we know that some so- the issue of hunger and famine in Afri- am in agreement with that. I want to called conventional bunker busters ca a couple of days ago. But aside from consult my distinguished ranking were used in an attempt to decapitate the issue of priorities, which, in my member. The Senator from Michigan the Iraqi leadership in the early stages judgment, is a twisted set of priorities, and I had worked out a schedule. of the war. We were impressed with the losing the opportunity and failing to Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator fact that these missiles could actually seize the moment in which American from Arizona would modify the request go through a hole in the floor board by leadership is demanding to move this to add Senator REED immediately after one missile and then three or four more world away from a belief that we need Senator ALLARD on his side. in the same hole and destroy a lot more nuclear weapons and that it is OK Mr. KYL. Senator AKAKA would be below. But it did not do the job. As for countries to potentially use nuclear after me, and then Senator ALLARD, good as they were, apparently the lead- weapons is a miserable failure on the then Senator REED. ership of the Iraqi regime lived on. So

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6677 we cannot say we have the capability, is no point in doing that. It would be Iraq. So what does this teach other po- even in dealing with that regime, to de- immoral to do that. tential enemies? If you burrow deep stroy those kinds of targets. A second point made earlier was to enough underground and put enough What we know from intelligence is demonstrate the ICBMs that have been steel and concrete over your head, like that there are a lot of other nations in destroyed and to suggest that if we now Saddam Hussein apparently did, you the world that know one thing: If you move forward with rebuilding some nu- are not going to be able to get him, or get deep enough underground with clear weapons, we would be signalling get us, and therefore we have nothing enough concrete and steel above your to other nations that it is OK to build to fear. That is another reason we need head, they can’t get you. That is ex- these nuclear weapons. Let’s parse that these weapons. We are willing to get actly the kind of facility being built by a little more carefully. rid of our great big weapons; that is our potential enemies today. There is The reason we are destroying nuclear the signal we are sending. We also will only one way to get those, and that is weapons is because we want to get rid continue to have a credible deterrent through a precise low-yield nuclear of some of these very large nuclear with much smaller kinds of weapons. weapon. The design of those weapons is weapons that we don’t think we need I mentioned the Nuclear Non-Pro- certainly in the mind of our scientists. anymore because circumstances have liferation Treaty. I will make this And if they are allowed to think about changed. Frankly, I don’t think it is a point. The nuclear countries of the this, to do some research on it, we very credible deterrent for us to say— world that signed the NPT agreed we think at least we would be prepared, I will say this regarding Iraq because would be the nuclear powers; but in ex- should the Pentagon decide that it that is over and so I think one can change for other countries that signed wants to ask the Congress for the au- safely talk about the situation there. I up, including countries such as Iran, thority to go forward with the pro- don’t want to talk about potential fu- we said we would provide them with in- gram, to be able to do so. ture situations—to Saddam Hussein, if formation and assistance regarding The point has been made adequately, you use chemical weapons against our atomic energy—the peaceful uses of nu- this does not authorize anything. This troops, since we have foresworn chem- clear energy. We have done that. merely removes a self-imposed prohibi- ical weapons and we have foresworn When countries have come to us and tion on the United States. No other the use of biological weapons—we don’t asked, we have provided that assist- country in the world is suffering under even have them; our only big ticket ance because that is what the NPT this same prohibition. We legislated type here is a nuclear weapon—we calls for. We have abided by it; they this restriction on ourselves. Russia won’t take any option off the table. We have not. What makes anyone think does not have it. China does not have just might use a nuclear weapon if you that a self-imposed congressional limi- it. Great Britain does not have it. use biological or chemical weapons tation on the United States has de- France does not have it, nor do the against us. terred countries such as North Korea countries of the world that are prolifer- We threatened that once before, and and Iran—or India and Pakistan for ating or building weapons of mass de- some say it worked to deter his use of that matter—from developing weapons struction, including nuclear weapons in those chemical weapons. Would it work in contravention of the NPT? violation of the Nuclear Non-Prolifera- today? Does anybody really believe the Obviously, our action hasn’t pre- tion Treaty. United States would kill maybe 3 or 4 vented them from developing these There may be a reason for us to need or 5 million innocent Iraqi citizens by weapons. So what kind of an argument these kinds of weapons in the future. It bombing Baghdad with one of our big is it that this law on the books has has also been noted that they could be nuclear weapons today? Those are the been effective at stopping other coun- very useful in the destruction of chem- kinds of weapons we have. They kill tries? It didn’t stop Saddam Hussein, ical and biological agents or weapons lots of people real fast. As a deterrent Iran, or North Korea; and other coun- which are not easily destroyed by con- when the cold war was going on, we tries are also trying to work on a nu- ventional weaponry and in any event wanted to let the Soviet Union know clear capability. where the fallout can be more dan- that they better not launch against us So let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t gerous than the weapon just sitting because they would suffer just as much stopping proliferation. What will stop there on the ground. If you put a large destruction as we would and, therefore, it is a strong signal from the U.S. that conventional explosion on top of chem- we could deter their actions. it will not be countenanced, because if ical or biological agents, you could end Would it really deter a Saddam Hus- you have signed the NPT, like Iran, up dispersing those agents in a very sein from using biological or chemical you don’t have any right; you signed dangerous way over a far greater area weapons against us? Would he really that right away for something we gave than if the enemy actually tried to use think we would use one of our great big you. We are going to have a credible the weapon. But with a precise low- nuclear weapons? I don’t think so. So, deterrent to your use of such a weapon. yield nuclear weapon, you might well ironically, these great big weapons are Finally, I am astonished at the argu- be able to destroy that biological or too big to use. ment that was made earlier that we chemical agent or weapon. In this new The deterrent may not be credible. should be ‘‘setting our priorities world there may well be reasons to As a result, it makes sense for us to de- straight,’’ we should be willing to have these weapons. For somebody to stroy a large number of those weapons, spend money on hunger in Africa rath- suggest it is nuts is simply an to take them out of our inventory and er than defending the United States of uneducated approach to this very seri- keep only enough that we think would America. That was the argument made ous issue. really be necessary in the event we on this Senate floor. I am concerned I made the point that this is not an needed to deter a nuclear-armed coun- that we are sending the wrong signals authorization. All we are doing is re- try, such as Russia or China today. The to the world—especially our potential moving a self-imposed restriction on other legal nuclear countries, of adversaries—if that kind of a state- thinking about this, on doing research. course, are France and Britain. In addi- ment is left unresponded to. If the researchers conclude it could be tion, we have India and Pakistan, The U.S. Government has an obliga- done and the Pentagon decided it which are not part of the Nuclear Non- tion above all others, and that is to should be done, Congress would still Proliferation Treaty. protect and defend the people of the have to authorize such a program and So we say we can deter an action by United States of America. That is our fund it through appropriations. So I a Saddam Hussein with a far smaller, primary obligation as Members of this don’t think we should be against think- less destructive kind of weapon. If he body. If it is necessary not to spend one ing in the Senate, against researching knows that we have a low-yield nuclear nickel but simply remove a provision something that we may well wish we weapon that can bust his bunker and of the law that prevents our scientists had down the road. all of the other leadership, maybe he from even thinking about this problem, This could save lives. Think about will think twice before he orders the and if we are saying that has a lower the application of such a weapon as we use of chemical or biological weapons. priority than spending money on hun- have today on one of these targets. We Today, the experience in Iraq shows ger in Africa, then something is grave- would risk killing millions, and there that we could not get the leadership of ly wrong.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6678 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 Fortunately, we are not going to do and to keep the prohibition on the re- The majority of the signatories to this. The Armed Services Committee search and development of low-yield the NPT treaty agreed to its indefinite understood the need to remove the re- nuclear weapons. extension in 1995 on the assumption the striction on thinking. The Secretary of Let me explain to you and my col- nuclear weapons powers would con- Defense, the Chairman of the Joint leagues why I am supporting this tinue to reduce their nuclear arsenals Chiefs, and Secretary of Energy have amendment. In 1993, Congress placed a and ratify a Comprehensive Test Ban said to remove that restriction so our prohibition on research and develop- Treaty. The administration’s pursuit of people can think about this problem. I ment that could lead to the production new nuclear weapons makes it harder think that is the priority here. That is of new low-yield nuclear weapons that to convince the world to crack down on why we should support the action of would have an explosive yield of less possible NPT violators. the Armed Services Committee. It than 5 kilotons. I am informed that I urge my colleagues to vote for this should not be illegal to think of ways this administration has sought to amendment. We should act to stop the of defending America. eliminate this prohibition. further proliferation of nuclear weap- I will conclude with this statement. The administration’s Nuclear Pos- ons and prevent the start of a new Everybody would like to see a day ture Review calls for exploring new nu- mini-nuke arms race. when there are no nuclear weapons. clear weapons ‘‘concepts’’ to be able to I yield back the remainder of my But we cannot disinvent the nuclear attack hard and buried targets in so- time. weapon. Either we have confidence in called rogue nations with reduced col- Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a the United States of America as a lateral damage. quorum. power that can help do something to According to the administration, the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The stop the wrong people from acquiring restriction on research on low-yield nu- clerk will call the roll. these weapons and using them, or we clear weapons impedes this effort. But The legislative clerk proceeded to do not. If we have so little confidence the existing law gives nuclear weapons call the roll. in America that we don’t trust our- laboratories sufficient room to explore Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I new nuclear weapons concepts. Ade- selves with these weapons to be used as ask unanimous consent that the order quate research is permitted but not a way of stopping the likes of Saddam for the quorum call be rescinded. production. Hussein, then we have lost our way in- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without However, the fiscal year 2004 author- objection, it is so ordered. deed. ization bill follows the administra- Americans must have the confidence Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we tion’s request and repeals the 1993 pro- that we will do the right thing as a have had excellent cooperation on both hibition. Yet the development and pro- government. Members of the U.S. Con- sides of the aisle in this very important duction of low-yield nuclear weapons debate. I would like to propound a gress make this kind of policy. Do we would create many problems. As I have so little confidence in ourselves unanimous consent request on which noted in my statement to the Senate my distinguished colleague from that we are not willing to let our sci- on April 11, 2003, although the adminis- Michigan, the leader, Senator REID, entists think about this problem? tration is looking to reduce collateral We hold the decision in our hands to and I have worked. This is on the pend- damage from a nuclear explosion, low- ing Feinstein-Kennedy amendment. authorize a program, to appropriate yield weapons could still cause wide- I ask unanimous consent that prior the money for a program. So it is not spread devastation if used, threatening to a vote in relation to the pending as if we are giving anything up by al- civilian populations and U.S. forces. lowing our scientists to think about We already have several conventional Feinstein-Kennedy amendment No. 715, this. weapons that can be used to destroy or the following Members be recognized to Yet that is what the opponents of the incapacitate buried bunkers. Rather address the Senate: Senator REED, 20 committee bill would have us do. I find than pursuing new nuclear weapons, we minutes; Senator BIDEN, 20 minutes; it incredible that we would, like the could devote additional resources to Senator KENNEDY, 5 minutes; Senator Luddites of old, say we don’t want to improving the ability of our conven- FEINSTEIN, 15 minutes; Senator LEVIN, know any more about this because nu- tional forces to render deeply buried 25 minutes; and under the control of clear weapons are really icky things. targets inoperable. the Senator from Virginia will be 60 Well, they are not nice, but somebody Developing the new low-yield nuclear minutes, which I will allocate. needs to have the ability to deter oth- weapons could also encourage a new Mr. REID. Madam President, if I can ers from gaining their capability or, arms race in tactical nuclear weapons ask the Senator to accept this modi- God forbid, invoking the use of these and setback U.S. nonproliferation ef- fication, that the order of the speakers weapons. forts. There is already some evidence on our side be Senator REED of Rhode Only a country that is willing to of a new action-reaction arms race Island, Senator BIDEN, Senator BOXER, think about what kinds of deterrents cycle starting. Senator KENNEDY, Senator FEINSTEIN, may be required in the future is going Just last Friday, Russian President and Senator LEVIN. to be able to provide that degree of sta- Vladimir Putin told the Russian Duma Mr. WARNER. With that addition, I bility in the world. That burden rests in his annual address that Russia is say to my colleague, we would add upon the United States of America. I working on a new generation of nuclear more time for Senator BOXER? gladly accept it as a representative of weapons. Russian military experts Mr. REID. Senator BOXER is sched- the Government that I think we can were quoted as saying that President uled for 5 minutes. Senator LEVIN does trust. Putin was probably referring to new not want to be the final speaker, so we That is what it boils down to today. low-yield nuclear weapons like those will have him go before Senator FEIN- Do we trust the President, the Sec- proposed by the administration. STEIN. That is a total of 90 minutes. retary of Defense, the Chairman of the Last month, Secretary of State Colin Mr. WARNER. That is acceptable. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a majority of Powell sent a message to the Nuclear Let me finish the request. I ask the Committee on Armed Services or Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory unanimous consent that following the don’t we? I think we can put our trust Committee conference in Geneva in use or yielding back of time, the Sen- in them. I do, and I urge my colleagues which he said the United States ‘‘re- ate proceed to a vote in relation to the to support the committee action and mains firmly committed to its obliga- amendment, with no amendment in defeat the amendment against the tions under the NPT.’’ Assistant Sec- order to the language proposed to be committee action. retary of State John Wolf outlines the stricken prior to the vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- steps the United States had taken to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without ator from Hawaii is recognized. fulfill its article VI obligations to the objection, it is so ordered. Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise conference. But he expressed very Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding today to support the amendment of- strong worries that the NPT regime Officer. fered by Senators FEINSTEIN and KEN- was being weakened by nonnuclear I say to colleagues on my side of the NEDY to the fiscal year 2004 Defense au- countries covertly pursuing nuclear aisle, I hope they will approach me as thorization bill to strike section 3131 weapons programs. soon as possible to indicate such time

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6679 as they might wish to take of the hour He also noted that such warhead con- NUCLEAR TESTING POST SEPTEMBER 23, 1992 under the control of the Senator from cepts could not proceed to full-scale de- Virginia. The Senator from Colorado velopment, much less production and Date Country Source wishes to address the Senate. I yield deployment, unless Congress author- 9/25/92 ...... China ...... The Washington Times 10/24/92. 10/5/93—Banon Do ...... Associated Press 10/5/93. the floor for that purpose. izes and appropriates the funds re- low yield. Mr. ALLARD. I wish to make a few quired to do this. 6/10/94 ...... Do ...... The New York Times 6/11/94. 10/7/94 ...... Do ...... The Washington Post 10/8/94. comments in regard to the Kennedy- As a point of reference in the ban on 5/15/95 ...... Do ...... The Washington Post 5/16/95. Feinstein amendment currently before research and development of low-yield 8/17/95 ...... Do ...... The Washington Post 8/18/95. 9/5/95 ...... France ...... Reuters 12/27/95. us. nuclear weapons—low yield is defined 10/2/95 ...... Do ...... Do. Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I as below 5 kilotons as a comparison. So 10/27/95 ...... Do ...... Do. say to the Senator, since we discussed 11/21/95 ...... Do ...... Do. in nuclear technology, we are talking 12/27/95 ...... Do ...... Do. what he intends to do, I yield to him about a relatively small type of war- 1/27/96 ...... France ...... Associated Press 1/28/96. 6/8/96 ...... China ...... The Washington Post 6/9/96. such time as he may require. head. 7/29/96 ...... Do ...... The Washington Post 7/30/96. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I respect the view of the scientists I 5/11/98 ...... India ...... The New York Times 5/12/98. ator from Colorado. 5/13/98 ...... Do ...... The New York Times 5/14/98. visited at our various laboratories. One 5/28/98 ...... Pakistan ...... The Washington Post 5/29/98. Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thing I came away thinking is they are 5/30/98 ...... Do ...... The New York Times 5/31/98. think it behooves all of us to take the dedicated Americans. They are dedi- Note: Sept. 23, 1992 was the date of the last underground nuclear test time and review where we are in this cated scientists. They have a lot of in- conducted by the United States. debate. genuity, and they are supported by a Mr. ALLARD. I do not see that other The current law prohibits research tremendous workforce that is dedi- countries are responding to our efforts. and development of low-yield nuclear cated to making sure we have a safer So I think we need to think about our weapons. It prevents scientists from world and that we can actually pre- own vulnerabilities and our own poten- even thinking about low-yield nuclear serve freedom. They are concerned that tial threats. That is what we are trying weapons. There is a provision in the we remain a world leader. My view is to do in the armed services bill. We are bill before us that says we will be able we are a world leader, but we are a trying to at least give our scientists an to think about low-yield nuclear weap- world leader in reducing nuclear weap- opportunity to study our nuclear weap- ons, but it specifically prevents test- ons. on vulnerabilities. ing, acquisition, or deployment of low- Earlier the Senator from North Da- Earlier on in the debate, some com- yield nuclear weapons unless you come kota commented about the fact that ment was made—I think we had a dia- to the Congress and ask permission to where he had silos for missiles with nu- logue between a couple of Members move forward with that type of effort. clear warheads, he now has sunflowers who were supporting the Kennedy- The Kennedy-Feinstein amendment growing in the field. Well, right now, Feinstein amendment. The point was we are currently considering takes it under the Presidential directive of made during that dialogue that this back to the current prohibition of even President Bush, we are removing provision we have in the bill would lead thinking about what it is we need to do peacekeepers from the ground. We are to the building of new weapons. That is about low-yield nuclear weapons. taking out a sizable proportion of some During the Easter break, which was a not true. We have a specific provision of the cold war relics that are supposed in the bill that says nothing in the pro- 2-week break, I spent the first week on to act as deterrents as far as a nuclear townhall meetings in Colorado. The vision shall be construed as author- war is concerned. izing the testing, acquisition, or de- second week I spent visiting our Na- While these sunflowers are growing tional Laboratories. ployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. and the President is removing more of What it does provide for is study and Our National Laboratories are pretty our nuclear warheads, what is the rest much known for their responsibility of thinking about our vulnerabilities, our of the world doing? What I have ob- deterrence efforts, and our potential managing the nuclear stockpile to served is that there are countries such make sure that it is safe and reliable. threats. as Iran and Iraq—no longer Iraq but at I mentioned that Ambassador Linton As I visited these laboratories, I found one point in time at least—Afghani- Brooks testified in front of our sub- out they do much more than that. stan, Pakistan, and North Korea are committee. I have a letter from Gen- They give a lot of thought to what type building more nuclear weapons. They eral Jumper explaining how important of deterrence should we have as far as are trying to develop that technology. it is that we at least study the low- being a superpower. They do a lot of We have been a leader. The problem yield nuclear weapons. I have a letter thinking about our vulnerabilities. is nobody is following. I think these from Admiral Ellis talking about that They think about our potential threats countries are more concerned not so need. We also have a letter from Sec- and what might be the proper response much about what the United States is retary of State Colin Powell talking to those threats. doing but about what their neighbors about the need of having low-yield nu- So the nuclear laboratory scientists are doing, what it is that they are tell me that they wish at least they clear weapons. I ask unanimous con- going to have to require to defend their sent these three letters be printed in could study the low-nuclear weapon al- borders. So this is beyond what we do ternative. I agree. I think at least we the RECORD. in this country. There being no objection, the mate- ought to look at the pros and cons. We Even though this country remains rial was ordered to be printed in the ought to try to gather the scientific committed and has shown leadership in RECORD, as follows: data and understand which situations reducing our nuclear weapons, we have DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, may be needed. Maybe we do not need to remember that other countries are OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, low-yield nuclear weapons, but they at moving ahead, regardless of what we Washington, DC, May 8, 2003. least need to think about it and they are doing. We need to give some Hon. JOHN W. WARNER, need to have a study. thought to that. We need to study that Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Ambassador Linton Brooks testified issue. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. before the Armed Services Committee, I am looking at some figures on nu- DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I seek your support and he was the acting administrator of for repealing Section 3136 of the Fiscal Year clear testing which we postponed on 1994 National Defense Authorization Act (42 the National Nuclear Security Admin- September 23, 1992. That was the last USC § 2121). This section of the law, com- istration. He also testified before the date of underground nuclear tests by monly referred to as the Precision Low-Yield Strategic Forces Subcommittee on the United States. Since that date, we Weapon Development (PLYWD) limitation, April 8, 2003. This is what he said: Re- have had a number of nuclear tests by prohibits the Department of Energy and by peal of the low-yield restriction simply China, France, India, and Pakistan. I extension the Air Force from conducting any removes the chilling effect on sci- have a whole list of them. research and development on a new nuclear entific inquiry that could hamper our I ask unanimous consent that this weapon design with a yield of five kilotons or less. ability to maintain and exercise our in- list be printed in the RECORD. Research and development of new low- tellectual capabilities and to respond There being no objection, the mate- yield weapon concepts is required in order to to the needs that one day might be ar- rial was ordered to be printed in the evaluate all potential options to meet cur- ticulated by the President. RECORD, as follows: rent and emerging combatant commanders’

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 requirements. Low-yield nuclear weapons into its calculations and will not vary those We are just talking about studying, currently in the stockpile simply are not calculations depending on how Congress acts thinking about low-yield nuclear weap- suited to satisfy all these requirements. on this element of the FY2004 budget re- ons. We are pursuing full rescission of this sec- quest. tion of the law instead of just an amend- Thank you for your important work on The key is if the U.S. President is ment. A partial repeal that only permits these issues and please do not hesitate to ask faced with a situation so grave that the basic research and development with no if I can be of further assistance in the future. use of nuclear weapons is considered, prospect for production would effectively Sincerely, we must have a full sweep of options. have the same impact as the current law. COLIN L. POWELL. Options in our current stockpile are A similar letter has been sent to the Rank- Mr. ALLARD. Many rogue nations very limited and would result in a sig- ing Minority Member of your Committee and have built and are continuing to build nificant level of collateral damage if to the Chairman and Ranking Minority hard and deeply buried facilities to the nuclear weapon is required to re- Member of the House Armed Services Com- mittee. protect their most valuable assets such solve a crisis in terms of the best inter- Sincerely, as their leadership, communications ests of the United States. JOHN P. JUMPER, equipment, and facilities for the manu- These are challenging times, but General, USAF, facture of weapons of mass destruction. they are crucial times, important Chief of Staff. We know that conventional weapons times, and it is important we make the cannot hold all of these targets at risk. right decision because the world is DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, A recent report by the Congressional changing. We need to know that. We United States Strategic Command, Research Service cited a DIA estimate need to know what the parameters are Hon. JOHN W. WARNER, of some 1,400 known or suspected stra- as we move forward in determining Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, tegic underground facilities world Russell Senate Office Building, what is best to protect America. To Washington, DC. wide. It further states that the only have a provision in law that says you DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Nuclear Posture way to destroy them is with a strong cannot study or think about all the op- Review put in motion a major change in the shock wave that travels through the tions when you are looking at your role of our nuclear forces. As we continue to ground. vulnerabilities and where you need to strategize the most effective methods of ad- The question that the Congress and go to protect America is foolhardy. dressing new and emerging threats to our the administration must now grapple I hope the Senate today will defeat National Security, it is an inherent responsi- with is how to ensure the continued bility of the Department of Defense to not the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment and credibility of the Nation’s nuclear de- at least allow for study and our sci- only reevaluate the capabilities of our nu- terrent into the 21st century. We must clear arsenal, but to thoroughly analyze the entists to think about various alter- recognize that today’s stockpile was potential of advanced concepts that could natives, including a low-yield nuclear designed and manufactured to deter enhance our overall deterrent posture. weapon. I am here to ask my col- the threat by the former Soviet Union. US Strategic Command is interested in leagues in the Senate to join me in vot- conducting rigorous studies of all new tech- As we all know, that threat no longer ing no on the Kennedy-Feinstein nologies, and examining the merits of preci- exists. Today, we are faced with a amendment. sion, increased penetration, and reduced multi-dimensional challenge that re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under yields for our nuclear weapons. The nation quires a different set of tools. needs to understand the technical capabili- By repealing the ban on research and the previous order, the Senator from ties of threats under development by poten- development of low-yield nuclear weap- Rhode Island is recognized. tial adversaries and to thoroughly explore Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise ons, this does not mean the United the range of options available to the United in support of the Kennedy-Feinstein States to deter or defeat them. Once we com- States is about to resume nuclear weapons production. In fact, the United amendment. First, we should explain plete the precise engineering analyses nec- the terminology better because there is essary to validate facts related to nascent States has not manufactured a new nu- advanced concepts, the results of the re- clear weapon for more than a decade. a suggestion implicit in many of the search will enable dispassionate, fact-based The advanced concepts initiative mere- comments today that a low-yield nu- discussions on very important defense and ly allows the labs to explore the tech- clear device is something akin to a big policy issues. nical boundaries of providing solutions conventional weapon. The findings of the Nuclear Posture Re- to new and emerging national security Nuclear weapons are sui generis, the view were strongly endorsed by the Service most horrific weapon that man has Chiefs. Repealing Section 3136 of Fiscal Year challenges. Advanced concepts work will allow the labs to train the next ever developed. Under this bill we re- 1994 NDAA (42 USC, 2121) will allow US Stra- move a ban on the research and devel- tegic Command the ability to evaluate the generation of scientists and engineers full range of advanced concepts through re- that the Nation will need to ensure a opment, and therefore testing and de- search and development activities. safe, secure and reliable nuclear deter- ployment of so-called low-yield weap- Your support in repealing the prohibition rent. ons, 5 kilotons or less. on low-yield research and development for The fear of the erosion of the firewall Let me put that in perspective. The nuclear weapons is greatly appreciated. A between the use of nuclear and conven- weapon dropped on Hiroshima was 14 similar letter has been sent to the Ranking kilotons. The weapon dropped on Naga- Member of your committee. tional weapons use is another un- founded issue. During the 1950s, 1960s, saki was 21 kilotons. A 5-kiloton weap- Sincerely, on, a 1-kiloton weapon, is a significant J.O. ELLIS, 1970s, and 1980s, when U.S. tactical nu- Admiral, U.S. Navy, clear weapons were deployed through- weapon causing significant damage. Commander. out the world and warfighting plans When we talk about low-yield nu- were in place, no U.S. nuclear weapons clear weapons, it is almost like talking THE SECRETARY OF STATE, were ever used. We still maintain the about a small apocalypse because nu- Washington, May 5, 2003. policy that only the President can au- clear weapons have apocalyptic quali- Hon. JOHN WARNER, thorize the use of nuclear weapons and ties in their destruction and in their Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, there are no plans to change that very fear. U.S. Senate. As a result, for more than 50 years we DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to ex- important policy, nor is there any de- press support for the President’s FY2004 sire on the part of the Department of have attempted to put them beyond budget request to fund the feasibility and Defense to develop battlefield nuclear use. This language in this bill lowers cost study for the Robust Nuclear Earth Pen- weapons to accomplish what our con- that threshold dramatically. It says we etrator (RNEP), and to repeal the FY1994 ventional weapons can already do. will begin after a 10-year prohibition legislation that prohibits the United States Now I will review the bill that is be- not just research, but this bill takes from conducting research and development fore us. away the prohibition on developing, en- on low yield nuclear weapons. I do not be- It states specifically in the legisla- gineering, testing, and deploying weap- lieve that these legislative steps will com- plicate our ongoing efforts with North tion that nothing in the repeal made ons. Low-yield weapons. But again, Korea. Inasmuch as work on the RNEP was by section A shall be construed as au- those low-yield weapons have fantastic authorized and funded in last year’s National thorizing the testing, acquisition, or power. Defense Authorization Act, I believe that deployment of a low-yield nuclear I heard some of my colleagues talk North Korea already has factored the RNEP weapon. about the fact if we had such weapons

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6681 like this we surely would have gotten For example, the language could simply spirit of the nonproliferation treaty Saddam Hussein. Dropping a weapon, say: It shall be the policy of the United and because of the efforts of the United even a ‘‘low-yield nuclear weapon,’’ in States not to produce a low-yield nuclear States and other countries urging that an urban area will create incredible weapon, including precision low-yield nu- they become compliant with the non- clear weapon. collateral damage. Not as much, of proliferation treaty, these countries course, as a 400-kiloton weapon but the Ambassador Brooks replied to my voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. I damage is huge. In fact, Sidney Drell, a query: do not know that today, if they were physicist and arms control advocate, It is accurate that that would eliminate watching what we are doing here, they calculated that a 1-kiloton weapon pen- one of the concerns I have with the language, would be so eager to give up their nu- though the language now does have, we fear, clear weapons. etrating at 40 feet, a penetrating type a potentially chilling effect on R&D and, as weapon, would create a crater larger you described a possible modification, it So we lose a great deal more than than the impact area at the World might not. So speaking narrowly from the simply this language in the bill. I Trade Center and put about 1 million prospect of trying to get a robust advanced think we lose a diplomatic advantage, cubic feet of radioactive material in concept program working, language like that in terms of the goal which I hope we the air. If we had dropped such a weap- might be entirely suitable. are still pursuing, which is the elimi- on on Baghdad, we would not be in But that is not what this legislation nation, I hope, or certainly the con- Baghdad today. Our troops would be includes. Not a limited exception to re- tainment, of nuclear weapons. ringing the city waiting for the radi- search, but a categorical elimination of I urge all my colleagues to think ation to clear and trying to minister to the ban on research, engineering, de- very clearly and to recall several, for the civilians. velopment, testing, deployment of so- me, salient points. These are weapons The notion we need these weapons for called low-yield nuclear weapons. of horrendous effect. Don’t think low- military purposes is unsubstantiated. It is pretty clear here we are really yield, think small apocalypse. These There is no military requirement for a not talking about just research. In are weapons that have no military re- so-called low-yield nuclear weapon. fact, I hope this amendment of Senator quirement today. In testimony before the Armed Serv- KENNEDY and Senator FEINSTEIN What we do here will be emulated by ices Committee on April 8, 2003, Am- passes. I support it. If it fails, I am pre- other countries. That is the nature of bassador Brooks, the head of NNSA, pared to offer language that will, in world leadership. We have a chance to testified after a question from Bill Nel- fact, limit it just to research. preserve at least this aspect of arms son: Now, we also heard before the com- control, which will give us the oppor- Well, is there a requirement in your opin- mittee that one of the reasons we need tunity, I hope, to argue for even more, ion for a new low yield? this research project is so scientists and more effective means of non- Ambassador BROOKS: No. can continue to work on it, maintain proliferation. Senator BILL NELSON. Is there a require- I urge my colleagues to support the ment for such a weapon under consideration their skills. It turns out if that is the case, there are plenty of opportunities Feinstein-Kennedy amendment. or being developed? I yield my time to the Senator from Ambassador BROOKS: There is no require- with existing weapons in the inventory ment being developed. To the best of my Michigan. to go ahead and hone those skills. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. knowledge there is no requirement under Even if such opportunities were not ALEXANDER). Who yields time? consideration. There is no military need for readily available, to give up a signifi- this weapon. The Senator from Virginia. cant and recognized prohibition on at That is the testimony of the adminis- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are least one class of nuclear weapons sim- now operating under a time agreement. tration. ply to satisfy technical training would I am sure there are many people who We will have our distinguished col- at least suggest to me that other ways would say yes, it is nice to study. league from Nevada here momentarily. should be found to train our scientists, There are lots of things that are nice For the moment, let’s put in a quorum to study. But without a military re- and other ways, I think, could be found call and this side will bear the time on quirement for such a weapon, why are to train the scientists. the quorum call because I see my two There is also a perception, I think in- we abandoning a significant prohibi- colleagues are engaged in a colloquy. herent in the discussions here—and I tion that has aided, I believe, our ef- So I observe the absence of a quorum have alluded to it in my initial com- forts in trying to tame or at least con- and ask that it be charged to this side. tain the proliferation of nuclear weap- ments—that the effect of one of these The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ons? so-called low-yield weapons is that it clerk will call the roll. It seems to me counterintuitive that will produce less collateral damage. The legislative clerk proceeded to one could argue, as I think some of my That is true, but less than what? Less call the roll. colleagues do, the way to stop the pro- than the bomb at Hiroshima which, to Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask liferation of nuclear weapons is to my recollection, took over 100,000 lives. unanimous consent that the order for build more nuclear weapons. I don’t Are we willing to engage or use or the quorum call be rescinded. think that makes sense. tactically employ weapons that only The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without There is a suggestion also through- take, in one fell swoop, 10,000, 20,000, objection, it is so ordered. out the discussion this afternoon that 30,000 lives and claim they are low Mr. WARNER. I yield to the Senator this is just about research, nothing yield and therefore innocuous? There is from Nevada such time as he may re- else. I was intrigued by this notion and nothing innocuous about the weapons quire. I asked Ambassador Brooks about it at we are talking about. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- a hearing. His initial justification for I believe very strongly that it is in- ator from Nevada. the language requested by the adminis- cumbent upon this Senate to maintain Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the 1994 tration was it would, in his words, ‘‘re- the ban. I think it is wise policy. I National Defense Authorization Act move the chilling effect on scientific think it is a policy that has given us stipulated that: inquiry that could hamper our ability advantages as we have urged other na- It shall be the policy of the United States to maintain and exercise our intellec- tions to refrain from the development not to conduct research and development which could lead to the production by the tual capabilities to respond to needs of nuclear weapons. There are some discussions about United States of a new low-yield nuclear that one day might be articulated by weapon, including a precision low-yield war- the President.’’ whether arms control has succeeded or head. The Secretary of Energy may not con- I asked a very obvious question. Why failed. I think many times we point to duct, or provide for the conduct of, research didn’t the administration simply send those cases in which countries acquire and development which could lead to the up a modification to section 3136, the nuclear weapons, but we fail to recog- production by the United States of a low- ban, simply to carve out language that nize the many instances where coun- yield nuclear weapon. will allow research but still would tries have given up their nuclear weap- This legislation has been effective in maintain the prohibition against engi- ons—such as several countries in the preventing our nuclear weapon sci- neering, development, testing, and de- former Soviet Union like the Ukraine, entists from conducting any research ployment? I said: Belarus and Kazakstan. Because of the into these low-yield nuclear weapons.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 I believe that repeal of the low-yield tion on research and development of gap between conventional weapons and research and development prohibition low-yield nuclear weapons in the de- the city-busting weapons of the cold is in the national interest. The Na- fense authorization bill. war, and they offer the lure of a better tional Security Strategy outlined in It should not be illegal to think of, or way to destroy point targets. Sup- the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review in- research, ways to defend America. I porters of low-yield weapons argue cluded the long-term goal to maintain urge my colleagues to vote against the they could deter an adversary, and that a strong nuclear deterrent with a Feinstein-Kennedy amendment. is true. All nuclear weapons have a de- smaller nuclear arsenal by utilizing The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- terrent function. But the deterrent missile defense and conventional strike ator from Delaware. benefits that low-yield weapons provide capabilities. To accomplish this with- Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, how much are far outweighed by both the risk out putting U.S. safety or security at time do I have available under the that they will actually be used and the risk requires that the Department of unanimous consent agreement? dangerous signal they send to other Defense and the National Nuclear Se- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty countries, whether intentional or not, curity Administration be allowed to minutes. that we intend to fight a nuclear war. adapt and/or rebuild the existing nu- Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. Low-yield weapons also blur the dis- clear stockpile to meet current and Before I begin speaking in support of tinction between nuclear and conven- emerging threats. the Kennedy amendment, I would like tional war, and they begin to make nu- The United States has deployed low- to make just one generic point. I find it clear war more ‘‘thinkable,’’ as Her- yield nuclear weapons throughout the fascinating that the United States of man Kahn might have said. Herman history of the stockpile and has them America, of all countries in the world, Kahn’s book was titled ‘‘Thinking today. These weapons have enhanced feels the need to increase its nuclear About the Unthinkable.’’ He under- nuclear deterrence by providing the arsenal at this moment—low-yield, stood that nuclear war was unthink- President with credible options for at- high-yield, no-yield, any yield. able, even as he demanded that we tacking targets of national impor- It is fascinating that, at this moment think about how to fight one, if we had tance. The existence of low-yield weap- in the world’s history, in our relative to. ons over the last 50 years has not strength and power, we are the ones Looking at the foreign defense poli- blurred the nuclear threshold and it is who think we need another nuclear cies of the current administration, I unlikely that future conceptual studies weapon in our arsenal. But that is just, fear they fail to understand that very will either. Maintaining a strong re- as a friend of mine named Arlen vital point. They want to make nuclear search and development capability Mekler used to say, a random thought. war ‘‘thinkable.’’ Section 3131 of this will, more likely, assure our allies and Let me get to the heart of this. I ob- bill could make it ‘‘thinkable’’ that we dissuade and deter our adversaries. viously support the Feinstein-Kennedy could use these low-yield weapons—as The Department of Defense has im- amendment which would keep the 1993 if we needed to have these low-yield portant and emerging missions that Spratt-Furse amendment in place. nuclear weapons, despite the over- low-yield weapons can uniquely ad- That amendment, as we all know, bans whelming conventional deterrent we dress. For example, low-yield weapons all work on low-yield nuclear weapons, have. Had we had them, I wonder if have the potential to significantly re- those with a yield below 5 kilotons. We anyone might have suggested that we duce collateral effects and yet still pro- had a lot of reasons to do that. It is use these low-yield nuclear weapons vide the high temperatures needed to sometimes useful to remember why we that we may produce against any of destroy chemical and biological agents did these things in the first place. I the bunkers Saddam Hussein was in. I stored in bunkers. The 1994 legislation might add we enacted that amendment am sure we could hear a voice today has been a significant barrier to the ad- at a time when the Russians had a that if we had a low-yield nuclear vanced development program needed to whole heck of a lot more weapons than weapon, we could have used it that study this capability and other innova- exist now; at a time when things were first night and guaranteed he was gone. tive technologies. actually a little more dangerous, when The fact that we would have been the Maintaining a viable nuclear weap- our vulnerability to nuclear attack was only country for the second time in ons enterprise is vital to both the Na- greater than it is today. world history to use a nuclear weapon, tional Nuclear Security Administra- But the question now is, Why should in this case unlike the first, without tion and the Department of Defense. we oppose the repeal of that ban? After any real need, would have been lost on The low-yield research and develop- all, section 3131 states: some people. But, I wonder what that ment prohibition has had a chilling ef- Nothing in the repeal . . . shall be con- message that would have sent to India fect on the ability of National Nuclear strued as authorizing, testing, acquisition, and Pakistan, which are cheek to jowl Security Administration scientists to or development of a low-yield nuclear weap- with nuclear capability. respond to Department of Defense re- on. The administration’s failure, in my quirements and in fulfilling the goal of So why stop our nuclear weapons labs view, to understand that nuclear is developing the responsive infrastruc- from just thinking about these low- still ‘‘unthinkable’’ is, I think, the ture needed to respond decisively to yield weapons? most fatal flaw in this approach. That changes in the international security One answer is that the current law failure to understand could lead to big- environment or to stockpile surprises. doesn’t restrict research and early de- ger failures—a failure to understand The low-yield research and develop- velopment on these low-yield weapons. how to keep other countries from de- ment prohibition has been called ‘‘a It only prohibits later stages of devel- veloping nuclear weapons, a failure to pillar of arms control’’ by its sup- opment and engineering that are view nonproliferation as a vital and a porters and its repeal a possible cause geared toward the production of low- workable policy objective, and perhaps of increased global nuclear prolifera- yield nuclear weapons. even a failure to avoid nuclear war tion. However, nuclear proliferation oc- Obviously, what we would do by lift- which would do horrible damage to any curred steadily throughout the 1990s. ing this ban is to be in the position of country involved, including ourselves. India, Pakistan, North Korea and oth- being able to move toward production Consider what the administration ers have pursued active nuclear weapon of those weapons, a notion that will has said regarding nuclear weapons. We development programs despite the not be lost on the rest of the world. parse out what the administration says United States self-imposed refrain The other answer is that low-yield a piece at a time. I don’t think we un- from low-yield studies. nuclear weapons are not like regular derstand that the rest of the world, Repeal will not commit the United ones. Regular nuclear weapons are de- friend and foe alike, takes it in its States to producing new or modified signed to deter adversaries. The mas- total context. Let us look at the whole warheads. Congressional approval is re- sive destruction and civilian casualties range of what they have said so far quired prior to any full-scale develop- that they can cause make nuclear about nuclear weapons. ment. weapons unlike even other weapons of The Nuclear Posture Review of De- The Feinstein-Kennedy amendment mass destruction. Low-yield nuclear cember 2001 spoke of reducing U.S. reli- would strike the repeal of the prohibi- weapons are different. They bridge the ance on nuclear weapons. But it also

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6683 reportedly listed not only Russia and conventional weapons alone, any other Kim Jong Il. There is much to dislike China but also North Korea, Iraq, Iran, country in the world. There is no doubt in the man, and even more to dislike in Syria, and Libya as potential enemies in anyone’s mind. And now we are say- his regime. in a nuclear war with the use of nu- ing that for our defense, we need an- But what have we achieved through clear weapons. I emphasize ‘‘reportedly other nuclear weapon. How do you this policy? So far, we have gotten the listed’’—I have not looked at the clas- think the world will interpret that? end of the 1994 Agreed Framework— sified document. I am referring to what Some will say it doesn’t matter what which had kept North Korea from re- has been printed on the Web and what the rest of the world thinks. But it processing more of its spent nuclear has been in the press. The Nuclear Pos- surely matters, in 1,000 different ways, fuel to get plutonium for nuclear weap- ture Review spoke of possibly needing whether it is a matter of deciding you ons. We have seen international inspec- to develop and test new types of nu- will not let us sell chickens in your tors kicked out of North Korea. And clear weapons, and gave that as a rea- country or deciding whether you will now North Korea may be reprocessing son for increasing our nuclear test allow businessmen to operate in your its spent nuclear fuel, which could give readiness, and further said nuclear country or deciding whether you will it enough material for a half dozen weapons might be used to neutralize cooperate in any other 500 ways we more nuclear weapons. chemical and biological agents. need cooperation on. We may be making some progress, More recently, civilian Pentagon What do our statements say, if you with China engaging North Korea. If leaders ordered a task force to consider are North Korea or Libya or anywhere we are lucky, North Korea’s posturing possible requirements for new low- else? Do you say the United States is will lead China and Russia to finally yield nuclear weapons, even while as- getting a low-yield nuclear weapon, so support us and bring some pressure on suring the Senate that no formal re- it is time we gave up our efforts to get North Korea. But we don’t know quirement has yet been established. nuclear weapons? Or if you think we whether they can really influence a A Presidential strategy document re- are getting a low-yield nuclear weapon, North Korea that sees itself already in portedly stated the United States might you decide it is time to accel- the American crosshairs as part of the might use nuclear weapons against a erate your efforts? ‘‘axis of evil.’’ country with chemical or biological So far we have one clear answer, The administration talks of stopping weapons. Then, in a runup to the war from North Korea. It is not the one we North Korea from exporting its nuclear in Iraq, the administration proclaimed wanted. Iran appears to be accelerating weapons. That worries me a little bit (but never explained) a new doctrine of its nuclear weapons program as well. I because it implies we have already preemption against any potential foe am not suggesting they would not be given up on stopping them from pro- that acquired weapons of mass destruc- doing that if we weren’t enunciating ducing them. tion. the policies of this administration. I And North Korea could just export All that taken individually is under- suspect they would anyway. plutonium with which to make nuclear standable. Taken collectively, it could The whole question here is, How do weapons; they will be able to become give someone a very foreboding pic- we keep dangerous weapons, particu- the plutonium factory of the world if ture. And do those statements increase larly nuclear weapons, out of the hands they keep on the road they are on now. our leverage over potential foes, and of the most dangerous people in the How are we going to stop that? The with a world community at large, or do world, be they terrorists or those who plutonium needed for a nuclear weapon they only give the rogue states the ar- would support them? That is our pol- can fit in a briefcase. It does not even gument that they really are threatened icy; that is the President’s policy; and need much shielding because it is not and, therefore, really need nuclear I agree with it. But obviously, we very radioactive. The whole shipment weapons? Do our statements enable the haven’t quite gotten it right. So far, I might be bigger than a bread box, as rest of the world to ‘‘blame the vic- don’t think the administration has the Steve Allen used to say, but it tim,’’ as the neo-conservatives would answer to the question of how to wouldn’t be much bigger. It certainly say—and I would agree with them on achieve our objectives. wouldn’t be bigger than a trash can. the outrageousness of that—instead of For a while, it seemed as though the Can we really stop and search every blaming those responsible for setting administration’s answer was to declare trash can leaving North Korea? What disorder in motion? war on every adversary that dared to will we do if a year from now North If you are North Korea, or Iran, or go nuclear. But do we really intend to Korea claims to have provided weapons Libya, or Syria, which part of the re- go to war with North Korea, if the plutonium to groups in other countries ports I just referenced are you likely to price is the slaughter of hundreds of that will destroy major cities unless we rely on to make your specious case to thousands of South Korean civilians? do what it wants? the rest of the world? Do we intend to go to war with Iran, What are we going to do about Iran, We have seen the willingness of the when we cannot guarantee security in which has North Korean medium-range rest of the world to engage in the sus- Iraq? missiles and is moving toward the abil- pension of disbelief. As a friend of mine The list of countries that we accuse ity to enrich its own uranium? said, never underestimate the ability of of having weapons of mass destruction Nobody ever said that nonprolifera- the human mind to rationalize. We is long; will we take them all on? And tion was easy. I don’t have a silver bul- have seen our friends, from the French what do we do when Indian officials let, and I don’t expect the President to on, rationalize why we shouldn’t do cite our Iraq war arguments as jus- have one either. But don’t we have to what needs to be done. tification for a possible Indian attack keep our eye on the ball? When con- Which part of the administration’s on Pakistan that could risk a nuclear servatives opposed the Comprehensive strategy statements, which I briefly war? Is this the world we want? Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, they said outlined, do you think the bad guys— The Administration has refused to countries would build nuclear weapons North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Syria— negotiate directly with North Korea, so for their own strategic reasons. That’s are likely to rely on? The part where we have yet to really test North Ko- right. It means if we want to prevent we say we reduce our reliance on nu- rea’s claim that it would be prepared to proliferation, or roll it back, we have clear bombs, or the part that names meet all our security concerns in re- to affect those strategic calculations. those countries as a possible target for turn for truly normal relations with us. Nonproliferation policy gives us a nuclear preemption? Instead, we have demanded that North framework for those efforts. The Nu- As long as you are already listed on Korea first renounce its nuclear pro- clear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives us the possible target list, what are you grams and take tangible steps to dis- international support and may affect going to say, and what are you going to mantle them. the calculations of countries whose do? Obviously, they are going to say, I sympathize with the concern not to neighbors sign and obey the treaty. ‘‘We have to do this because of what be bullied or blackmailed. Nobody likes The Nuclear Suppliers Group buys us the United States is doing.’’ to be seen as backing down. I even more time by restricting exports of nu- There is no one in the world who sympathize with the President’s in- clear and dual-use materials and equip- doubts our capacity to annihilate, by tense dislike of North Korean leader ment. But in the end, it still comes

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 down to influencing a country’s stra- would surely be necessary to develop a ing board, we will see a demand to tegic calculations. new low-yield weapon, and which would build and test these weapons to be sure How can we influence those coun- just as surely be the death knell not that they would work. Why would we tries? Deterrence is one big way to in- only of the Comprehensive Nuclear build these mini-nukes if we don’t in- fluence them. Any country that builds Test-Ban Treaty—which I think is the tend to use them? nuclear weapons knows if they use objective of some—but of the Nuclear We don’t need to go down that path. them on us, they will very quickly Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT. America has the strongest military in cease to exist. But deterrence is still a Frankly, neither is nonproliferation the world. We also have a huge arsenal mind game. It didn’t help when the ad- served by the administration’s plan to of strategic nuclear weapons, which ministration belittled deterrence in field a nearly worthless missile defense can strike anywhere in the world, for order to press its case for missile de- system in Alaska next year, just so the deterrence. We don’t need tactical nu- fense. And deterrence may not work if President can say he did it. The push clear weapons, not even to strike bur- we say: By the way, we may still target to deploy that system has been at the ied targets like bunkers. We have con- you, even if you don’t build nuclear expense of making an effective defense. ventional weapons to do that. Our sci- weapons. The defense will lack the radar it needs entists are developing better weapons For countries that are not our en- for several years, and the space-based all the time. I am so proud of the bril- emies, security assurances are a big infrared collection it needs for even liant people at the Naval Surface War- way to influence them. The U.S. nu- more years. And the funds and equip- fare Center in Indian Head, Maryland, clear umbrella offers a country a lot of ment to deploy it are coming out of the who developed and produced the security at a low cost; but that um- funds and equipment needed to test it, ‘‘bunker-buster’’ thermobaric bombs brella may not look so good if the to improve it, and to make sure it used against caves in Afghanistan. But United States is threatening nuclear works. You have to wonder what the the bottom line is that America war against a large number of coun- administration’s priorities are. doesn’t need new nuclear weapons. tries. At that point, our friends may The path of deterrence, security as- I don’t want to go down that path be- question whether we will really be able surance, nonproliferation, diplomacy, cause it is destabilizing and dangerous to protect them, when we are taking on and sensible weapons development is to America’s national security. all those other countries. That is the difficult, but at least it is headed in the Why is it so dangerous? It would signal that the U.S. would question you hear people asking in right direction. no longer use nuclear weapons only for Japan. The path of hasty deployment of a deterrence. That would legitimize nu- To achieve lasting nonproliferation, missile defense that cannot be useful clear weapons and increase the risk we must treat the regional quarrels for years to come is simply foolish. The that they’ll be used against us or our that drive countries to seek nuclear path of new nuclear weapons, new nu- allies. If we move to testing of nuclear weapons. We did that with Argentina clear testing, and looking at nuclear weapons, other nations would almost and Brazil. As South Africa moved weapons as something ‘‘normal’’ may surely follow our lead. away from apartheid, we were able to be a highway paved with good inten- Increasing the range and number of do that there as well. We are making a tions, but as the nuns used to make me weapons in our nuclear arsenal would real effort to help India and Pakistan write on the board after school when I fundamentally undermine our nuclear step back from the brink and have to misbehaved: The road to Hell is paved nonproliferation efforts, including the continue that effort. But we also have with good intentions. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to address security concerns in east This is a road to disaster. We should NPT. That would mean more countries Asia, including North Korea’s con- know better than to go down it. developing and deploying nuclear cerns, if we are to keep that whole re- The Feinstein-Kennedy amendment, weapons. gion from developing nuclear weapons, in my view, will keep us off that dan- The production of small nuclear weaponizing the peninsula, and Japan gerous highway. It deserves our sup- weapons, some of which could even be becoming a nuclear power. We have to port. portable or easily transported in a pursue peace in the Middle East, if we I yield the floor. truck, poses a particular danger. Even are truly going to take advantage of Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise if the U.S. would effectively safeguard our military victory in Iraq. in support of the amendment offered by such weapons, other countries might Nor is there really any alternative to Senator FEINSTEIN, Senator KENNEDY develop similar weapons. The presence working with the international com- and others on low-yield nuclear weap- of a large but unknown number of tac- munity. We don’t have the ability to ons. tical nuclear weapons in Russia poses inspect sites in Iran; the Atomic En- The Defense Authorization bill would one of the greatest dangers to our na- ergy Agency does have that ability. repeal the ban on research and develop- tional security. If we are concerned Our forces in Iraq don’t have a great ment of low-yield nuclear weapons, about terrorists getting nuclear bombs, record in their hunt for weapons of sometimes called ‘‘mini-nukes.’’ the last thing we should do is develop mass destruction; the IAEA and the The ban, known as the Spratt-Furse more small, easily-transported weap- U.N. could help in that hunt, both by Amendment, was enacted in 1993. That ons. providing detailed information from law prohibits ‘‘research and develop- America’s national security will best past inspections and by helping to ment which could lead to the produc- be served if we keep in place the exist- monitor sites they have visited in the tion by the United States of a low-yield ing ban on research and development past. nuclear weapon.’’ It even has specific leading to production of low-yield nu- We cannot close down proliferation exemptions, including allowing re- clear weapons. I urge my colleagues to traffic by ourselves. The cooperation of search on existing weapons and re- join me in support of this amendment. other countries, especially Russia and search to address proliferation con- Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for more China, is essential. cerns. than half a century, our world has These are the paths to nonprolifera- To state it plainly, this is not about lived under the specter of a nuclear Ar- tion. They are long and difficult. We basic research or defensive research. mageddon. The end of the cold war has don’t know whether they will succeed, This is about research and development reduced this threat, but both the but we can see where we want to go, to produce new nuclear weapons. And United States and Russia continue to and we can see how working these since these weapons would have yields be armed to the teeth, each side pos- issues will help us get there. of less than 5 kilotons of TNT, these sessing many thousands of nuclear But building low-yield nuclear weap- are not strategic weapons. weapons, any one of which could dev- ons is not a path to nonproliferation; That means that if we pass this bill astate an innocent city. neither is a program to do R&D on such without adopting the Feinstein amend- During the cold war, both Demo- weapons, while Defense Department of- ment, we are heading down the path of cratic and Republican Presidents held ficials tell people to come up with rea- developing new, low-yield, tactical nu- out the chance that an end to the nu- sons to build them; neither is a pro- clear weapons. And you can bet that if clear arms race could lead to the re- gram to test these weapons, which we develop these weapons on the draw- nunciation of nuclear weapons. I point

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6685 to article VI of the Nuclear Non-Pro- ment we are now working, the time for Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- liferation Treaty, signed by President Senator BOXER be given to the Senator sent that the following material be Nixon in 1968, and ratified by the Sen- from Massachusetts, Mr. KENNEDY. So printed in the RECORD: First, the exist- ate in 1969: ‘‘Each of the Parties to the instead of 5 minutes, he has 10 minutes. ing law passed in 1994, which is the sub- Treaty undertakes to pursue negotia- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- ject of the debate we are now having. tions in good faith on effective meas- pore. Without objection, it is so or- That is to be followed by the submis- ures relating to cessation of the nu- dered. sion of the Department of Defense as to clear arms race at an early date and to Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the rationale for removing this par- nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty unanimous consent that immediately ticular law. That is to be followed by on general and complete disarmament following the vote this evening on the the manner in which we did it in the under strict and effective international Feinstein-Kennedy amendment, Sen- Armed Services Committee—it is a control.’’ ator REED be recognized in order to copy of the bill section. That is to be But the United States is no longer offer an amendment on the subject of followed by correspondence received by striving for a world free of nuclear low-level nuclear weapons; provided the Senator from Virginia, first from weapons. The administration now further that immediately following the the Secretary of State in which he ex- seeks to develop a new generation of reporting of that amendment, Senator presses his opinion in regard to the nuclear weapons, from bunker-busting WARNER be recognized to offer a sec- amendment; and then the statement by hydrogen bombs that could wipe out a ond-degree amendment; provided fur- Admiral Ellis, Commander of the Stra- buried cache of arms, and a whole city ther that following any debate with re- tegic Command, stating his support for with it, to low-yield mini-nukes, which spect to the amendments this evening, the work done by the committee. That could even take the form of the suit- the amendments be temporarily set is to be followed by a letter from Gen- case nuclear weapons that are the aside, and when the Senate resumes eral Jumper, expressing his support for worst case scenario for our homeland consideration of the bill tomorrow the work done by the committee. Then security planners. morning, there will be 20 minutes I have listed as a matter of conven- The alarm at the development of equally divided for debate between ience for my colleagues the seven steps these new weapons is underscored by Senator WARNER and Senator REED. Fi- that are taken, traditionally, with re- the Nuclear Posture Review, released nally, I ask that following the use of spect to nuclear weapons. in January 2002, and the National Secu- that time, the Senate proceed to a vote That is the information relevant to rity Strategy, released in September in relation to the Warner second-degree 2002. Taken together, these documents this debate. amendment, and that if the amend- There being no objection, the mate- envisage a United States that could ment is agreed to, then the underlying strike anywhere on the globe with rial was ordered to be printed in the amendment be agreed to, as amended. RECORD, as follows: overwhelming force. The Nuclear Pos- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- ture Review, in particular, moves pore. Without objection, it is so or- EXISTING LAW PASSED IN 1994 breathlessly from discussions of con- dered. SEC. 3136. PROHIBITION ON RESEARCH AND DE- ventional weapons to strategizing on Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would VELOPMENT OF LOW-YIELD NU- CLEAR WEAPONS. the use of nuclear weapons. like to proceed on this side for about 5 (a) UNITED STATES POLICY.—It shall be the The unavoidable conclusion is that or 6 minutes and then we will rotate. I the administration seeks to reduce, policy of the United States not to conduct must say, I express my pleasure at the research and development which could lead and perhaps eliminate, the difference cooperation we are receiving on both between conventional and nuclear to the production by the United States of a sides of the aisle, particularly from our new low-yield nuclear weapon, including a weapons. Members with regard to amendments. I precision low-yield warhead. A new reliance on nuclear weapons (b) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Energy for our national security can only lead might say there is a colleague on that side of the aisle who has a very meri- may not conduct, or provide for the conduct us to greater dangers. CIA Director of, research and development which could George Tenet warned the Armed Serv- torious commitment to be at a certain place at 7:45, and it is a family matter. lead to the production by the United States ices Committee on February 12, 2003, of a low-yield nuclear weapon which, as of that the ‘‘domino theory of the 21st We are going to try to yield back time the date of the enactment of this Act, has century may well be nuclear.’’ We must on our side to accommodate the col- not entered production. heed this warning. league on the other side. I am not an- (c) EFFECT ON OTHER RESEARCH AND DEVEL- One powerless country after another nouncing the time exactly, but I hope OPMENT.—Nothing in this section shall pro- may seek to develop the most extreme it can come about at about 7:42 or 7:43, hibit the Secretary of Energy from con- weapon of mass destruction in order to enabling him to meet a very serious ducting, or providing for the conduct of, re- search and development necessary— assure its security, fearing an immi- matter relating to his children. We are going to make that work; is that cor- (1) to design a testing device that has a nent, preemptive attack from the yield of less than five kilotons; world’s only superpower, which views rect? Mr. LEVIN. We are going to do our (2) to modify an existing weapon for the itself as being unconstrained by inter- purpose of addressing safety and reliability national law, the U.N. Security Coun- best. While the Senator is speaking, I concerns; or cil, or the court of world opinion. will talk to Senator KENNEDY and Sen- (3) to address proliferation concerns. ator FEINSTEIN. Rather than attempt to head off this (d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term destabilizing trend, this administration Mr. KENNEDY. I think I will only ‘‘low-yield nuclear weapon’’ means a nuclear has recast its preemptive war as a lib- need 3 1⁄2 or 4 minutes, if we are trying weapon that has a yield of less than five eration of the oppressed, threatened to to accommodate somebody. kilotons. find ways to punish allies who opposed Mr. LEVIN. I am willing to cut my our belligerency, and proposed the de- time down as well. I haven’t talked to SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS velopment of new nuclear weapons. Senator FEINSTEIN, who has already Section 221. Section 3136, the so-called If we do not wish to be in a state of cut her time down. PLYWD legislation, prohibits the Secretary perpetual war, the United States must Mr. WARNER. We are providing flexi- of Energy from conducting any research and recapture its standing as a peace- bility to my colleague from Michigan development which could potentially lead to maker. Let us step back from the brink to try to make it work. the production by the United States of a new of a nuclear arms race. Moving forward Mr. President, I think it is important low-yield nuclear weapon, including a preci- with new bunker-busting and low-yield that in the Record of this debate there sion low-yield warhead. nuclear weapons can only send us in at least be one statement, if I may say, This legislation has negatively affected on behalf of the Senator from Virginia U.S. Government efforts to support the na- the wrong direction. I urge my col- tional strategy to counter WMD and under- leagues to reject the moves by this ad- which enables the reader of the RECORD cuts efforts that could strengthen our ability ministration to initiate new nuclear to determine with ease exactly what to deter, or respond to, new or emerging arms programs. the debate is about. For that purpose, I threats. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unan- will make a broad unanimous consent A revitalized nuclear weapons advanced imous consent that under the agree- request. concepts effort is essential to: (1) train the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 next generation of nuclear weapons sci- strategize the most effective methods of ad- Phase 4—Production Engineering. entists and engineers; and (2) restore a nu- dressing new and emerging threats to our Phase 5—First Production. clear weapons enterprise able to respond rap- National Security, it is an inherent responsi- Phase 6—Quantity Production & Stockpile idly and decisively to changes in the inter- bility of the Department of Defense to not Maintenance Evaluation. national security environment or unforeseen only reevaluate the capabilities of our nu- Phase 7—Retirement & Dismantlement. technical problems in the stockpile. PLYWD clear arsenal, but to thoroughly analyze the Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I op- has had a ‘‘chilling effect’’ on this effort by potential of advanced concepts that could pose the amendment. impeding the ability of our scientists and en- enhance our overall deterrent posture. Research on precision low-yield nu- gineers to explore the full range of technical U.S. Strategic Command is interested in clear weapon design is prudent in to- options. It does not simply prohibit research conducting rigorous studies of all new tech- day’s national security environment. on new, low-yield warheads, but prohibits nologies, and examining the merits of preci- Why would we want to prevent any any activities ‘‘which could potentially lead sion, increased penetration, and reduced to production by the United States’’ of such yields for our nuclear weapons. The nation type of research on weapons that might a warhead. needs to understand the technical capabili- contribute to improving our national It is prudent national security policy not ties of threats under development by poten- security? Authorizing the research to foreclose exploration of technical options tial adversaries and to thoroughly explore does not authorize the production, that could strengthen our ability to deter, or the range of options available to the United testing, or deployment of a low-yield respond to, new or emerging threats. In this States to deter or defeat them. Once we com- nuclear weapon. Congress reserves the regard, the Congressionally-mandated Nu- plete the precise engineering analyses nec- right to decide that as a separate mat- clear Posture Review urged exploration of essary to validate facts related to nascent ter, should such a step be requested by weapons concepts that could offer greater ca- advanced concepts, the results of the re- search will enable dispassionate, fact-based this or any future Administration. pabilities for precision, earth penetration (to I have received three letters on this hold at risk deeply buried and hardened discussions on very important defense and bunkers), defeat of chemical and biological policy issues. matter: two from top military leaders, agents, and reduced collateral damage. The The findings of the Nuclear Posture Re- Admiral James Ellis, Commander of PLYWD legislation impedes this effort. view were strongly endorsed by the Service U.S. Strategic Command and General Repeal of PLYWD, however, falls far short Chiefs. Repealing Section 3136 of Fiscal Year John Jumper, Chief of Staff to the U.S. of committing the United States to devel- 1994 NDAA (42 U.S.C. 2121) will allow U.S. Air Force, and one from Secretary of oping, producing, and deploying new, low- Strategic Command the ability to evaluate State Colin Powell. All three of these yield warheads. Such warhead concepts could the full range of advanced concepts through research and development activities. distinguished leaders urged support for not proceed to full-scale development, much repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear less production and deployment, unless Con- Your support in repealing the prohibition gress authorizes and appropriates the sub- on low-yield research and development for weapons research. stantial funds required to do this. nuclear weapons is greatly appreciated. A In the current international environ- similar letter has been sent to the Ranking ment, with many new unexpected Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Member of your committee. threats, it is prudent to allow research Restrictions, and Limitations Sincerely, on low-yield nuclear weapons to learn J.O. ELLIS, whether such weapons could add to the SEC. 3131. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON RE- Admiral, U.S. Navy, SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF deterrent value of our nuclear force. A Commander. LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear (a) REPEAL.—Section 3136 of the National DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, weapons research and development Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF, would permit the scientists and engi- 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 107 Stat. 1946; 42 Washington, DC, May 8, 2003. U.S.C. 2121 note) is repealed. neers at our national laboratories to Hon. JOHN W. WARNER, (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in the repeal consider whether these types of weap- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, made by subsection (a) shall be construed as ons are feasible and for what purpose. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. authorizing the testing, acquisition, or de- For instance, could such a weapon de- DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN, I seek your support ployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon. for repealing Section 3136 of the Fiscal Year stroy a laboratory with biological and 1994 National Defense Authorization Act (42 chemical agents without disbursing THE SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S.C. § 2121). This section of the law, com- them as a conventional weapon would Washington, May 5, 2003. monly referred to as the Precision Low-Yield do? What would be the collateral ef- Hon. JOHN WARNER, Weapon Development (PLYWD) limitation, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, fect? prohibits the Department of Energy and by I do not agree with those who assert U.S. Senate. extension the Air Force from conducting any DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to ex- that even allowing this research to go research and development on a new nuclear forward would undermine our nuclear press support for the President’s FY2004 weapon design with a yield of five kilotons budget request to fund the feasibility and or less. non-proliferation efforts. The United cost study for the Robust Nuclear Earth Pen- Research and development of new low- States is steadfast in its determination etrator (RNEP), and to repeal the FY1994 yield weapon concepts is required in order to to prevent nuclear proliferation legislation that prohibits the United States evaluate all potential options to meet cur- through many means including diplo- from conducting research and development rent and emerging combatant commanders’ macy, multilateral regimes to control on low yield nuclear weapons. I do not be- requirements. Low-yield nuclear weapons lieve that these legislative steps will com- the export of sensitive technologies, currently in the stockpile simply are not and interdiction of illegal exports. The plicate our ongoing efforts with North suited to satisfy all these requirements. Korea. Inasmuch as work on the RNEP was We are pursuing full rescission of this sec- U.S. also has a proven record of nuclear authorized and funded in last year’s National tion of the law instead of just an amend- reductions. Defense Authorization Act, I believe that ment. A partial repeal that only permits Secretary Colin Powell confirmed North Korea already has factored the RNEP basic research and development with no this view in his letter sent to me on into its calculations and will not vary those prospect for production would effectively May 5th, 2003. In that letter, Secretary calculations depending on how Congress acts have the same impact as the current law. Powell stated: ‘‘I do not believe [re- on this element of the FY2004 budget re- A similar letter has been sent to the Rank- pealing the ban on low-yield nuclear quest. ing Minority Member of your Committee and weapons research and development] Thank you for your important work on to the Chairman and Ranking Minority these issues and please do not hesitate to ask Member of the House Armed Services Com- will complicate our ongoing efforts if I can be of further assistance in the future. mittee. with North Korea.’’ Sincerely, Sincerely Over the past decade—while the cur- COLIN L. POWELL. JOHN P. JUMPER, rent prohibition on this type of re- General, USAF, search has been in place—the United DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Chief of Staff. States has taken thousands of nuclear U.S. Strategic Command. weapons out of the active stockpile, Hon. JOHN W. WARNER, NUCLEAR WEAPONS LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT abided by a moratorium on under- Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, PROCESS ground nuclear tests, designed no new Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, Phase 1—Concept Study. DC. Phase 2—Feasibility Study. nuclear weapons, and refrained from DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN, The Nuclear Posture Phase 2A—Design Definition & Cost Study. research on low-yield nuclear weapons. Review put in motion a major change in the Phase 3—Full Scale Engineering Develop- Some might argue that these activi- role of our nuclear forces. As we continue to ment. ties served the purpose of encouraging

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6687 other countries not to develop or pro- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- consider using thee weapons when we liferate nuclear weapons. But let’s ex- pore. The Senator from Massachusetts don’t know where our adversaries are? amine the record. is recognized. Al Qaida is active in Indonesia, Saudi Over the past decade, India and Paki- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this Arabia, Canada, and Germany. Would stan tested nuclear weapons for the issue is as clear as any issue ever gets. we use these low-yield weapons against first time. Other nations have contin- You are either for nuclear war or you these countries? ued to seek nuclear weapons capabili- are not. Either you want to make it Some of my colleagues on the other ties, including Iraq, Iran and North easier to start using nuclear weapons side of the aisle believe that we have Korea. And many nation are pursing or you don’t. reduced our weapons while other coun- chemical and biological weapons capa- Our conventional weapons already tries have begun nuclear weapons pro- bilities. I believe this shows that other have vast power and accuracy. We can grams. They say no one is following nations make decisions about whether make them even more powerful. No one our lead and that since 1992, we have or not to acquire nuclear and other at the Pentagon and no one in the ad- stopped testing while China, France, WMD capabilities based on their as- ministration has given us any exam- India, and Pakistan have continued to sessment of their own national secu- ples—none at all—of cases where a test. On the contrary, there have been rity need—not based on U.S. action in smaller nuclear weapon is needed to do no tests in the past five years. Four this area. The argument that some what a conventional weapon cannot do. states who were nuclear states have make that if U.S. refrains from certain For half a century, our policy has come under the non-proliferation trea- types of activities, others will follow, been to do everything we possibly can ty as non-nuclear states: South Africa, just does not stand the test of time. to prevent nuclear war, and so far we Some would also argue the author- Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine. have succeeded. The hardliners say They think we need to have our izing of this research would lower the things are different today: A nuclear nuclear threshold. I disagree. As Am- smartest people thinking about low- war won’t be so bad if we just make the yield nuclear weapons. Lifting the ban bassador Linton Brooks, Administrator nukes a little smaller. We will call of the Nuclear Security Administra- would give them their freedom to in- them mini-nukes. They are not real dulge in intellectual curiosity, and it is tion, testified before the Strategic nukes. A little nuclear war is OK. Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, more likely to yield a way to stop pro- That is nonsense. Nuclear war is nu- liferation. However the research the ‘‘[n]uclear threshold is awesomely clear war is nuclear war. We don’t want high.’’ If wars of the future are about banned by this amendment is an offen- it anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Make sive, not defensive capability. This is winning hearts and minds, about liber- no mistake, a mini-nuke is still a nuke. ating rather than conquering, then the research leading to the development Is half of Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter of and the production of weapons, not threshold for using nuclear weapons re- Hiroshima OK? Is a little mushroom mains very high indeed. But as long as pure intellectual exploration of ad- cloud OK? That is absurd. vanced concepts. The Spratt amend- we maintain a nuclear deterrence The issue is too important. If we force, we would be remiss if we did not ment prohibits the construction of pro- build it, we will use it. No Congress totypes. keep it safe, secure and reliable, and if should be the Congress that says let’s we did not maintain our research capa- Some will argue that we cannot be start down this street when it is a one- bilities both for ourselves and to under- confident that our weapons will work, way street that can lead only to nu- stand what other countries might be without the development of these new clear war. weapons. According to the National exploring. Some may say that smaller weapons It is worth noting that the United Academy of Sciences (July 2002), ‘‘The are less dangerous than the larger States had a large number of low-yield United States has the technical capa- weapons already in our arsenal. But nuclear weapons in our inventory dur- bilities to maintain confidence in the these nuclear weapons are actually ing the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s which have safety and reliability of its existing nu- more dangerous, because they are now been removed from the inventory. clear weapons stockpile under the smaller, therefore easier to steal and During each of these decades there CTBT, provided that adequate re- smuggle. The Administration’s goal is were significant national security chal- sources are made available to the De- to make them more usable by lowering lenges to the United States. None of partment of Energy’s nuclear weapons the thresholds for the first use of nu- those challenges came close to reach- complex and are properly focused on clear weapons. ing the nuclear threshold, notwith- this task.’’ standing the availability of low-yield Some may say we can’t build new weapons, and haven’t built them in My colleagues believe that we still nuclear weapons. retain the right to authorize and ap- We have a responsibility to ensure years. To that I ask why do we need to build new weapons when we have over propriate funds for nuclear weapons the safety and security of all Ameri- systems. We should be allowed to think cans. We should not place artificial six thousand warheads in our inven- tory? It’s enough to destroy the world about these weapons to prevent others limits on the intellectual work of our from developing this capability. But no gifted scientists to explore new tech- at least ten times over, and leave the world in nuclear winter. It would take one else is developing these weapons; if nologies, to understand what is pos- we start, others may follow. We may be sible as well as what potential adver- only ten nuclear weapons to paralyze the United States. igniting a new nuclear arms race. saries could be exploring. Should Nothing in law prohibits our scientists threats emerge which cannot be de- Some believe our non-proliferation efforts do not stop North Korea or Iran from doing research on our adversaries’ terred or destroyed with conventional capabilities. weapons, our President must have from developing nuclear weapons of Finally, some say we should develop other options available to protect the their own. No one argues that these these weapons because we cannot use citizens of the United States, our inter- weapons have the capability to stop the existing weapons, because they are ests and our allies. This has been the North Korea. But why not target them policy of the United States for almost now with our existing nuclear weapons. too large. They say killing millions of sixty years. This is not an argument for new nu- Iraqis is too many. If we use a lower- The provision in the Senate bill clear weapons. yield weapon, we can deter Saddam merely permits the research that will Some argue that current law ties the Hussein. But this is just arguing for inform future decisions as to whether hands of the Pentagon. But there is no hundreds of thousands dead, rather such weapons would enhance the na- military requirement for these weap- than millions. If we really want a sur- tional security of our country overall. ons, just hypothetical situations pro- gical strike capability, then we should It does not prejudice how Congress posed by the other side. No one can develop a conventional alternative. would decide that question in the fu- point to an actual situation where we Mr. President, I yield back my re- ture. Let us not fear greater knowledge would use these weapons. maining time to the Senator from to inform our future decisions. Some may argue that we need to do Michigan. I urge my colleagues to oppose this this research to go after Al Qaida and The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- amendment. other asymmetric threats. How can we pore. The Senator from Michigan.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provi- ple around the world going to take us Mr. Celec, who has also been quoted sions in this bill relating to the devel- seriously that, in fact, we want to stop today, specifically said the following. opment of new nuclear weapons mark a other countries from going nuclear, Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant to the major and a very dangerous shift in gaining nuclear weapons, that our Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Mat- American policy. Proliferation of major fear is the proliferation of nu- ters, made clear that: weapons of mass destruction is the clear weapons if we take the position The administration wants the weapon and greatest threat we face. Uncorking the that an existing prohibition in law on it is moving forward. nuclear bottle to develop new and research and development that could He is talking about a weapon that modified nuclear weapons goes in the lead to production of those weapons is could be a deep penetrator. It could be opposite direction of the commitment going to be lifted by us? a so-called bunker buster, but also it We have a special responsibility. This we made when we signed the non- could be a low-yield weapon. He is not is a security issue for us. Are we really proliferation treaty. We are a party to specific. If a hydrogen bomb can be more secure in the world where that that treaty. successfully designed to survive a crash It has been said on this floor that nuclear bottle is uncorked and un- through hard rock and still explode, it North Korea is a party to the non- corked by us, by lifting an existing ban will ultimately get fielded, Celec said proliferation treaty, and they have to in our law? in an interview with the Mercury live up to it. They got something in re- Nuclear weapons cannot be seen as News. The San Jose Mercury News in turn for their signature. They did, in- just another option for warfare. They 2003 ran that story, and we have con- deed. They got our signature, and our cannot be seen as usable as warfighting firmed that, in fact, that is what he signature committed us to end the nu- weapons. Yet the administration is said. He was not misquoted. So we have clear arms race. moving to change the historic position Uncorking the nuclear bottle, which of one U.S. administration after an- the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary these provisions do, makes a mockery other by looking to make nuclear of Defense for Nuclear Matters saying of our argument to other countries weapons more usable, not just as an- that if a hydrogen bomb can be de- around the world that they should not other capability but usable in signed to penetrate hard rock and still go nuclear. warfighting, and that is the language explode, ‘‘it will ultimately get field- Just think about some of the head- which has been quoted on this floor. ed.’’ lines in the last few months about The language of the head of the nu- That is the path the language in the North Korea: ‘‘U.S. Assails Move by clear weapons program talks about the bill repealing the so-called Spratt North Koreans to Reject Treaty.’’ That desirability of designing weapons amendment would take us down. is the nonproliferation treaty to which which are usable. That is his word, ‘‘us- All of this is being done in the con- we are a signatory, too, that commits able.’’ One administration after an- text of what is called the Nuclear Pos- us to end the nuclear arms race, not to other has gone in the other direction. ture Review which was completed by start a new chapter in the nuclear The specific weapons that are cov- the administration in December of 2001. arms race. So we assail their move. ered by the ban are so-called low-yield This was the first step in an effort to Another headline: ‘‘Military Action nuclear weapons. What a misnomer develop new usable nuclear weapons. Possible, U.S. Warns North Korea.’’ We that is for reasons so many of us have The Nuclear Posture Review is the take their move toward nuclear weap- given on the floor this afternoon. Five basis for a new strategic policy that is ons so seriously that we have actually kilotons, which is the definition of a described in a March 23, 2002, Wash- suggested we may initiate military ac- low-yield weapon, is roughly one-third ington Post article: tion to stop them from moving in a nu- the size of the nuclear bomb that was Would give U.S. Presidents the option of clear direction. Yet we, if these provi- used on Hiroshima which immediately conducting a preemptive strike with preci- sions stay, are moving in that same di- killed 140,000 people, left hundreds of sion-guided conventional bombs or nuclear rection. We have told Iran the same thousands radiated and injured in weapons. thing. We have urged Russia: Do not other ways. And by the way, 140,000 That is the policy shift which oc- help Iran go nuclear. Do not supply people was almost half the population curred back then. That is the environ- them with any materials which they of Hiroshima. ment in which we are determining might use to go nuclear. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass whether or not to lift a prohibition on Yet in these provisions in this bill, destruction, whether they are a third research and development of new nu- we would, if they stay in the bill, lift a the size of the bomb that was used at clear weapons. prohibition that exists in current law Hiroshima or 20 times the size or 40 That Nuclear Posture Review walks in the United States which prohibits times the size. They are weapons of away from a longstanding policy that the research and development on nu- mass destruction. the United States will not be the first clear weapons that could lead to the The administration seeks to repeal a to use nuclear weapons against a non- production of new nuclear weapons. ban on research and development nuclear state. That Nuclear Posture That is what the so-called Spratt-Furse which could lead to the production of a Review, again according to the Wash- language does. It prohibits research weapon of mass destruction. That is ington Post article, specifically identi- and development on nuclear weapons the bottom line, and the statement by fies countries that could be targets, in- which could lead to their production. the Administrator of the National Nu- cluding North Korea, Iran, Syria, and That is the language which was strick- clear Security Administration, Mr. Libya. en by a 15-to-10 vote in the Armed Linton Brooks, makes it very clear The legislative proposal that accom- Services Committee, and that is the that there is an intent here to develop panied the administration’s request to language which the amendment offered weapons which are ‘‘usable.’’ That is repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition on by the Senators from California and not my word. That is not the word of low-yield nuclear weapons says the fol- Massachusetts would restore to the the supporters of the amendment, the lowing—that is the proposal that ac- law. Senator from California and the Sen- companied the request that the com- We have a special responsibility for a ator from Massachusetts. That is the mittee voted to approve by a 15-to-10 lot of reasons. No. 1, we are the leader. testimony of the Administrator of the vote. This is what the administration’s We have to live up to what we say we National Nuclear Security Administra- language says: want others to do. But we are also the tion who said that he has a bias in only country that has actually used favor of things—referring to weapons— In this regard, the . . . Nuclear Posture Re- nuclear weapons. We say we are deter- that might be usable, referring to the view urged exploration of weapons concepts mined to stop the spread of nuclear that could offer greater capabilities for pre- so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. cision, earth penetration— weapons. Are we serious about that? If It is more than research. In this law we have a prohibition in our law which which exists, unless we repeal it, are And other things. says we will not do research and devel- prohibitions on research and develop- The justification concluded that the opment on nuclear weapons which ment. The Deputy Assistant Secretary Spratt-Furse law impedes this effort. could lead to their production, are peo- of Defense in charge of these programs, It does indeed.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6689 Without the Spratt-Furse law, there bilities for any possible contingency, militarily. I do not know a commander is no legal impediment to the develop- and I could not agree more. But if we who would want to send his troops onto ment, testing, production, or deploy- read Spratt-Furse, it allows research a battlefield where a 5-kiloton nuclear ment of new, usable nuclear weapons. but it disallows development and pro- weapons device had been utilized. So Will that impediment be removed? duction. In other words, it allows re- why are we doing this? It makes no That is the issue we are going to decide search on existing systems; it does not sense to me. I hope this body would tonight. At a time when we are trying allow research on new systems. Con- vote against it. to dissuade other countries from going sequently, if Spratt-Furse is repealed, I leave with one point. A 1-kiloton forward with nuclear weapons develop- what automatically is being said is weapon detonated at a depth of 20 to 50 ment, when we strongly oppose North that we begin study, research, and test- feet would inject more than 1 million Korea’s pulling out of the Nuclear Non- ing on new systems. If research is cubic feet of radioactive debris and Proliferation Treaty, when we are promising and there is a military need, form a crater about the size of ground spending over a billion dollars to pre- the administration can come back and zero in New York. If we fail to repeal vent the spread of nuclear weapons ma- ask for specific authorization. As I the repeal, we will allow research to go terial and technology, it seems to me said, there is no specific military re- ahead to develop up to five times that that lifting this prohibition on the re- quirement for these weapons that we when we have conventional weapons search and development of nuclear know about. that can do the job as well. I have very weapons which could lead to their pro- It has also been said today that de- strong feelings on this subject. duction sends a terrible message. We veloping low-yield weapons is impor- I thank Senator KENNEDY, Senator are telling others not to go down the tant to preserve U.S. credibility in de- LEVIN, and all Members who have come road to nuclear weapons, but instead of termining threats. In fact, we already to the floor to speak in support of our being a leader in the effort to prevent have over 6,000 nuclear weapons in our amendment. the proliferation of nuclear weapons, stockpile, and we already have a war- I yield the floor. we would be recklessly driving down head that can be dialed down to 1 kil- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TAL- that same road. oton or less. So what is the need to go ENT). The Senator from Colorado. In short, the United States should to 5 kilotons of new development? We Mr. ALLARD. I think we are getting not follow a policy that we do not tol- do not know because it has never been to the point where we are ready to erate in others. We live in a dangerous presented to us. wrap up debate. I will make a few com- world where proliferation of weapons of We also have an overwhelming con- ments and we will move to table and mass destruction is the greatest threat ventional military advantage over any have a vote in a relatively short period we face. The answer is not to make the other country. We have conventional of time. I am warning everyone we are world more dangerous by our own ac- bombs that range in size from 500 to getting close to a vote. tions. 5,000 pounds. A 5,000-pound bunker I thought I would take a few mo- If Senator ALLARD wishes to alter- buster, like the guided bomb unit 28B, ments to review some of the comments nate, there would then be someone to is capable of penetrating up to 20 feet made by individuals in the administra- speak from his side. If not, I know Sen- of reinforced concrete or 100 feet of tion about the need to allow for re- ator FEINSTEIN is next in line. earth. This was used with success in search, at least, and study as far as the I yield the floor. Operation Enduring Freedom in Af- low-yield nuclear weapons were con- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- ghanistan. cerned. pore. The Senator from California. To my knowledge, we have never I rise in opposition to the Kennedy- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I been told that this is inadequate or Feinstein amendment. Let me read thank all of those who have come to that there is no other way, other than from a letter from Secretary of State the floor to speak. I think this is a a nuclear way, to get at a deep bunker; Powell, dated May 5, 2003. very important debate because I think we have never been told that our intel- I am writing to express support for the we are at a crossroad. ligence does not work or you cannot President’s FY2004 budget request to fund Clearly, this Defense authorization plug an air hole or you cannot use a the feasibility and cost study for the Robust bill, when coupled with the repeal of number of conventional bunker busters Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), and to re- the Spratt-Furse amendment, opens to achieve a similar result. peal the FY1994 legislation that prohibits the the door to new nuclear development. We have been told that repealing United States from conducting research and In my tenure in the Senate, in either a Spratt-Furse will not affect prolifera- development on low yield nuclear weapons. I classified or unclassified session, I have tion because others will seek nuclear do not believe that these legislative steps never had any information provided weapons anyway. Well, our standing in will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea. that this is necessary or that there is a the world, I have thought, really rests military requirement to do so. on our moral case, our sense of justice, This is a statement from our Sec- One of the reasons this should not be our sense of equity, our freedom. In retary of State. repealed is, when it is combined with fact, since 1992, the United States has ADM Ellis, U.S. Navy, had this to say other provisions in the Defense author- not developed new weapons and others in a letter to the chairman: ization bill, one can really see where have followed suit. Russia has not test- The nation needs to understand the tech- this is going. For example, this bill au- ed since then and has not developed nical capabilities of threats under develop- thorizes $15 million for the study of the new weapons. China stopped testing. ment by potential adversaries and to thor- oughly explore the range of options available robust nuclear earth penetrator. It au- India and Pakistan have not tested for to the United States to deter or defeat them. thorizes $6 million for advanced nu- 5 years and are not currently devel- Once we complete the precise engineering clear weapons concepts. Then if we oping new weapons. But we can be sure, analyses necessary to validate facts related look at page 448 of the report, we see when it is learned that the United to nascent advanced concepts, the results of that the committee recommends a pro- States is going to go ahead with new the research will enable dispassionate, fact- vision that would require the Secretary studies, new feasibility tests on up to based decisions on very important defense of Energy to achieve and thereafter 5-kiloton new nuclear warheads, that and policy issues. maintain a readiness posture of 18 others will follow suit. If you repeal the law on low-yield nu- months for resumption by the United I believe U.S. restraint is, in fact, an clear weapons, you end up producing States of underground nuclear tests. important element of our nonprolifera- nuclear weapons which will cause less This moves up a 3-year period to 18 tion effort. collateral damage if used and, there- months. This is a very big vote that is before fore, the United States is more likely So if we combine all of these, it is us right now because the only reason to use that. That is the assertion. very clear to me that where this coun- to repeal Spratt-Furse is to signal that First, in response to that, NNSA can- try is going is toward the resumption we are, in fact, going to develop a new not produce or deploy a new nuclear of nuclear development. generation of nuclear weapons. This is weapon without an authorization and I wish to rebut a couple of argu- a horrible mistake. I think it is a mis- appropriation from Congress. Second, ments. It was said that we need capa- take morally. I think it is a mistake there have been thousands of deployed

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 low-yield nuclear weapons during the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and today, and ator from Nevada. to reconsider the vote. that has not lowered the nuclear weap- Mr. REID. Mr. President, Members Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that mo- on threshold. Nuclear weapons are still all over town have been expecting this tion on the table. a very high threshold that only the vote to occur at 7:45, so I hope the lead- The motion to lay on the table was President can initiate. er will allow us to have the vote drag agreed to. On April 8, 2003, Admiral James Ellis on for a little while to make sure our Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we ap- said: people get back. preciate the cooperation of all Sen- . . . it’s not clear to me there is a direct Mr. ALLARD. I have contacted the ators. We were able to accommodate linkage between the size of the weapons and leader on the Republican side. He is ex- one Senator who had a very serious the awesome responsibilities embodied in pecting us to leave this open to some- problem. That is achieved and we are that decision. where around 8:10. now completed. I believe the Senator Ambassador Linton Brooks quoted, Now we both have time to yield back. from Rhode Island is to be recognized as then acting director of NNSA, in an Mr. LEVIN. I yield the remainder of for the purpose of laying down his April 8, 2003 hearing: my time. amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Is there a logic to saying that we have Mr. ALLARD. I yield the remainder older low-yield weapons, but that we now of the time on the Republican side. the previous order, the Senator from know we are not going to ever want to The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time Rhode Island is recognized. produce new low-yield weapons. Now to some is yielded back. AMENDMENT NO. 751 extent I admit we are talking about—since Mr. ALLARD. Now I move to table Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an I’m not going to develop or produce anything the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment. I amendment to the desk. without the permission of the Congress and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ask for the yeas and nays. if the Congress decided to give me permis- clerk will report. sion, it could modify the ban . . . The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a The assistant legislative clerk read Now, we are looking at both adminis- sufficient second? as follows: There is a sufficient second. trations that have basically taken the The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED], The question is on agreeing to the position that we need to have a nuclear for himself, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. FEINGOLD, response to either chemical or biologi- motion. The clerk will call the roll. proposes an amendment numbered 751. cal weapons or weapons of mass de- Mr. MCCONNELL. I announce that Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unan- struction. the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. imous consent that the reading of the On December 7, 1997, President Clin- LOTT) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. amendment be dispensed with. ton issued some guidelines which would VOINOVICH) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without permit nuclear strikes after enemy at- Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen- objection, it is so ordered. tacks involving chemical or biological ator from North Carolina (Mr. The amendment is as follows: weapons, which was reported widely at EDWARDS), the Senator from Florida (Purpose: To modify the scope of the prohibi- that time. (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Ha- tion on research and development of low- Finally, I point out some language waii (Mr. INOUYE), and the Senator yield nuclear weapons) and remind my colleagues we have spe- from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) are Strike section 3131 and insert the following cific language in the bill, and I will necessarily absent. new section: I further announce that, if present SEC. 3131. MODIFICATION OF SCOPE OF PROHIBI- again repeat that language: TION ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOP- Nothing in the repeal made by subsection and voting, the Senator from Massa- MENT OF LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR (a) shall be construed as authorizing testing, chusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote WEAPONS. acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nu- ‘‘aye.’’ (a) MODIFICATION.—Section 3136 of the Na- clear weapon. The result was announced—yeas 51, tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal The issue is clear. I am now willing nays 43, as follows: Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 107 Stat. 1946; 42 U.S.C. 2121 note) is amended by striking [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.] to move forward with the vote. ‘‘research and development’’ each place it Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous YEAS—51 appears and inserting ‘‘development engi- consent to add Senator BIDEN as a co- Alexander DeWine McConnell neering’’. sponsor. Allard Dole Miller (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) The cap- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Allen Domenici Murkowski tion for subsection (c) of that section is objection, it is so ordered. Bayh Ensign Nelson (NE) amended by striking ‘‘RESEARCH AND DEVEL- Bennett Enzi Nickles OPMENT’’ and inserting ‘‘DEVELOPMENT ENGI- Mr. ALLARD. I suggest the absence Bond Fitzgerald Roberts NEERING’’. of a quorum. Brownback Frist Santorum (2) The heading for that section is amended The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bunning Graham (SC) Sessions Burns Grassley Shelby by striking ‘‘RESEARCH AND DEVELOP- clerk will call the roll. Campbell Gregg Smith MENT’’ and inserting ‘‘DEVELOPMENT EN- The assistant legislative clerk pro- Chambliss Hagel Snowe GINEERING’’. ceeded to call the roll. Cochran Hatch Specter The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask Coleman Hutchison Stevens Collins Inhofe Sununu the previous order, the Senator from unanimous consent that the order for Cornyn Kyl Talent Virginia is recognized to offer a sec- the quorum call be rescinded. Craig Lugar Thomas ond-degree amendment. The Senator The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Crapo McCain Warner from Virginia. objection, it is so ordered. NAYS—43 AMENDMENT NO. 752 TO AMENDMENT NO. 751 Mr. ALLARD. For Members’ informa- Akaka Dodd Lieberman Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send tion, we are going to proceed to a vote. Baucus Dorgan Lincoln to the desk an amendment in the sec- I want Members to understand we are Biden Durbin Mikulski ond degree and ask for its immediate Bingaman Feingold going to hold this vote open an extra Murray consideration. length of time to accommodate those Boxer Feinstein Nelson (FL) Breaux Harkin Pryor The PRESIDING OFFICER. The who are expecting the vote to occur at Byrd Hollings Reed clerk will report. 7:45. This will allow Members who are Cantwell Jeffords Reid The assistant legislative clerk read Carper Johnson anxious to get home early tonight to Rockefeller Chafee Kennedy as follows: Sarbanes leave early, and then we will keep the Clinton Kohl The Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER] Schumer vote going later on. Conrad Landrieu proposes an amendment numbered 752 to Stabenow Having made that announcement, I Corzine Lautenberg amendment No. 751. Daschle Leahy Wyden will move to table. Dayton Levin Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator with- unanimous consent that the reading of hold for just a moment. NOT VOTING—6 the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. ALLARD. I understand we have Edwards Inouye Lott The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without some time to be yielded back on both Graham (FL) Kerry Voinovich objection, it is so ordered. sides. The motion was agreed to. The amendment is as follows:

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6691 In lieu of the matter proposed to be in- President quickly announced the with- government in Russia, the administra- serted, insert the following: drawal of the United States from the tion continues to maintain thousands SEC. 3131. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON RE- ABM Treaty. Here again, there was of warheads in the stockpile. SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. scant attention paid to the possibility The NPR holds out the possibility of (a) REPEAL.—Section 3136 of the National of negotiating changes with the Rus- the resumption of nuclear testing, ei- Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year sians in order to pursue the develop- ther to maintain the current stockpile 1994 (Public Law 103–160; 107 Stat. 1946; 42 ment of an antimissile system without or to develop new types of nuclear U.S.C. 2121 note) is repealed. jettisoning the ABM Treaty. The ABM weapons. Budget requests to fund the (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in the repeal Treaty has been a long-time target of production of hundreds of new pluto- made by subsection (a) shall be construed as the right wing. President Bush’s deci- nium pits per year, a necessary compo- authorizing the testing, acquisition, or de- ployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon. sion was as much about appeasing a nent of a nuclear weapon, are included (c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Energy powerful component of his political in this budget. may not commence the engineering develop- base as it was a reflection of strategic Requests to undertake the designs of ment phase, or any subsequent phase, of a thinking. new weapons if needed and to shorten low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically The President has made it clear that the time necessary to initiate and con- authorized by Congress. he will not pursue further negotiations duct a nuclear test are included in the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- under the START process with the budget proposals, and all of them ator from Rhode Island. Russians. He is content to let the Mos- strongly suggest that testing could go Mr. REED. Mr. President, for over 50 cow treaty stand as the beginning and well beyond the need to maintain the years, the United States has been in the end of his arms control initiatives. existing stockpile. the vanguard in both urging and acting The most effective nonproliferation Coupled with the rejection of the to delegitimize the use of nuclear program, the Cooperative Threat Re- Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Trea- weapons. Today, the Bush administra- duction Program, was greeted initially ty, the NPR sent a disturbing signal tion is implementing a departure from by the Bush administration with skep- that we would once again undertake a this bipartisan policy of arms control ticism. The program was placed on testing program. Such a program may by adopting measures that will lower hold for the first year of the adminis- very well be imitated by other nations, the threshold for the use of nuclear tration while the program was under either through perceived need or as a weapons. review. The program was delayed an means to maintain their prestige in the Dissatisfaction with America’s nu- additional year when the administra- nuclear club. In any case, this, too, clear policy by conservatives was evi- tion could not make the certifications would further weaken the restraints dent even before George W. Bush be- necessary for the program to proceed. against the use of nuclear weapons. came President. One of the more dra- The program survived the review and In the context of these dramatic matic examples of this was the rejec- the certification delay but 2 years was changes in policy, rejection of the com- tion of the Comprehensive Nuclear spent on justifying the program rather prehensive test ban treaty and a new Test-Ban Treaty by the Senate in 1999. than aggressively eliminating weapons nuclear policy review that blurs the A particularly revealing aspect of that and weapons material. distinction between conventional and vote was the opposition to a proposal All of this was prelude to the publica- nuclear weapons, the administration to put the treaty aside rather than to tion of the Nuclear Posture Review in proposed last year to begin the design formally defeat it. Deferral would have December of 2001. The review is classi- of a robust nuclear earth penetrator to given a future President the ability to fied and the administration provided use against hard and deeply buried tar- renegotiate aspects of the treaty, such only a cursory nonclassified briefing. gets. This weapons would modify an ex- as verification, that were specifically Public comments by the administra- isting nuclear device. In essence, the criticized. A combination of ideological tion suggest the major shifts in policy kinetic package already in the stock- and political motivations forced a vote included in the review. pile would come out of inventory and that further weakened efforts at arms For the first time, the Nuclear Policy the key work would involve the design control. Indeed, today the defeat of the Review indicates that the United of a casing that could penetrate the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Trea- States is prepared to use nuclear weap- proper depth for the weapon. ty still lingers as something that I ons against nonnuclear nations that The first point to be made is that the think is a serious erosion of arms con- are not aligned with a nuclear power. existing weapons being considered are trol throughout the world and our abil- Previously, the focus of our policy was quite large, on the order of several ity to influence other nations to re- to respond to the nuclear potential of hundred kilotons to over 1 megaton. frain from testing and developing. other nuclear powers and their allies as For a frame of reference, the weapons In a similar vein, Republicans in Con- a means of deterring the use of nuclear dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki gress enacted legislation that fixed the weapons. Today, the United States is were in the range of 14 to 21 kilotons. minimal number of launch vehicles and contemplating the use of nuclear weap- Thus, the smaller of these bunker bust- warheads in order to prevent the Clin- ons against nations that do not possess ers is roughly 25 times the size of the ton administration from initiating re- nuclear weapons. In so doing, the NPR, bombs dropped on Japan. These weap- ductions through negotiations with the the Nuclear Posture Review, blurs dis- ons will bust more than a bunker. The Russians. This legislation was quietly tinctions between conventional and nu- area of destruction will encompass an repealed when President George W. clear weapons. area the size of a city. They are really Bush announced his intention to con- Instead of trying to place nuclear city breakers, not bunker busters. clude the Moscow treaty. The Moscow weapons beyond use or at least se- A further point is the fact that con- treaty seems to be the type of arms verely restricting their use to the de- ventional munitions have substantially control treaty that conservatives can terrence of an attack by a nuclear increased their precision. We have seen be comfortable with since it does not power, the NPR makes them just one that in Iraq rapidly and effectively. Al- actually require the elimination or de- more tool in our tool kit. In so doing, though they have not achieved the struction of nuclear weapons by either it mischaracterizes the horrific effects ability of flying through an open door side. I have heard today repeatedly dis- of nuclear weapons; trying to suggest and taking the elevator down to the cussions of how we are destroying nu- that they are a little bit more than a bunker command center, increased pre- clear weapons. In fact, under the Mos- conventional weapon, when they are of cision means enhanced ability to tar- cow treaty, we are simply redesig- a dimension and scale that is beyond get and destroy entrances and the com- nating nuclear weapons. We are calling the contemplation of anyone who has munication network of a command them operational and nonoperational. used conventional weapons. center or other sensitive target. We are not destroying nuclear weap- The NPR maintains the current size We have much better capacity today ons. of the stockpile of nuclear weapons. with conventional weapons, and many The Bush administration not only ac- Despite the end of the cold war, the would argue these conventional weap- cepted these precedents, but rapidly dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ons could effectively deal with many, if and deliberately built upon them. The emergence of a democratically elected not all, of these potential targets.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 Finally, the recent fighting in Iraq be used. The advent of precision-guided at least two occasions violating this presented our forces with just the type munitions makes attacks on urban obligation before its recent announced of targets that the Robust Nuclear areas more acceptable to leaders. repudiation of the treaty. Earth Penetrator is envisioned to en- Would we have dropped a dumb bomb Critics of the nonproliferation re- gage; deeply buried command centers on Saddam Hussein’s suspected hide- gime frequently fail to acknowledge and possible storage areas for weapons outs in the crowded neighborhoods of that Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, of mass destruction. From preliminary Baghdad? It would have been a much and Taiwan ceased their suspected nu- reports and from casual observations, tougher call. clear program in part because of the it does not appear in any way that our In a similar fashion, as suggested by international law norm represented by military efforts were inhibited by the Ambassador Brooks’ comments, devel- the nonproliferation treaty. lack of a robust nuclear earth pene- oping low-yield nuclear weapons, small Similarly, with the demise of the So- trator. apocalyptic weapons, tilts the scales viet Union, the newly independent Last year Senate Democrats were for use, not for restraint. That is a bal- states of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and able to delay spending money on a ro- ance I think will again jeopardize our Ukraine found themselves in possession bust nuclear earth penetrator by re- situation, not enhance it. of nuclear weapons. All of them volun- quiring a report identifying the types Proponents of this new policy with tarily relinquished their weapons in of targets this weapon is designed to its bias in favor of things that are usa- favor of joining the NPT. Their deci- hold at risk and the employment policy ble, in the Ambassador’s terms, at- sion, at the urging of the United States for the robust nuclear earth pene- tempt to justify their position on sev- and others, reaffirmed the norms of trator. The classified report has been eral grounds. They argue arms control nonproliferation. Indeed, as recently as submitted and the administration is and nonproliferation have failed. We May, 2000, the United States reaffirmed forging ahead. heard the arguments on the floor of the this norm by joining the four other Equally unsettling as the robust nu- Senate all day long. They cite a litany original nuclear powers in declaring clear earth penetrator is the proposal of states that acquired nuclear weap- their commitment to the ‘‘unequivocal by the administration to repeal the ons since the adoption of the Nuclear undertaking’’ to eliminate nuclear ar- 1993 statutory ban on the research, de- Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968: India, senals. velopment, testing, and production of Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, and ap- That affirmation is in stark contrast low-yield nuclear weapons. Current law parently North Korea. But this litany to the legislation before us that seeks prohibits work on weapons with yields must be placed in context. Forty years to expand and enhance our nuclear ar- equal to or less than 5 kilotons. In at- ago when the original nuclear powers— senal. Today, nonproliferation is being tempting to justify this proposal, Am- the United States, the Soviet Union, advocated by the United States as ‘‘do bassador Linton Brooks, Acting Direc- Britain, France, and China—had a mo- what I say,’’ not ‘‘do what I do.’’ Unfor- tor of the National Nuclear Security nopoly on nuclear weapons, it was rou- tunately, the United States is more Administration, NNSA, stated before tinely assumed that proliferation often imitated than obeyed. the Senate Armed Services Committee, would be rapid and irreversible. Presi- Last Saturday, Vladimir Putin’s an- that ‘‘we are seeking to free ourselves dent Kennedy predicted in the early nual address was reported in the Amer- from intellectual prohibitions against 1960s that an additional 25 countries ican media. According to one report: exploring a full range of technical op- might develop nuclear weapons within [Putin] appeared to be responding to the tions.’’ 10 years. This dire prediction did not Bush administration’s new nuclear strategy, Importantly, he did not justify this come true because of efforts at arms announced last year, when he said that Rus- sia, too, was considering developing new proposed work as a current military re- control exemplified by the Nuclear variants of nuclear weapons. quirement. At present, there is no mili- Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Putin declared, in his tary requirement for a low-yield nu- Recently, this point was reiterated words: clear weapon. As I said before, really, by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who stated: Instead of the 25 I can inform you that at present the work low-yield nuclear weapon is a mis- to create new types of Russian weapons, nomer. These are still horrendous, hor- or so countries that President Kennedy weapons of the new generation, including rific weapons. They might better be re- once predicted, only a handful of na- those regarded by specialists as strategic ferred to as small apocalypses, not low- tions possess nuclear weapons. Of weapons, is in the stage of practical imple- yield weapons. course, we suspect many more coun- mentation. More illustrative of the motivation tries have chemical or biological weap- As the newspaper report further indi- behind the efforts is a subsequent ons, but still short of the scores that cated: statement of Ambassador Brooks at have been predicted in the past. [A]nalysts said he [Putin] appeared to be the hearing. The Ambassador declared: We have reached this state of affairs referring to Russia’s efforts to modernize its I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable in no small part through the concerted nuclear arsenal and to develop low yield nu- yield because I have the bias in favor of efforts of many nations, agreements clear weapons. something that is the minimum destruction such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation At this point in the speech, the press . . . I have a bias in favor of things that Treaty and Chemical Weapons Conven- reported that the ‘‘remark was greeted might be usable. tion, organizations such as the IAEA by applause.’’ Let me commend the Ambassador for and nuclear supply groups—these con- I don’t know how comfortable we all his candor and his responsiveness to stitute a global security architecture feel with the Russian Duma applauding the question because I think he has that have served us satisfactorily and the statement that Russia is consid- laid it out very accurately and very kept us safe. ering modernizing their nuclear forces, precisely and very well. No longer are Moreover, of the five states that have potentially developing low-yield nu- we being motivated by a sincere and in- acquired nuclear weapons since 1968, clear weapons. Indeed, it seems terribly tense and consistent desire to try to three—Israel, India, and Pakistan— ironic to me that as we urge support avoid the use of nuclear weapons. We never signed on to the Nuclear Non- and help for the Russians to destroy are trying to design weapons and Proliferation Treaty. In retrospect, their nuclear arsenal, they are simulta- produce weapons that we fully antici- many look back and wish we could neously taking the path we are in try- pate can be used. That is an extraor- have urged them, convinced them, per- ing to create and build a new, more dinary sea change in our policy. And it suaded them, to sign on because it modern arsenal. is a sea change that I think will rever- would have made their ascendency to Acknowledging the important role of berate around the world to our dis- the nuclear ranks that much more dif- the nonproliferation treaty, as I have advantage, not to our security. ficult. over many decades, should not be At the heart of the debate over these South Africa gave up its nuclear equated with assuming the arms con- so-called low-yield nuclear weapons weapons and joined the regime as a trol regime is without shortcomings. A lies the observation, if not the fact, nonpossessor. That leaves the very spe- structure that was designed primarily that the ability to limit collateral cial case of North Korea which joined to moderate the superpower confronta- damage makes a weapon more likely to the NPT in 1985 and has been caught on tion between the United States and the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6693 Soviet Union cannot be expected to Sidney Drell, a noted physicist and and speed makes the use of nuclear adapt to the new threats and new tech- arms control advocate, pointed out weapons less attractive on military nologies of the post-cold-war world that even a 1-kiloton weapon, pene- grounds since we plan for and antici- without conscious and committed ef- trating to 40 feet, would create a crater pate the rapid destruction of enemy forts led by the United States to deal larger than the impact area at the forces and the swift seizure of key po- with these new circumstances. Thus, it World Trade Center and put about 1 litical objectives. The use of nuclear is incumbent on ourselves, the United million cubic feet of radioactive mate- weapons will likely slow us down and States, not simply to walk away from rial in the air. Such radioactivity could increase the cost, both short run and this regime of arms control but to last for many years and would likely be long run, of our operations. adapt it to the new contingencies, the spread over a fairly large area by the In Iraq, we were confronted by a new threats, the new environment of prevailing winds. That is not a small, rogue state. We heard before the hos- this new strategic world. discrete weapon that plows into the tilities of the existence of deep under- The consequences of the detonation ground with a little puff of smoke ema- ground facilities. We were told there of a weapon of mass destruction are so nating. That is a devastating weapon. were significant weapons of mass de- devastating that reliance on military A fourth rationale raised by pro- struction throughout the country. Yet, means alone to deter or preempt such ponents is that permission to develop I don’t think any military commanders an event is shortsighted. Abandoning low-yield nuclear weapons is necessary would have even contemplated the use serious efforts at arms control will to train the next generation of nuclear of low-yield nuclear weapons, or any weaken, not strengthen, our efforts to scientists. This argument ignores the type of nuclear weapon. For one rea- protect the Nation. We must engage, existence of thousands of nuclear weap- son, if we had, we would still be miles again, I believe, in a concerted effort to ons that are available for training pur- away from Baghdad, because we could poses. The ban on low-yield nuclear strengthen these norms of non- not occupy a place that was radiating weapons applies only to the fabrication proliferation, of nonuse—not weaken plutonium. We would have caused sig- of new weapons, not the dismantling them, as this legislation suggests. nificant civilian casualties. We would A second argument used by pro- and study of existing ones. Moreover, have caused a political firestorm that ponents of these policies is that it is the idea that decades of arms control could never be contained in that part just about research; no one would ever efforts would be cast aside simply to of the world and passed across the deploy these weapons. These advocates provide a training exercise should globe. have not been paying attention to the cause a more exhaustive search for These are the practical consider- Bush administration. These are the other training opportunities rather ations that deter us—not the fact that words of Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant than the creation of a new class of nu- we do not have a low-yield weapon. to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear clear weapons. Or, at a minimum, it In addition, the ‘‘deterrent effect’’ Matters, in an interview with the San should prompt a careful exemption may have the opposite effect on these Jose Mercury News, talking in the con- from the ban for the purpose of re- rogue nations, as we think we are text of the development of a ‘‘hydrogen search, and not the wholesale repeal of going to deter them. bomb that can be successfully designed the ban that is included in this legisla- Indeed, as Michael May, the former to survive a crash through the hard tion before us. head of Lawrence Livermore National rock or concrete and still explode,’’ A fifth rationale advanced by sup- Laboratory, suggested, the emphasis which is an earth penetrator. Mr. Celec porters is the possible use of a low- on tactical nuclear weapons ‘‘increases concludes, in his words, if we can do it, yield nuclear device to attack a facil- the motivation of ’targeted states’ to ‘‘it will ultimately get fielded.’ ity that contains biological or chem- So this is not about hypothetical re- ical agents. The theory is that the ra- improve and extend their own nuclear search; it is not about a big science diation can destroy the biological or force, or to get one if they don’t have project, or training scientists. In the chemical agents in addition to destroy- it.’’ view of a very influential member of ing the facility. But this rationale begs The behavior of North Korea and the Department of Defense, it is about two questions. What will destroy the Iran, although clearly unjustified, getting weapons we can put in the radiation emitted by the nuclear blast might be prompted by such consider- field. I can’t think of any weapon that and why are precision-guided missiles ations. The amendment I offer today is de- we would field, that we would place in not as suitable a response? Once again, the hands of American military per- this is the very specialized threat that signed to do what I heard practically sonnel, that we wouldn’t test first. So may be dealt with by other means and all of my colleagues say was the intent we are also talking about testing. is an attempt to deal with the possi- of this proposal by the administra- These are grave—not just possibili- bility of chemical and biological expo- tion—to allow scientists to do research ties, but if you listen to the spokesman sure through the release of a definite but clearly to prevent the develop- of the administration, these are right radiological exposure. It is not a com- ment, the testing, the fielding, and the over the horizon. I think it is very dis- pelling reason to abandon the ban on use of nuclear weapons, particularly turbing. That is why I think we have to low-yield nuclear weapons. low-yield nuclear weapons. act here to exercise our judgment and A final justification for the develop- The amendment I offer today would our responsibility to ensure that our ment of low-yield nuclear weapons is amend the current Spratt-Furse law so policy is consistent with the best inter- that it will act as a deterrent. Pro- that research is allowed. Work beyond ests of this country. I hope, through ponents argue that our existing nu- research would, however, remain pro- consideration of this amendment, we clear weapons are so large that we are hibited. will do that. self-deterred from using them and our Since 1953, the Department of Energy A third point that seems implicit in adversaries know this. But with new, and the Department of Defense have many of the arguments that are made low-yield weapons, our adversaries will worked in a very formalized weapons on behalf of these weapons is the no- have renewed concern that we will em- development process. In the DOE nu- tion that nuclear weapons can be de- ploy nuclear weapons. clear weapons development process signed so their use is, if not relatively Several points are in order. First, in there are a series of numbered phases benign, then at least tolerable. the war on terror, our adversaries are of development. They are pictured in As previously discussed, the proposed unlikely to be deterred by any size nu- this chart. The top chart represents modification of existing weapons to clear weapon, due to their fanaticism the development of a new weapon. create a robust nuclear earth pene- and the practical problem of targeting There are eight phases as indicated in trator is anything but benign or toler- them. In a confrontation with rogue the chart. The bottom array is the de- able. It will pack an explosive punch at states, the targeting problem is easier, velopment of or modification of an ex- least 25 times that of Nagasaki or Hiro- but the use of nuclear weapons of any isting weapon such as the case would shima, and even if technology and the size presents difficult tactical prob- be with the robust nuclear earth pene- Congress allows for a smaller yield ro- lems. trator. It is coming out of the stock- bust nuclear earth penetrator, its use Our doctrine of air superiority, infor- pile, but it is still subject to the same will be devastating. mation dominance, precision weapons, clearly defined phases that have been

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 defined now for almost 50 years, con- search of new nuclear weapons for the of these weapons, what the world will cept assessment, feasibility, all the first time since 1993. We have removed believe—and I think accurately—is way through retirement. a prohibition on research which could that it is not just research, it is devel- The amendment I offer today would lead to the production of nuclear weap- opment. Then, in the words of Fred prohibit ‘‘development engineering,’’ ons. This is a major shift, in my judg- Celec, the Deputy Assistant Secretary which is phase 3, or phase 6.3. Again, ment, a terribly mistaken shift in pol- on nuclear matters: It will get fielded. these are clearly identified phases. icy because of the message it so clearly Now, the opponents of the last There will be no confusion in the De- sends to the world that we are now amendment said: Well, that is not what partment of Energy or in the Depart- going to walk down the road we are we are trying to do here. We are not ment of Defense as to what is prohib- telling the rest of the world not to trying to make any commitment to ited, what is allowed, and what is al- walk down. fielding a weapon or even developing a lowed as ‘‘reasonable.’’ That is what I The amendment which has been of- weapon. All we are talking about is re- have heard consistently my colleagues fered by Senator REED, of which I am a search. And since the Spratt amend- say, that the whole purpose of this pro- cosponsor, starts from that point. How- ment prohibits research on weapons posal by the administration and the de- ever, as the Senator from Rhode Island which could lead to their deployment velopment phases are well understood. just described, it does not seek in any and to their production, we think the They have been in use for 50 years. The way to reverse what the Senate just Spratt amendment simply goes too far phases were developed jointly by the did relative to the research that the and should be repealed. Atomic Energy Commission, the prede- opponents of the Feinstein-Kennedy So what the Senator from Rhode Is- cessor to the DOE, and the Department amendment said was so important to land does in his amendment is say: of Defense in a memorandum of under- protect. It accepts the decision of the Well, then, for Heaven’s sake, con- standing signed in 1953. Senate and the opponents of the Fein- sistent with that—and to avoid sending Again, my amendment is very clear. stein-Kennedy amendment—the argu- a message which even the opponents of It allows phase 1, phase 2, and phase 2– ment made that research should not be the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment A activity for a new weapon. The red prohibited. Senator REED’s amendment said they do not want to send—let us line comes at phase 3. It would allow does not prohibit research. Rather, it keep the prohibition on the develop- phase 6.1, 6.2, and 6.2–A. The red line says we should not allow the develop- ment of new nuclear weapons. That is phase comes at 6.3 for the modification ment of these new weapons and, of all the amendment offered by Senator of existing weapons. Research is al- course, any subsequent testing or de- REED does. lowed, and everything else is prohib- ployment of those weapons; that if we It seems to me it is the least we can ited. are going to let the world know we are do to avoid sending a signal from the The amendment is designed to allow not committed to the deployment and U.S. Senate that this country is now what, as I said, the Bush administra- the development of new weapons, we going down a road that we are saying tion claims is a primary reason to seek have to send a clear signal to the world no country should go down, which is the repeal of the Spratt-Furse law—the of some kind that even though research the road of new nuclear weapons. need to ‘‘train the next generation of would be allowed, nonetheless we are The former Assistant Energy Sec- nuclear weapons scientists and engi- not going to raise the prohibition or retary, Rose Gottemoeller, in March of neers.’’ I and many of my colleagues do not lift the prohibition on the development 2003 put it this way: support providing an open-ended au- of new nuclear weapons. Other countries watch us like a hawk. thority to this or any other adminis- I believe it was a mistake to repeal They are very, very attentive to what we do tration to develop, test, produce, and the Spratt-Furse language. I think in the nuclear arena. This is going to be con- sidered another step in the tectonic shift. deploy new nuclear weapons. Unless we what we are doing is telling the North adopt this amendment or some vari- Koreas and the Irans of the world that She was referring to the repeal of the ance of the amendment, that is pre- we are not going to tolerate your hav- Spratt-Furse language. cisely what we will be giving the ad- ing nuclear weapons, but we are going I think people abroad will interpret this as ministration. to develop new nuclear weapons our- part of a really enthusiastic effort by the The amendment would address the selves. It is a totally inconsistent posi- Bush administration to renuclearize. And I primary concern of ADM Ellis, Com- tion. It undermines our whole position think definitely there’s going to be an impe- and our standing in the world to argue tus to the development of nuclear weapons mander of Strategic Command, the around the world. command responsible for nuclear weap- that nations such as North Korea and The greatest threat we face is the ons. Iran should not be allowed to have nu- In a letter to the Armed Services clear weapons. terrorist threat and the proliferation of Committee, ADM Ellis stated that the It is mighty difficult to persuade weapons of mass destruction. We ‘‘U.S. Strategic Command is interested even our Allies in the world that we should do what we can to avoid sending in conducting rigorous studies of all should take strong measures to stop a signal to the world that we are com- new technologies and examining the North Korea from getting nuclear mitted to the development of new nu- merits of precision, increased penetra- weapons, and we should take strong clear weapons. The prohibition now has tion, and reduced yield for our nuclear measures to stop Iran from getting nu- been lifted on research and develop- weapons.’’ clear weapons, including working with ment of new nuclear weapons, which Nowhere is there a suggestion that the Russians to try to stop Iran from could lead to their production. he would like the permission to de- getting nuclear weapons, but, oh, by Unless we adopt the Reed amend- velop the test in the field of new weap- the way, we are going to do research ment, it will appear to the world—ac- ons. and development on new nuclear weap- curately—that this Senate is com- Again, if we are serious about arms ons. mitted to the development of new nu- control, and if we recognize the request As the Senator from Rhode Island clear weapons. I hope we are not going for less stability in research, this and others have said, this isn’t just a to make that commitment. It would be amendment will be adopted. I hope it matter of research, because the Deputy a terrible mistake for what it would is. I would prefer, frankly, the restora- Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nu- unleash. tion completely of the Spratt-Furse clear Matters puts it this way: ‘‘If a hy- In order to avoid that commitment amendment. But this will, I think, do drogen bomb could be successfully de- from being made, or from appearing to what must be done—prevent develop- signed to survive a crash through hard be made, to the rest of the world, we ment, testing, and fielding of new nu- rock and still explode, it will ulti- need the Reed language, which says clear weapons of the low-yield type. mately get fielded’’—I presume speak- that we are going to keep the prohibi- I yield the floor. ing for the administration. tion of Spratt-Furse from the develop- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- So nobody should be, in any way, ment stage on. ator from Michigan. fooled that what we are talking about The Senate has spoken relative to re- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Sen- is just simply research. Unless we put a search. The words again of the oppo- ate has just voted to authorize the re- prohibition in to stop the development nents, who have said: My Heavens,

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6695 under Spratt-Furse, you can’t even do come back and get an authorization to ator from Virginia, which I understand the research. Surely, we ought to allow proceed. I think that is correct. is really a substitute. scientists to think. Mr. WARNER. I do not want to get Mr. WARNER. My esteemed col- The Reed amendment is consistent tangled up in the terminology, but the league is absolutely correct. with what the opponents of Feinstein- bill, as passed out by the Armed Serv- Mr. LEVIN. When the Senator says it Kennedy said was their main reason for ices Committee that is pending before reimposes the limitation on develop- opposing the prohibition that exists in us, repeals, in the entirety, the law ment, the Senator is correct. It does do law. So I would hope that we could that was passed in 1994. that. adopt the language that is in Senator Then you are coming along and say- Mr. WARNER. Which amendment are REED’s amendment, to indicate we, in ing: All right, I cede the ground that you discussing? The Reed amendment? fact, are not committed to the develop- was authorized by this bill that just Mr. LEVIN. The Reed amendment, ment of new nuclear weapons, and that passed, but I wish to reimpose the limi- according to my dear friend from Vir- we would not march down a road when tation on the subsequent steps to the ginia, would reimpose the prohibition we tell other nations they must not research. on development that was just repealed march down that road. All I am saying is, let’s be consistent. in the bill’s language and left in be- I yield the floor. We have repealed. Leave it repealed. cause of the defeat of the Feinstein The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- But insert the Congress at precisely amendment. That is correct. ator from Virginia. the point the Senator raises there and Mr. WARNER. First, it has to be re- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have say: Not one step more until the au- moved and nothing has been removed listened very carefully to the argu- thorization and appropriation takes yet. The law of the land remains the ments by my two distinguished col- place. same tonight as it has been since 1994. leagues, the Senator from Rhode Island Mr. REED. Essentially, the func- We are endeavoring to see what should and the Senator from Michigan. tional difference between my amend- be done about it. The bill reported out The Senate has acted on repealing a ment and your second degree is, at this by our committee on a fairly signifi- portion of the ban, and I think it is im- point, under my amendment the ad- cant vote in favor of repeal would have portant that the Senate be consistent ministration would have to come and the effect of repealing it in its entirety. and that it should be a total repeal un- lift the prohibition; under your amend- Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. less it could be construed as not being ment, they would have to come and get Mr. WARNER. My amendment says, the intention of the Congress to fully an authorization. I think that is the yes, carry forward with the intent of support the actions of the research in functional difference. the majority vote in the Senate Armed the first two steps. Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator is Services Committee but put in the My second-degree amendment would correct. steps of Congress having to authorize allow the entire repeal, as called for in Mr. REED. Let me say, if I may, and approve funds for each step subse- the bill, to take place. But very impor- again, we are united in the notion of quent to research. tantly, I then make it eminently clear allowing the research in these first Mr. LEVIN. And the Senator’s that not one step can go beyond the re- three phases. We choose a different way amendment is useful. search phase unless—and I read section to control government access in the Mr. WARNER. Which Senator’s? (c): succeeding phases. But the effect, I Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Vir- hope, at the end of the deliberations is The Secretary of Energy may not com- ginia, the Senator I am addressing. mence the engineering development phase, that the development, engineering, Mr. WARNER. I wish we were argu- or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nu- testing, and deployment of nuclear ing that case. Both of us were trial clear weapon unless specifically authorized weapons of low-yield will be subject to lawyers. If you had made that mistake by Congress. congressional authority. on the floor of a trial courtroom, I Laws should be written that are Mr. WARNER. I think the advan- would have you nailed right now. clear, so they are understandable. This tages, if I may say with respect to my Mr. LEVIN. I am glad we are not in second-degree amendment absolutely two highly esteemed colleagues, are a trial courtroom because you surely places in the mind of every reasonable that the second-degree amendment can don’t have me nailed here. person who reads it precisely what is be understood by anyone who can in- Mr. WARNER. You are working your the intent of the Congress. And that in- terpret the English language. way around trying to figure out ex- tent is that this is approved to go for- When I look at your amendment—I actly what it is you and the distin- ward in the vote we have just taken. In have been over here working it and re- guished Senator from Rhode Island the second degree amendment to the working it—it leaves a little bit of a want to do. pending amendment, it is clear that challenge. Mr. LEVIN. It is quite clear what the Mr. REED. If the chairman will yield, Congress is fully in charge, working Senator from Rhode Island and I want that is why I have this chart, which is with the executive branch. The Con- to do, which is maintain a prohibition quite obvious, and it absolutely could gress, and only the Congress, can au- on the development of new nuclear explain your amendment, too. weapons. The difference is exactly thorize and appropriate the funds nec- I will lend it to you. essary to go one step beyond what the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- what the Senator from Rhode Island earlier amendment provided. ator from Michigan. said, which is that his amendment, Very simple. I do not need to prolong Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am just which I have cosponsored, maintains a this argument. The second degree comparing the two amendments. It prohibition on development; whereas amendment is eminently clear. seems to me in terms of directives, the the amendment of the Senator from Mr. REED. Will the chairman yield simplicity of the Reed amendment has Virginia says the administration would for a question? it all over the amendment of the Sen- have to come back for reauthorization. Mr. WARNER. Absolutely. ator from Virginia. It is shorter than The Senator from Virginia’s amend- Mr. REED. I think I understand your the Senator’s amendment, if I am read- ment is valuable. As a matter of fact, I second degree, but if I could, just for a ing this amendment correctly. I want offered the amendment the Senator moment—my amendment authorizes to make sure I have the right amend- from Virginia is offering tonight in research activities in phases 1, 2, and 2– ment before I make this statement. It committee. It was defeated by one A, and 6.1, 6.2, and 6.2–A, and then pro- looks like on page 2 at least there are vote. hibits the following phases. Your 10 lines of type; is that correct? Am I Mr. WARNER. In the committee? amendment would authorize work in looking at the correct amendment? Mr. LEVIN. In our committee I of- these phases. Mr. REED. I believe you are. fered the amendment saying, come I think the difference is that rather Mr. LEVIN. On the first page. back for reauthorization because under than a clear prohibition, which would Mr. REED. It reads ‘‘03.857’’ on the the circumstances, having defeated require someone coming back to the upper left hand. what we just had previously defeated in Congress and seeking to repeal the pro- Mr. LEVIN. Correct. It is at least as committee, I thought that was the best hibition, you would require them to simple as the amendment of the Sen- that could be achieved. And we could

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S6696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 20, 2003 not achieve that because it was de- ability of not repealing this current ‘‘(B) The performance criteria prescribed feated by a 13-to-12 vote. I don’t doubt prohibition in its entirety. under subsection (b). there is value to what the Senator I have no further comments with re- ‘‘(C) The plans and schedules established from Virginia is doing. spect to the pending amendments. and approved for operational testing under The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who subsection (c). Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I apolo- ‘‘(D) The annual assessment of the progress gize. I did not intend to plagiarize your seeks recognition? The Senator from being made toward verifying performance good work. Suffering from a middle-age Rhode Island. through operational testing, as prepared crisis, I forgot that you might have Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe under subsection (d). done that. on the amendment that I offered ear- ‘‘(2) The information provided under para- Mr. LEVIN. I am delighted that the lier today on missile defense, we have graph (1) shall be submitted in an unclassi- Senator from Virginia has offered this reached agreement. It might be appro- fied form, but may include a classified annex as a second-degree amendment. Believe priate at this time to call up the as necessary. amendment. ‘‘(b) PERFORMANCE CRITERIA.—(1) The Di- me, if the amendment of the Senator rector of the Missile Defense Agency shall from Rhode Island is defeated by the Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am prescribe measurable performance criteria adoption of the amendment of the Sen- perfectly willing. That is a very good for all planned development phases (known ator from Virginia as a substitute, all suggestion. as ‘‘blocks’’) of each ballistic missile defense of us would be very supportive of the Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will lay system program element. The performance amendment of the Senator from Vir- aside the pending amendment. We are criteria shall be updated as necessary while ginia. Let it be clear that while there trying to identify the numbers so we the program and any follow-on program re- is value in it, there is not as much can call up the amendment. main in development. I suggest the absence of a quorum. ‘‘(2) The performance criteria prescribed value in it as the amendment of the under paragraph (1) for a block of a program Senator from Rhode Island. It is not as The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. for a system shall include, at a minimum, clear a statement to the world that we the following: are not committed to the development The legislative clerk proceeded to ‘‘(A) One or more criteria that specifically of new nuclear weapons. call the roll. describe, in relation to that block, the types What the Reed amendment says is: Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unan- and quantities of threat missiles for which Development of these new weapons is imous consent that the order for the the system is being designed as a defense, in- prohibited. That is a very clear state- quorum call be rescinded. cluding the types and quantities of the coun- ment. The clarity of that statement is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without termeasures assumed to be employed for the objection, it is so ordered. protection of the threat missiles. absolutely pure. It is a lot clearer in ‘‘(B) One or more criteria that specifically AMENDMENT NO. 711 terms of assuring the world that we are describe, in relation to that block, the in- not committed to the development of Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unan- tended effectiveness of the system against new nuclear weapons than is a state- imous consent to lay aside the pending the threat missiles and countermeasures ment such as the amendment offered amendment and call up amendment No. identified for the purposes of subparagraph by the Senator from Virginia which is, 711. (A). if you want to develop, come back to us The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without ‘‘(c) OPERATIONAL TEST PLANS.—The Direc- objection, it is so ordered. tor of Operational Test and Evaluation, in for authorization. consultation with the Director of the Missile I say that in all sincerity. I look the The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: Defense Agency, shall establish and approve Senator from Virginia in the eye and for each ballistic missile defense system pro- say: His amendment, in my book, has The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED], gram element appropriate plans and sched- value but not nearly the value of the for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. FEIN- ules for operational testing to determine amendment of the Senator from Rhode GOLD, proposes an amendment numbered 711. whether the performance criteria prescribed Island. The amendment is as follows: for the program under subsection (b) have I hope we will adopt the amendment (Purpose: To provide under section 223 for been met. The test plans shall include an es- of the Senator from Rhode Island and oversight of procurement, performance cri- timate of when successful performance of the system in accordance with each performance defeat the substitute offered by the teria, and operational test plans for bal- listic missile defense programs) criterion is to be verified by operational Senator from Virginia. But should the testing. The test plans for a program shall be substitute prevail, I would in all good Strike section 223, and insert the fol- lowing: updated as necessary while the program and conscience vote for the substitute any follow-on program remain in develop- SEC. 223. OVERSIGHT OF PROCUREMENT, PER- amendment if, in fact, it is substituted FORMANCE CRITERIA, AND OPER- ment. for the amendment of the Senator from ATIONAL TEST PLANS FOR BAL- ‘‘(d) ANNUAL TESTING PROGRESS REPORTS.— Rhode Island. LISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PRO- The Director of Operational Test and Eval- Nonetheless, there is a much strong- GRAMS. uation shall perform an annual assessment (a) PROCUREMENT.—(1) Chapter 9 of title 10, of the progress being made toward verifying er statement made of reassurance to United States Code, is amended by inserting through operational testing the performance the world, a statement to the North after section 223 the following new section: of the system under a missile defense system Koreas and the Irans of the world, that ‘‘§ 223a. Ballistic missile defense programs: program as measured by the performance we are not committed to developing procurement criteria prescribed for the program under subsection (b). new nuclear weapons, if we say exactly ‘‘(a) BUDGET JUSTIFICATION MATERIALS.—(1) that. That is what the amendment of In the budget justification materials sub- ‘‘(e) FUTURE-YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM.— the Senator from Rhode Island says. mitted to Congress in support of the Depart- The future-years defense program submitted We are not going to proceed with the ment of Defense budget for any fiscal year to Congress each year under section 221 of (as submitted with the budget of the Presi- this title shall include an estimate of the development, even though we are going amount necessary for procurement for each to allow research on these new nuclear dent under section 1105(a) of title 31), the Secretary of Defense shall specify, for each ballistic missile defense system element, to- weapons. gether with a discussion of the underlying I hope, again, the substitute is not ballistic missile defense system element, the following information: factors and reasoning justifying the esti- agreed to and that the amendment of ‘‘(A) For each ballistic missile defense ele- mate.’’. (2) The table of contents at the beginning the Senator from Rhode Island is ment for which the Missile Defense Agency of such chapter 9 is amended by inserting agreed to. in engaged in planning for production and after the item relating to section 223 the fol- Again, I commend the Senator from initial fielding, the following information: lowing new item: Virginia because I do think that there ‘‘(i) The production rate capabilities of the is a contribution in his substitute production facilities planned to be used. ‘‘223a. Ballistic missile defense programs: amendment which is better than just ‘‘(ii) The potential date of availability of procurement.’’. simply repealing the Spratt-Furse lan- the element for initial fielding. (b) EXCEPTION FOR FIRST ASSESSMENT.—For ‘‘(iii) The expected costs of the initial pro- the first assessment required under sub- guage. duction and fielding planned for the element. section (d) of section 223a of title 10, United Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank ‘‘(iv) The estimated date on which the ad- States Code (as added by subsection (a))— my colleague for what I interpret as ministration of the acquisition of the ele- (1) the budget justification materials sub- kind words. We remain to have a dif- ment is to be transferred to the Secretary of mitted to Congress in support of the Depart- ference of opinion as to the advis- a military department. ment of Defense budget for fiscal year 2005

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY May 20, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6697 (as submitted with the budget of the Presi- for each ballistic missile defense system ele- So I compliment my good friend and dent under section 1105(a) of title 31, United ment appropriate plans and schedules for fellow member of the Armed Services States Code) need not include such assess- operational testing. The test plans shall in- Committee, as well as the Senator clude an estimate of when successful per- ment; and from Colorado. They did a job that will (2) the Director of Operational Test and formance of the element in accordance with Evaluation shall submit the assessment to each performance criterion is to be verified be helpful. the Committees on Armed Services of the by operational testing. The test plans for a The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Senate and the House of Representatives not program may be updated as necessary while objection, the amendment, as modified, later than July 31, 2004. the program and any follow-on program re- is agreed to. main in development. The amendment (No. 711), as modi- Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent ‘‘(d) ANNUAL TESTING PROGRESS.— The an- to add as cosponsors Senators FEIN- nual report of the Director of Operational fied, was agreed to. GOLD and FEINSTEIN. Test and Evaluation required under section Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 232(h) of the National Defense Authorization vote. objection, it is so ordered. Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107; Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that mo- 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) shall include the fol- AMENDMENT NO. 711, AS MODIFIED tion on the table. lowing: The motion to lay on the table was Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unan- ‘‘(1) The test plans established under sub- imous consent that the amendment be agreed to. section (c); and Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for modified with the changes at the desk. ‘‘(2) An assessment of the progress being the yeas and nays on the substitute The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WAR- made toward verifying through operational amendment of Senator WARNER. NER). The Senator has that right. testing the performance of the system under The amendment is so modified. a missile defense system program as meas- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a The amendment (No. 711), as modi- ured by the performance criteria prescribed sufficient second? fied, is as follows: for the program under subsection (b). There is a sufficient second. ‘‘(e) FUTURE-YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM.— The yeas and nays were ordered. Strike section 223, and insert the fol- The future-years defense program submitted lowing: Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as a to Congress each year under section 221 of simple courtesy, I ask for the yeas and SEC. 223. OVERSIGHT OF PROCUREMENT, PER- this title shall include an estimate of the FORMANCE CRITERIA, AND OPER- amount necessary for procurement for each nays on the amendment of the Senator ATIONAL TEST PLANS FOR BAL- ballistic missile defense system element, to- from Rhode Island. LISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PRO- GRAMS. gether with a discussion of the underlying The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in factors and reasoning justifying the esti- (a) PROCUREMENT.—(1) Chapter 9 of title 10, order to request the yeas and nays on United States Code, is amended by inserting mate.’’. the underlying first degree amend- (2) The table of contents at the beginning after section 223 the following new section: ment. of such chapter 9 is amended by inserting ‘‘§ 223a. Ballistic missile defense programs: after the item relating to section 223 the fol- Is there is a sufficient second? There procurement lowing new item: is a sufficient second. ‘‘(a) BUDGET JUSTIFICATION MATERIALS.—(1) ‘‘223a. Ballistic missile defense programs: The yeas and nays were ordered. In the budget justification materials sub- procurement.’’. Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. mitted to Congress in support of the Depart- (b) EXCEPTION FOR FIRST ASSESSMENT.— This concludes the matters on the bill. ment of Defense budget for any fiscal year The first assessment required under sub- f (as submitted with the budget of the Presi- section (d) of section 223a of title 10, United dent under section 1105(a) of title 31), the States Code (as added by subsection (a)), MORNING BUSINESS Secretary of Defense shall specify, for each shall be an interim assessment submitted to Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask ballistic missile defense system element, the the Committees on Armed Services of the unanimous consent that the Senate following information: Senate and the House of Representatives not proceed to a period of morning busi- ‘‘(A) For each ballistic missile defense ele- later than July 31, 2004. ment for which the Missile Defense Agency ness. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TAL- in engaged in planning for production and The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without initial fielding, the following information: ENT). Will the Senator suggest the na- objection, it is so ordered. ture of the modification? ‘‘(i) The production rate capabilities of the f production facilities planned to be used. Mr. REED. The staffs have been col- ‘‘(ii) The potential date of availability of laborating all day. They have reached CONGRATULATING CHARLES the element for initial fielding. an agreement. The modifications make MICHAEL DURISHIN ‘‘(iii) The expected costs of the initial pro- it clear that goals will be established Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today duction and fielding planned for the element. with respect to the National Missile I offer my deepest gratitude and sin- ‘‘(iv) The estimated date on which the ad- Defense Program. The modifications ministration of the acquisition of the ele- cere congratulations to Charles Mi- are acceptable to the majority and mi- chael Durishin, Democratic staff direc- ment is to be transferred to the Secretary of nority. I believe we have a meeting of a military department. tor of the House Veterans’ Affairs Com- ‘‘(B) The performance criteria prescribed the minds on all the details. mittee, on the occasion of his retire- Mr. WARNER. The Senator is cor- under subsection (b). ment, last Friday. A good friend and a rect. The modification was reviewed on ‘‘(2) The information provided under para- consummate professional, Mike has this side, and we are prepared to accept graph (1) shall be submitted in an unclassi- served in various capacities in Con- fied form, but may include a classified annex the amendment. as necessary. Mr. REED. I urge acceptance of the gress since 1973, including most of the ‘‘(b) PERFORMANCE CRITERIA.—(1) The Di- amendment at this time. last 16 years with the House Veterans’ rector of the Missile Defense Agency shall Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I com- Affairs Committee. prescribe measurable performance criteria mend the Senator from Rhode Island I met Mike in 1972 on the Senate for all planned development phases (known and all those who worked with him to campaign of Jim Abourezk. We were as ‘‘blocks’’) of the ballistic missile defense make this amendment possible. It is a hired within days of each other by Pete system and each of its elements. The per- significant contribution to making our Stavrianos, one of my close friends and formance criteria may be updated as nec- my longtime chief of staff. Mike and I essary while the program and any follow-on missile defense system more effective, program remain in development. both in terms of the cost and oper- quickly became friends on the cam- ‘‘(2) The performance criteria prescribed ational effectiveness. It fills some very paign and, after the election, came to for a block under paragraph (1) shall include important holes that otherwise would Washington together to work on Sen- one or more criteria that specifically de- have existed, and it is his tenacity that ator Abourezk’s staff. I so respected his scribe, in relation to that block, the in- made it possible. work that he was one of the first peo- tended effectiveness against foreign adver- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier ple I hired to join my own staff when I sary capabilities, including a description of today, when the amendment was being was elected to the House of Represent- countermeasures, for which the system is discussed, I did encourage the Senator atives in 1978. Mike worked with me, being designed as a defense. ‘‘(c) OPERATIONAL TEST PLANS.—The Direc- from Rhode Island and the Senator covering veterans issues, until 1986. At tor of Operational Test and Evaluation, in from Colorado to see whether or not that time, I was a member of the House consultation with the Director of the Missile they could bridge the gap. They have Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and Mike Defense Agency, shall establish and approve done that. matriculated to the committee staff.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:40 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S20MY3.REC S20MY3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY