September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11435 them in pointing out my special con- ing: What we ought to do is take a look STEIN, this afternoon, will be con- cern about what is happening with re- at earth-penetrating, bunker-buster troversial and will be debated. I respect spect to nuclear weapons. nuclear weapons. What a wonderful people who do not share my own opin- We have roughly 30,000 nuclear weap- idea that is, they say. ion on this issue, but I feel very strong- ons in the world—30,000 nuclear weap- Well, the best scientists tell us you ly that the only conceivable future for ons, the use of any one of which would cannot penetrate the earth much more nuclear weapons—for my children and cause a catastrophe, as all of us know. than 45 or 60 feet; you just can’t. But grandchildren and yours—is to try to So we have had what we call a doctrine they are talking about nuclear weap- prevent nuclear weapons from ever of mutually assured destruction for a ons up to 1 megaton, 60 to 70 times big- again being used. That is the only long, long while, with the other nu- ger than the Hiroshima bomb. That is thoughtful and conceivable future that clear superpower believing no one what they talk about here: earth-pene- will not address the future of this would be able to use a nuclear weapon trating, bunker-buster nuclear weap- world in a very negative way. in an attack because they would be ob- ons. That means this country would We must use our leadership capabili- literated by the other side. build a nuclear weapon that we could ties. We are a great country and a That doctrine of mutually assured actually use, not to deter someone else mighty country. We must use our capa- destruction has lasted for well over a from using it, but a nuclear weapon bilities to persuade others that the use half century. There are many in the that would be a useful weapon for de- of nuclear weapons is not something world that aspire to achieve nuclear signer purposes. If you have a bunker that is thinkable or conceivable. We weapons for their own use—terrorists that you can’t bust, lob over a nuclear must exert every energy to stop the and other countries. weapon. spread of nuclear weapons to so many The world depends on us and on our Here is a picture of what a 100-kil- others who want to obtain them in a leadership to stop the spread of nuclear oton nuclear explosion 635 feet under- way that would be destructive to our weapons. There is no—I repeat, there is ground does at the surface. These are long-term interests. no—duty that is more important, in not tiny, little designer nuclear weap- I yield the floor. my judgment, than for this country to ons. These are huge explosions. f use its leadership capability to stop the The explosion shown on this picture spread of nuclear weapons. For surely, was 635 feet underground. Likely, a ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- if nuclear weapons proliferate in this bunker-buster weapon would be deto- MENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, world, they will, one day, be used, and nated at 50 to 60 feet underground. 2004 when used in anger will persuade oth- The point is this: We have a responsi- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under ers to use them; and this Earth will not bility in this country, it seems to me, the previous order, the hour of 2:30 p.m. be the kind of Earth that we recognize on these policies to exhibit great re- having arrived, the Senate will resume in the future. straint. We have countries in the world consideration of H.R. 2754, which the The Energy and Water appropriations that do have nuclear weapons, and we clerk will report. bill contains certain money to develop worry a great deal about them using The assistant legislative clerk read new bunker-buster nuclear weapons them. India and Pakistan each have as follows: and to come up with so-called advanced nuclear weapons. They don’t like each A bill (H.R. 2754) making appropriations concepts for new more ‘‘useable’’ nu- other very much. There have been mo- for energy and water development for the fis- clear weapons, and it has money to ments when we have been very con- cal year ending September 30, 2004, and for make it easier to end the ban on test- cerned about the command and control other purposes. ing so we would begin testing once of nuclear weapons in some other coun- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- again. tries. ator from New Mexico. This is, in my judgment, reckless dis- Our job, at this point, is not to be Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when cussion, reckless talk. It certainly falls talking about building new nuclear we called this bill up, we called up the under the rubric of free speech and free weapons: low-yield nuclear weapons, House version. I ask unanimous con- debate, but I happen to think this bunker-buster, earth-penetrator nu- sent that all after the enacting clause country ought to say to the rest of the clear weapons, to begin testing nuclear be stricken, the text of Calendar No. world: We want to reduce the number weapons. Our job, it seems to me, is to 213, S. 1424, the Senate committee-re- of nuclear weapons, No. 1. And we don’t talk about restraint. ported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof; need to develop new nuclear weapons. We have all the nuclear weapons we the bill, as amended, be considered as We have far more than anyone needs. will ever need, well over 10,000, both original text for the purpose of further And second, the last thing we ought to theater and strategic nuclear weapons. amendments; provided that no points do is to suggest to anyone there is a We do not need to be building more. We of order be waived by reason of this green light for anyone to use, at any do not need to talk about using nuclear agreement. time, under any circumstances, nuclear weapons. Those who talk about build- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without weapons. ing specific-use nuclear weapons and objection, it is so ordered. Here on this chart is what the House saying there is a use for actual employ- Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I of Representatives said in their report ment of nuclear weapons in conflict, understand it, the energy and water ap- recently about the administration’s that is not, in my judgment, in the propriations bill, as reported out plans for nuclear weapons: long-term interests of this world or unanimously by the subcommittee and It appears to the Committee the Depart- Committee on Appropriations, is pend- ment is proposing to rebuild, restart, and this country. I hope we will exhibit redo and otherwise exercise every capability much more restraint than that. ing. One amendment—there may be that was used over the past forty years of I know some will say: Well, we are others—we are awaiting is a Feinstein, the Cold War and at the same time prepare simply beginning research on some of et al., amendment to be offered and de- for a future with an expanded mission for nu- these issues. I say we do not need to re- bated. I don’t believe it serves any pur- clear weapons. search earth-penetrating, bunker-bust- pose for the Senator from New Mexico As indicated on this other chart, here er nuclear weapons. That is not in our to discuss the issue until the amend- is the stockpile of nuclear weapons— country’s interest, with due respect. ment is offered. As a consequence, I am roughly 30,000. We have about 10,000; What we ought to do is to exhibit going to yield the floor and put in a the Russians have about 18,000—you every ounce of energy that we can and quorum call, with the full under- can see a few others around—the use of that we have to try to stop the spread standing that Senator FEINSTEIN in- any one of which or the stealing of any of nuclear weapons, so that, God forbid, tends to offer shortly her amendment. one of which or the loss of any one of other countries do not acquire nuclear And from what I understand, an hour which to a terrorist group or a rogue weapons, and then begin to work to re- later, at about 3:30, the distinguished nation would be devastating if they duce the number of nuclear weapons Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. KEN- were to detonate. around the rest of the world. NEDY, is going to speak in support of The people who are talking about de- I know the amendment that will be the Feinstein amendment. In between veloping new nuclear weapons are say- offered by my colleague Senator FEIN- those, I will speak, and there may very

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 well—either this afternoon before we opening the nuclear door. They are modifying the readiness posture of the Ne- recess and go into morning business, or doing this to develop essentially a new vada Test Site, Nevada, for the resumption early in the morning—be other Sen- generation of nuclear weapons. They by the United States of underground nuclear ators on either side who might want to call them low yield. It is contained in weapons tests from the current readiness of posture of 24 months to 36 months to a new speak to this issue. I am not totally words such as ‘‘advanced concepts.’’ readiness posture of 18 months or any other aware of that. Essentially, they are battlefield tac- readiness posture of less than 24 months. It is not the intention of the Senator tical nuclear weapons. (c) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SITE from New Mexico that we go on indefi- This latest Defense authorization bill SELECTION OF MODERN PIT FACILITY.—None nitely. This is a well-known amend- reversed the Spratt-Furse amendment of the funds appropriated or otherwise made ment. We voted on something like it which had existed for 10 years and had available by this Act for the Department of already once. But this is different in prohibited the development of low- Energy may be obligated or expended for the some respects. It is appropriations. So yield nuclear weapons. So for 10 years purpose of site selection of the Modern Pit in that context, it is actual money in- there was a prohibition on this reopen- Facility. stead of authorizing. ing of the nuclear door. (d) REDUCTION OF PUBLIC DEBT.—Of the Having said that, everyone should With this year’s Defense authoriza- amount appropriated by this Act, $21,000,000 now know the bill that is pending is tion bill, that went down the tubes. shall not be obligated or expended, but shall the Senate-reported energy and water be utilized instead solely for purposes of the Now we see in this Energy appropria- reduction of the public debt. bill. All of you who had water projects tions bill money to move along in the that you asked about, you can have development and the research of these Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I your staff look to see if you were suc- weapons. am very concerned that through a pol- cessful. We have attempted to advise What is interesting to me is when icy of unilateralism and preemption, most of you. I can say that to the ex- you ask these questions in committee, combined with the creation of new nu- tent we have had to be arbitrary be- as I did of Secretary Rumsfeld—and I clear weapons, we may very well be en- cause of a shortage of money, it has will get to that—what we hear is: Oh, it couraging the very nuclear prolifera- principally been when we have some- is just a study. tion we seek to prevent. It seems to me body asking for a new authorization. In fact, last year, $14 million was ap- that pursuing the development of new We haven’t been able to do that in this propriated for the study. It is more tactical battlefield nuclear weapons bill. With respect to the Corps of Engi- than just the study. It is the study and not only lowers the threshold for pos- neers, the Bureau of Reclamation, we development. sible use but also blurs the distinction haven’t started any new programs. So I rise today to send an amendment to between nuclear and nonnuclear weap- if you asked us for that, you may say: the desk on behalf of myself, the Sen- ons. Gee, they didn’t treat me right. It may ator from Massachusetts, Mr. KEN- The amendment I have just sent to be that you have to come and ask, and NEDY; the Senator from Rhode Island, the desk essentially in many ways mir- that is the reason. It is not a new au- Mr. REED; the Senator from New Jer- rors what the House of Representatives thorization. sey, Mr. LAUTENBERG; the Senator from has done. Much to the credit of Chair- We have tried our very best to do Oregon, Mr. WYDEN; and the Senator man HOBSON, the House of Representa- what we could with a shortage of from Wisconsin, Mr. FEINGOLD. tives has deleted this funding. I believe money in the Corps, which I have al- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The very strongly the Senate should follow. ready explained to the Senate. I ex- clerk will report. The amendment I proposed would plain it every year. We could pull the The assistant legislative clerk read strike $15 million for the study of the record player out and repeat it because as follows: development of the robust nuclear every year Presidents do the same The Senator from California [Mrs. FEIN- earth penetrator and $6 million in thing. They leave out projects, and STEIN], for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. REED, funding for advanced nuclear weapons they don’t put in enough money. And Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. FEIN- concepts, including the study for devel- then we come along and we have the GOLD, proposes an amendment numbered 1655. opment of low-yield weapons—these most desired projects of all because if are battlefield tactical nuclear weap- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I you are chairman Senators stuff your ons—and it would prohibit spending— ask unanimous consent that reading of pockets with requests. They come in this is where it is a little different in the amendment be dispensed with. saying: Please help with this. It is a the Senate version than in the House The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without little project in my State. But it seems version—in the 2004 year to increase objection, it is so ordered. as though we are the only ones who un- the Nevada Test Site’s time to test The amendment is as follows: derstand how important these little readiness posture from the current 24 projects are to Senators. It doesn’t (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for De- to 36 months to 18 months. The House partment of Energy activities relating to seem as though the administration— actually cut the 24 $8 million. We fence this one, other ones—thinks it is very the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Ad- vanced Weapons Concepts, modification of it for this year. important. the readiness posture of the Nevada Test Secondly, it would implement site se- They are not all in here. But a few Site, and the Modern Pit Facility, and to lection for the modern pit facility. The more than the President was able to make the amount of funds made available House cut $12 million. We would delay put in are here in this bill. So please by the prohibition for debt reduction) it for 1 year. look. And if you have any complaints, After section 503, insert the following: bring them to us. We will do our best. SEC. 504. (a) REDUCTION IN AMOUNT AVAIL- The House also redirected the savings We will even explain to you, if we ABLE FOR NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY AD- from this bill for water projects. We es- turned you down, that it is a new MINISTRATION.—The amount appropriated by sentially use the money for deficit re- project. We will explain what that title III of this Act under the heading duction. By seeking to develop a new means and why we have no alternative. ‘‘ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVI- generation of 5-kiloton, or below, tac- TIES’’ under the heading ‘‘NATIONAL NU- When we can’t pay for the ones we tical nuclear weapons, which produce CLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’’ under the have, we can’t be adding any new ones. smaller explosions, the administration heading ‘‘WEAPONS ACTIVITIES’’ is hereby re- is suggesting we can make nuclear I note the presence of the Senator duced by $21,000,000, with the amount of the from California. Whether she desires to reduction to be allocated so that— weapons less deadly. It is suggesting offer the amendment is up to her. I (1) no funds shall be available for the Ro- we can make them more acceptable to yield the floor at this time. bust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; and use. Neither is true. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- (2) no funds shall be available for Advanced By seeking to develop a robust nu- ator from California. Weapons Concepts. clear earth penetrator, the administra- (b) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CER- AMENDMENT NO. 1655 tion seems to be moving toward a mili- TAIN MODIFICATION OF READINESS POSTURE OF Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I NEVADA TEST SITE.—None of the funds appro- tary posture in which nuclear weapons thank the chairman of the committee. priated or otherwise made available by this are considered just like other weap- There should be no doubt in anyone’s Act for the Department of Energy may be ons—like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or mind that this administration is re- obligated or expended for the purpose of a cruise missile. By seeking to speed up

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11437 the time to test requirement for the very minute. We have seen other na- nonnuclear country if that country Nevada Test Site, the administration is tions become nuclear powers—the possessed biological or chemical weap- taking us down a road that may well United Kingdom, France, China, India, ons. lead to the resumption of underground Pakistan. And others—like I said, Iran It seems clear that this administra- nuclear testing, overturning a 10-year and North Korea clearly have nuclear tion is no longer focused solely on the moratorium. By seeking to move for- aspirations. But after decades of steady role of nuclear weapons for deterrence. ward with the modern pit facility, the progress, our efforts against nuclear Rather, the new triad proposed by the administration appears to be seeking proliferation have also produced a administration has grouped nuclear to develop a facility that will, in 1 number of dividends. Nuclear-capable and conventional weapons together on year, allow the United States to states, like South Africa, Brazil, Ar- a continuum, believing each has an produce a number of plutonium pits gentina, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, equal role on the battlefield. that exceeds the entire current arsenal the Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan During the cold war, the nuclear of China. have either forgone developing nuclear triad consisted of air, land, and sea nu- Given that the United States has a weapons or, like the States of the clear forces—bombers, ALBMs, ICBMs robust pit stockpile and plans for a fa- former Soviet Union, given up the and SLBMs. The new triad consists of cility that will be able to produce an weapons they possessed. China has re- offensive strike forces, missile de- adequate number of replacement pits cently signaled it might be willing, fi- fense—which has yet, incidentally, in the coming years, questions must be nally, to sign onto the comprehensive been shown to work—and a responsive asked as to why a facility like the test ban treaty. When U.S. policy can infrastructure to support the forces. modern pit facility is necessary, and urge others to act responsibly, the Strategic nuclear forces are combined why now? What sort of message is the world is a far safer place and the dangerously, in my view, with conven- United States sending to the rest of the United States is safer as well. tional strike capabilities in the offen- world, at a time when we are trying to As we continue to prosecute the war sive leg of the new triad. discourage others from developing on terror, it should be a central tenet This new triad represents a radical their own nuclear arsenal, by our tak- of the U.S. policy to do everything at departure from the idea that our stra- ing this action? We say to North Korea, our disposal to make nuclear weapons tegic nuclear forces are primarily in- you cannot do this. We say to Iran, you less desirable, less available, and less tended for deterrence, not for offense cannot do this. Yet we set a precedent likely to be used. This does just the op- as the new triad proposes. whereby countries such as Pakistan posite. In a few months, after issuing the and India—each with their own indige- This administration appears to be Nuclear Posture Review, President nous nuclear capability, each diehard looking for new ways to use our nu- Bush signed National Security Presi- enemies—may well take the example clear advantage, to restructure our dential Directive 17 indicating the and say: If they can do it, we can do it. force so nuclear weapons are more ‘‘us- United States might use nuclear weap- We should start our own advanced con- able.’’ That sends a very troubling mes- ons to respond to a chemical or biologi- cepts program. sage to others who might also aspire to cal attack. I find the Nuclear Posture I deeply believe the combined impact obtain or use nuclear weapons. Review and NSPD–17 deeply disturbing. of studies or development of new nu- Let me just quote a Pentagon spokes- Some have maintained we don’t need clear weapons enhancing the posture of person in saying this: to concern ourselves too much with our test sites and developing a new plu- This administration is fashioning a more these documents because they are tonium pit facility could well have the diverse set of options for deterring the merely intellectual exercises. In fact, result of leading these other nuclear threat of weapons of mass destruction. That at a hearing of the Defense Appropria- is why the administration is pursuing ad- tions Subcommittee in May, I asked powers and nuclear aspirants to resume vanced conventional forces and improved in- or start testing and to seek to enlarge telligence capabilities. A combination of of- Secretary Rumsfeld about where the their own nuclear forces—action that fensive and defensive and nuclear and non- administration was going on these would fundamentally alter future non- nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the issues. He responded, in essence, that proliferation efforts and undermine our deterrence requirements of the 21st century. there was nothing to be concerned own security. Instead of increasing it, I profoundly disagree. If the most po- about because current research to de- it will undermine it. tent conventional military on Earth velop nuclear weapons is just a study. The House of Representatives had the cannot meet the challenges without But the fact is, the administration has foresight to realize that going down new nuclear weapons, it is a tragedy begun to take concrete steps toward this path was not in the best interest of indeed. The administration’s own nu- developing new classes of nuclear the United States national security. I clear posture review, released in Janu- weapons. In fact, the administration’s truly hope this Senate will respond and ary of 2002, did not focus solely on the statement of policy for the fiscal year do the same. I cannot say enough good role of nuclear weapons for deterrence. 2004 Defense authorization bill may things about Chairman HOBSON. I have It stressed the importance of actually well have been more honest than in- had the privilege of working with him being prepared to use nuclear weapons. tended. This is the statement of admin- on MilCon, and I think he has shown In fact, the review noted we must now istration policy: dramatic courage, spunk, individ- plan to possibly use them against a The administration appreciates the Senate ualism, good thinking, and solid com- wider range of countries. Armed Services Committee’s continued sup- mon sense. To that end, I would like to put into port of our national defense and support for Nearly 60 years ago, our world was the record a New York Times article by critical research and development for low- introduced to nuclear weapons. I was 12 Michael R. Gordon, dated March 9. I yield nuclear weapons. years old when the Enola Gay left our ask unanimous consent that it be As Fred Celec, the Deputy Assistant shores. I saw a 15-kiloton bomb destroy printed in the RECORD following my Secretary for Defense for Nuclear Mat- Hiroshima. It killed up to 140,000 peo- comments. ters, stated: If a hydrogen bomb can be ple—just that bomb killed 140,000 peo- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without successfully designed to survive a crash ple. A 21-kiloton bomb then destroyed objection, it is so ordered. through hard rock or concrete and still Nagasaki, killing 80,000 people. Two (See exhibit 1.) explode, ‘‘it will ultimately get field- bombs, 220,000 people dead, and the Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in ed.’’ largest pattern of destruction the addition, the nuclear posture review That is his statement: If a hydrogen world has ever seen—just look at it on said we need to develop new types of bomb can be successfully designed to this photo. weapons so we can use them in a wider survive a crash through hard rock or For the decades that followed, we variety of circumstances and against a concrete and still explode, ‘‘it will ulti- saw a standoff between the United wider range of targets, such as hard mately get fielded.’’ States and the Soviet Union with ar- and deeply buried targets, or to defeat That is where we are going, Mr. madas of nuclear weapons, many of chemical and biological weapons. Even President. I believe it is in this context which remain today. They are targeted the New York Times suggests we would that we must view the funding requests at each other’s cities even right this even consider a first strike against a in this bill.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 This is not an esoteric funding re- weapon of almost 100 kilotons. That is Thirdly, the development of new low- quest. I don’t believe it is just a study. 10 times the size of the bomb dropped yield nuclear weapons could lead—and I believe it is the second step in the on Hiroshima. this is where we are going—to the re- study and in the development of these As this chart shows, if a bunker bust- sumption of underground nuclear test- so-called advanced nuclear concepts of er were able to burrow into the earth ing in order to test the new weapons. moving up test readiness, of building a to reach its maximum feasible depth— This would overturn the 10-year mora- huge modern pit facility. The legisla- that is about 35 feet—it still would not torium on nuclear testing. So we are tion before us today contains funding be deep enough to contain a bomb with changing 60 years of history. We are to start that process of developing this an explosive yield of only .2 kilotons, overturning a 10-year moratorium. next generation of nuclear weapons, 75 times smaller than the bomb that This could lead other countries to re- clear and simple. exploded over Hiroshima, let alone a sume or start testing, actions that I strongly support a robust military, 100-kiloton bomb. would fundamentally alter future non- and our safety interests and our secu- Let me make the point. To destroy a proliferation and counterproliferation rity interests should be protected, but typical bunker or another underground efforts. I believe we are going to make our Na- target, such as a chemical or biological The March 2003 Arms Control Today tion and our allies less secure, not weapons facility, you would need to points out an interesting thing: more, if the United States opens the burrow down at least 800 feet, which is In 1995, many of the world’s nonnuclear door to the development, testing, and not physically possible, or detonate a states made it clear their continued adher- ence to the NPT was contingent on the ces- deployment of new tactical and low- 100-kiloton weapon whose fallout and sation of all nuclear-yield testing. . . . A de- yield nuclear weapons. destruction belie the idea that an anti- cision to resume testing to build low-yield I think there are several things septic nuclear weapon can be devel- nuclear weapons could deal the regime a wrong with the logic which suggests oped. Anything short of that would not fatal blow while providing the United States that using these weapons is acceptable. contain the fallout. a capability of questionable military value. First, using nuclear weapons, even A fireball would break through the This is where we are going with this small ones, will cross a line that has surface, scattering enormous amounts bill. We are moving up test readiness been in place for 60 years. I don’t want of radioactive debris—1.5 million tons from 24 to 30 months to 18 months. So to be a Member of the Senate who for a 100-kiloton bomb—into the atmos- inherent in this bill is the beginning of crosses that line and has to explain to phere. As this map of the Korean pe- expedited testing, overturning 60 years, my five grandchildren why I voted to ninsula shows, just the path fallout, going against the nonproliferation sanction a new generation of nuclear with travel in typical weather, would treaty, which will then encourage weapons, whether it is a robust earth place both South Korea and Japan in other nations to do the same, and be- penetrator or whether it is a tactical severe danger while placing millions of ginning testing once again. battlefield weapon, because you cannot innocent people at risk if a nuclear According to the 2003 Report to Con- protect from the radiation. What bunker buster were to be used in North gress on Nuclear Test Readiness, 18 grandmother or mother wants to send Korea. We can see it used at this point. months is the minimum time necessary their son or daughter on to a battle- We can see the path of fallout. It is to prepare a test once a problem is field with tactical nuclear weapons? devastating. identified. Yet even during the cold Sixty years of history is in the process Ultimately, the depth of penetration war when tests were ongoing on a reg- of being reversed. of the robust nuclear earth penetrator ular basis, the Nuclear National Secu- It was the Secretary of State, GEN is limited by the strength of the mis- rity Agency found that it required 18 to Colin Powell, who wrote in his auto- sile casing. The deepest our current 24 months to design and field a test biography about possibly using tactical earth penetrators can burrow is 20 feet with full diagnostics. nuclear weapons in Europe to thwart a of dry earth. Casing made of even the As purely a technical matter, 18 Soviet invasion. Let me read what he stronger material cannot withstand months is also an extremely short said. He wrote: the physical forces of burrowing timeframe for test readiness. So why are we doing it? Why are we doing it No matter how small these nuclear pay- through 100 feet of granite, much less loads were, we would be crossing a threshold. 800 feet. now with no pressing need? Why is the Using nukes would mark one of the most sig- I believe it is deeply flawed to argue, administration pushing so hard for the nificant political and military decisions as some robust nuclear earth pene- absolute minimum time necessary to since Hiroshima. trator proponents do, that because it conduct a test? That is what we are doing, I say to would penetrate the earth before deto- This tells me exactly where this ad- my colleagues—one of the most signifi- nating, it would be a clean weapon. It ministration is going. Even putting cant decisions since Hiroshima—and will not be. aside the concern I have about the mes- his statement in his book is just as In fact, far more than the added ex- sage that the United States moving true today. plosive power a nuclear weapon pro- ahead with test readiness sends to the Second, I wish to speak for a moment vides, the most important factor in de- rest of the world, this short time pe- about the fact that there is no such stroying a deeply buried target is riod may well not be technologically thing as a clean or usable nuclear knowing exactly where it is. Someone feasible. In an op-ed in the Washington Post bomb. According to Stanford Univer- is not going to drop a bomb such as a on July 21, Secretary of Energy Spen- sity physicist, Dr. Sidney Drell, the ef- robust nuclear earth penetrator unless cer Abraham said this: fects of a small bomb would be dra- they know exactly where the target is. We are not planning to resume testing; nor matic. A 1-kiloton weapon detonated 20 If they know exactly where the target are we improving test readiness in order to to 50 feet underground—1 kiloton deto- is, there are other things that can be develop new nuclear weapons. In fact, we are nated 20 to 50 feet underground—would done. It can be destroyed with conven- not planning to develop any new nuclear dig a crater the size of Ground Zero tional weapons. Access to it can be pre- weapons at all. and eject a million cubic feet of radio- vented by destroying entrances, cut- Then what are we doing this for? active debris into the air. This chart ting off electricity, cutting off air Fourteen million dollars last year, $50 shows 1 kiloton at 30 feet and it will ducts. Cutting off a bunker in this way million this year, a $4 billion modern eject a million cubic feet of radioactive renders it useless just as effectively as pit facility program over 10 years. debris into the air. destroying it with a nuclear blast. What are we doing it for? I think what A low-yield weapon would have very The fact is that our intelligence is the Secretary did by these comments is little utility in trying to destroy a weak. So I very much doubt we are really an injustice in terms of casting deeply buried underground bunker. going to be throwing around bunker a web over these moves that is not Given the insurmountable physics busters of 100 kilotons that are nuclear credible. problems associated with burrowing a with this fallout spread when we really I can only deduce that despite all the warhead deep into the earth, destroy- do not know, among the tens of thou- ‘‘this is just a study’’ rhetoric, there is ing a target hidden beneath a thousand sands of holes the North Koreans have an intention to test, and this adminis- feet of rock will require a nuclear in the ground, exactly what is what. tration is reopening the nuclear door

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11439 to develop a new generation of tactical This was just written. This was con- doing it in this State or that State or battlefield nuclear weapons, and I do sidered by the House of Representa- competing for it. not want to be a part of it. tives, and the House of Representatives We need to begin to think what we In fact, in a September 3 interview, had the guts to take it out of the bill. are competing for. I don’t want us to Fred Celec stated: So this amendment would put in place compete for something that is going to If you say, I’ve got to go to design a new a 1-year stay. It is a little different encourage China to begin nuclear nuclear weapon . . . you probably will have from the House bill. It would put in weapons production or begin testing. I to have a nuclear test. place a 1-year stay on site selection for don’t want to encourage something Likewise, I have serious concerns the modern pit facility. If the adminis- that is going to say to Pakistan and about the intentions behind the funds tration can come forward with a con- India: We developed tactical battlefield included in this bill for work on the vincing rationale and plans in a year, nuclear weapons. Look at our example. modern pit facility. As I have said, the we can revisit this issue. But until That is what we are doing and we don’t modern pit facility is the administra- then, we should not be supporting this see it. tion’s proposed $4 billion plan where new initiative. Finally, to those who argue that the new plutonium pits for nuclear weap- Today, America’s current conven- United States needs new weapons for ons will be fabricated. This facility, tional and nuclear forces vastly over- new missions, I should point out that when completed, would be able to power those of any other nation. So for the United States already has a usable produce 250 to 900 plutonium pits per me, it is difficult if not impossible to nuclear bunker buster, the B61–11, year. reconcile building a multibillion-dollar which has a dial-to-yield feature, al- To put this in perspective, if the pro- nuclear bomb factory, which is what posed modern pit facility operated at lowing its yield to range from less than this is, as we preach the importance of a kiloton to several hundred kilotons. half of its capacity, it could equal or limiting proliferation and preventing exceed China’s entire new nuclear arse- When configured to have a 10-kiloton other nations from developing weapons yield and detonated 4 feet underground, nal in 1 year. This production would be of mass destruction. And, if I may say in excess of our current inventory of the B61–11 can produce a shock wave so, it is hypocritical. It is hypocritical; sufficient to crush a bunker buried be- 15,000 plutonium pits. we say one thing to others and we do What does this say to other nations? neath 350 feet of layered rock. an entirely different thing ourselves. If What does this say to China? What If, indeed—I don’t think there is—but that is not hypocrisy, I don’t know does it say to Iraq? What does it say to if there is a legitimate military mis- what is. Iran, Pakistan, India, or any other na- sion for these kinds of weapons, the ex- Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation tion? What does it say to North Korea? perts tell us we already have one. We Treaty, nuclear weapon states are com- At a time when we should be less- don’t need new nuclear weapons. On ening our reliance on nuclear weapons mitted to halting so-called vertical the other hand, the U.S. military, the and lessening the amount of fissile ma- proliferation. That means they are pro- strongest and most capable military terial available which might fall into hibited from increasing their nuclear force the world has ever seen, has plen- the hands of terrorists, encouraging stockpiles. They are prohibited. The ty of effective conventional options de- other countries in the world to do like- purpose is to encourage other nations signed to penetrate deeply into the wise by following our example, why do to halt horizontal proliferation, where- earth and destroy underground bunkers we need this new production capa- by more and more nations become nu- and storage facilities. These range in bility? clear capable. That is what the NPT is size from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds, The Department of Energy has al- trying to do. They are trying to stop it, and most are equipped with either a ready begun a separate $2.3 billion pit and we are doing exactly the opposite. laser or a GPS guidance system. The fabrication and plutonium chemistry If our country goes down the road of 5,000-pound bunker buster, like the complex at Los Alamos, which will developing and bringing the modern pit guided bomb unit 28/B, is capable of begin producing 20 pits per year in 2007 facility on line, we will effectively un- penetrating up to 20 feet of reinforced and can be equipped and enlarged to dermine the nonproliferation treaty. concrete, or 100 feet of earth. I know the Bush administration produce as many as 150 pits per year. The GBU–28 was used with much suc- So what do we need this for? No one doesn’t like it. I know they don’t at- tend meetings. I know we are now on a cess in Operation Enduring Freedom in has answered that question. Afghanistan. With the current age of our stockpile big unilateral binge, where we know Other conventional bunker busters pits averaging 19 years, and the De- better than anybody else. But this is were used to take out Saddam Hus- partment of Energy estimating a pit for our children and our grandchildren. minimum lifetime to be 45 to 60 years, Perhaps more than any other this rep- sein’s underground lairs in Operation with no ‘‘life-limiting factors’’ being resents the country we try to be and Iraqi Freedom. In fact, the U.S. mili- identified, why put our Nation $4 bil- the country we are going to be. tary possesses a conventional bunker lion further into debt by creating addi- I think with this legislation, and by buster—the GBU–37—which is thought tional capacity for plutonium pits we going down this path, we undermine to be capable of taking out a silo-based don’t need? We can’t find anything the nonproliferation treaty. Maybe ICBM. that indicates why we need these addi- that is what they want to happen. And I only wish that instead of beginning tional plutonium pits. As I said, we al- by our example we create an incentive the research and development of a new ready have a $2.3 billion program to and we present a challenge to others generation of weapons, this adminis- produce 20 pits that can go up to 150 with nuclear aspirations to develop tration would lead efforts to prevent pits. Are we going into some kind of them. nuclear development and prevent the enormous program that we don’t know I don’t know whether that is the in- spread and delegitimize the use and about? tention. We know ballistic missile de- utility of nuclear weapons. Oh, how I The House report language in their fense does the same thing. I think we wish they would. Instead, with these version of the energy and water bill put are seeing, in Iraq, where unilateralism appropriations a new nuclear arms race it this way: is not working. We have before us an will begin. Let there be no doubt. I It appears to the Committee that the De- $87 billion supplemental which will know it as sure as I am standing here partment is proposing to rebuild, restart, bring the cost of the war to about $166 now. I know it from the judgment of and redo and otherwise exercise every capa- billion so far. Yet we are starting a past history. I know how difficult it bility that was used over the past 40 years of whole new nuclear program. has been. I know just how difficult it the cold war, and at the same time prepare I guess why I don’t like it, most of was to reach agreements with the So- for a future with an expanded mission for nu- all, is it is all done under the guise of viet Union to begin to ratchet down clear weapons. Nothing in the past perform- study, of development. The facts are the nuclear arsenal of both of our coun- ance of NNSA convinces this Committee that the successful implementation of the Stock- never really put on the table. It just tries. We will be dealing with govern- pile Stewardship Program is a foregone con- kind of happens. Then some get kind of ments far more difficult to deal with clusion, which makes the pursuit of a broad ‘‘suckered’’ into it, if I can use that than the Soviet Union, like those typi- range of new initiatives premature. word, because of the economics of fied by North Korea.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 If we appropriate these dollars, we stantly in both of those strikes. They threat of weapons of mass destruction,’’ the can expect that other nations will fol- don’t remember Chernobyl and what Pentagon statement continued. ‘‘That is why low, that a new nuclear race will begin radioactive fallout does to people. the administration is pursuing advanced con- I see this as a very historic vote. The ventional forces and improved intelligence to develop, and the chance that one capabilities. A combination of offensive and day, somehow, some way they will be way is carved for us by the House of defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capa- used against us. Those chances are Representatives. They have eliminated bilities is essential to meet the deterrence clear. Let there be no doubt. funding. They have done what is right. requirements of the 21st century.’’ As the Economist concluded in its I hope we follow suit. Critics responded to the report by com- May 17 issue: I yield the floor. plaining that the Bush administration was not only pushing for the development of new In their determination to leave no weapons EXHIBIT 1 types of nuclear weapons, but broadening the avenue unexplored [the administration] is [From the New York Times, March 10, 2002] circumstances in which they might be used. proposing to lead America along a dangerous U.S. NUCLEAR PLAN SEES NEW TARGETS AND ‘‘Despite their pronouncements of wanting path. NEW WEAPONS to slash nuclear arms, the Bush administra- This is why our amendment seeks to (By Michael R. Gordon) tion is reinvigorating the nuclear weapons strike the funding in this bill for the forces and the vast research and industrial development of the robust nuclear Outlining a broad overhaul of American complex that support it,’’ said Robert S. nuclear policy, a secret Pentagon report Norris, a senior research associated at the earth penetrator and the other so- calls for developing new nuclear weapons called advanced concepts—I hate call- Natural Resources Defense Council and an that would be better suited for striking tar- expert on nuclear weapons programs. ‘‘In ad- ing nuclear weapons ‘‘advanced con- gets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and dition the Bush administration seems to see cepts’’—including low-yield weapons, Libya. a new role for nuclear weapons against the and to limit the funding for enhanced The Nuclear Posture Review, as the Pen- ‘axis of evil’ and other problem states.’’ test readiness and the modern pit facil- tagon report is known, is a comprehensive Classified versions of the report were pro- ity. blueprint for developing and deploying nu- vided to Congress in January but the disclo- Right now our country is spending clear weapons. While some of the report is sure now could become a public relations unclassified, key portions are secret. well over $400 billion on defense. Next problem for vice President Dick Cheney, who In campaigning for office President Bush is scheduled to leave on Sunday for a 10-day year we will spend more on our mili- stressed that he wanted to slash the number trip to Britain and Middle Eastern countries. tary than all of the other 191 nations of nuclear weapons and develop a military The disclosure of the administration’s ambi- on the planet combined. If we can’t that would be suited for the post-cold war tious nuclear plans is likely to spark criti- protect ourselves without thinking world. cism from European groups that have long about nuclear weapons, who can? Who The new Pentagon report, in fact, finds supported more traditional approaches to can? We spend more than 191 nations that non-nuclear conventional weapons are arms control. Middle Eastern leaders may be combined—all of the other nations on becoming an increasingly important element alarmed to learn that the Pentagon sees of the Pentagon arsenal. But the report also Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya as potential nu- Earth. Yet the proposal is that we re- indicates that the Pentagon views nuclear clear battlegrounds. open the nuclear door and begin a new weapons as an important element of military One of the most sensitive portions of the generation of nuclear weapons. planning. report is its discussion of countries that do I think once again we will see rogue It stresses a need to develop earth-pene- not have nuclear arms. Recalling the Cuban states basically conclude that they will trating nuclear weapons to destroy heavily missile crisis, the report noted that the be safe from the United States only if fortified underground bunkers, including United States might be caught by surprise if they develop their own nuclear weap- those that may be used to store chemical an adversary suddenly displayed a new abil- ity involving weapons of mass destruction or ons quickly. I think that is exactly and biological weapons. It calls for improv- ing the intelligence and targeting systems it a nuclear arsenal changes hands as a re- what is happening in North Korea, needed for nuclear strikes and argues that sult of a coup in a foreign land. which has responded to the Bush ad- the United States may need to resume nu- ‘‘In setting requirements for nuclear strike ministration’s aggressive posture by clear testing. capabilities, distinctions can be made among claiming that only a ‘‘tremendous The New York Times obtained a copy of the contingencies for which the United military deterrent’’ will protect it the 56-page report. Elements of the report States must be prepared,’’ the Pentagon re- from the United States. Now Iran is were reported today by the Los Angeles port states. ‘‘Contingencies can be cat- egorized as immediate, potential or unex- following suit. Will we encourage India Times. One of the most sensitive portions of the pected.’’ and Pakistan to develop tactical nu- ‘‘North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya report is a secret discussion of contingencies are among the countries that could be in- clear weapons as well? in which the United States might need to use volved in immediate, potential or unex- Indeed, by seeking to develop new nu- its ‘‘nuclear strike capabilities’’ against a pected contingencies,’’ it added. ‘‘All have clear weapons ourselves, we send a foe. long-standing hostility toward the United message that nuclear weapons have a During the cold war, the United States States and its security partners; North future battlefield role and utility. This used nuclear weapons to deter a Soviet at- Korea and Iraq in particular have been tack on Western Europe. is the wrong message. It takes us in chronic military concerns.’’ the wrong direction. In my view, it will But now, the Pentagon report says, the na- It said, ‘‘All sponsor or harbor terrorists, cause Americans to be placed in great- tion faces new contingencies in which nu- and all have active’’ programs to create er jeopardy in the future. clear weapons might be employed, including weapons of mass destruction and missiles. ‘‘an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, Among Iraq, Iran, Syria or Libya none has We are telling others not to develop or a North Korean attack on South Korea or nuclear weapons and not to sell fissile nuclear weapons, though Iraq and Iran are a military confrontation over the status of making a serious effort to acquire them, ac- materials, but we continue to study Taiwan.’’ Another theme in the report is the cording to American intelligence. and design new nuclear weapons our- possible use of nuclear weapons to destroy American intelligence officials believe selves. Again, ‘‘hypocrisy.’’ enemy stocks of biological weapons, chem- that North Korea may have enough fissile I urge my colleagues to support this ical arms and other arms of mass destruc- material for one or two nuclear weapons, but amendment. The House has totally tion. there is considerable debate as to whether it eliminated the money. We don’t do ex- Pentagon and White House officials turned has actually produced one. down repeated requests for interviews on the actly that. We eliminate some and we Significantly, all of those countries have report. The Pentagon issued a statement this signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. fence others. We delay the pit facility evening noting that the purpose of the re- Washington has promised that it will not use for 1 year. We don’t use the money for view was to analyze nuclear weapons re- nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon water projects, and we don’t use it for quirements, not to specify targets. states that have signed the Nuclear Non- deficit reduction. ‘‘It does not provide operational guidance proliferation Treaty unless those countries I urge my colleagues to support this on nuclear targeting or planning,’’ the Pen- attack the United States or its allies ‘‘in al- amendment. I urge them to realize that tagon statement said. ‘‘The Department of liance with a nuclear weapon state.’’ we are at a historic turning point. It Defense continues to plan for a broad range The policy was intended to discourage out- may well be that people do not remem- of contingencies and unforeseen threats to sider nations from seeking to develop nu- the United States and its allies. We do so in clear weapons. But conservatives argue that ber the Enola Gay, they don’t remem- order to deter such attacks in the first Washington should be able to threaten the ber Hiroshima, they don’t remember place.’’ use of nuclear weapons as a way to deter one Nagasaki, and they don’t remember ‘‘This administration is fashioning a more state from attacking the United States with that 220,000 people were killed in- diverse set of options for deterring the chemical or biological weapons.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11441 Earlier this month, Richard Boucher, the and that it has only a limited ‘‘ground-pene- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I State Department spokesman, repeated the tration capability.’’ ask for the yeas and nays. policy but then added that ‘‘if a weapon of The report argues that better earth-pene- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. mass destruction is used against the United trating nuclear weapons with lower nuclear ALLARD). Is there a sufficient second? States or its allies, we will not rule out any yields would be useful since they could specific type of response.’’ His qualified achieve equal damage with less nuclear fall- There is a sufficient second. statement along with the Pentagon report out. New earth-penetrating warheads with The yeas and nays were ordered. raises the question of whether the Bush ad- larger yield would be needed to attack tar- Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ministration still plans to abide by the long- gets that are buried deep underground. The don’t know how much time I will take standing policy. report said it is very hard to identify such but obviously some amount of time. One former senior American officials said underground targets but that American Spe- There are a number of other Senators cial Operations Forces could be used for the that the development of new weapons to at- on our side who wish to speak but I tack non-nuclear states would not in itself mission. Another capability which interests the want to speak to this amendment. contradict American policy since it would be First, fellow Americans and friends no more than a contingency. But using them Pentagon are radiological or chemical weap- ons that would be employed to destroy would contradict the policy, he said, unless here, there are a lot of issues that the stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. the nations violated their commitments to wonderful Senator from California Such ‘‘Agent Defeat Weapons’’ are being the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by de- talked about that deserve some real studied. The report also argues that Wash- veloping nuclear weapons. clarification. There is an inference ington needs to compress the time it takes ‘‘I would not say that developing a bunker- to identify new targets and attack them that we are not interested in non- busting nuclear weapon for use against these with nuclear weapons, a concept it calls proliferation and that we are going in countries would by itself violate that ‘‘adaptive planning.’’ the wrong direction. Everybody should pledge,’’ the former American official said. In general, the Pentagon report stresses know that the United States of Amer- ‘‘But using nuclear against them would un- the need for nuclear weapons that would be less they violated their assurance by acquir- ica not too many years ago had 40,000 more easy to use against enemy weapons of nuclear weapons. We are moving rap- ing nuclear weapons.’’ mass destruction because they would be of The Pentagon report discussed other con- variable or low yield, be highly accurate and idly toward 5,000—40,000 moving rapidly tingencies as well. The report stated that could be quickly targeted. toward 5,000. In fact, both the United China is also a potential adversary and is Pentagon officials say this gives the States and the former Soviet Union are modernizing its nuclear and conventional United States another tool to knock out having difficulty getting rid of what forces. While Russia has the most formidable enemy chemical, biological or nuclear weap- comes out of these nuclear weapons be- nuclear force, the report took the view that ons. But critics say that the Bush adminis- relations with Moscow have vastly improved. cause they are moving so fast. That tration is, in effect, lowering the nuclear which is coming out of them is cre- ‘‘As a result, a contingency involving Rus- threshold by calling for the development of sia, while plausible, is not expected,’’ the re- nuclear weapons that would be easier to use. ating proliferation itself because we port states. Still, the report said that the The need to maintain the capability to are moving so rapidly. We do not know United States cannot be sure that relations rapidly expand the American nuclear arsenal what to do with the plutonium that with Russia will always be smooth and thus in a crisis, such as ‘‘reversal of Russia’s comes out of them. The Russians don’t must be prepared to ‘‘revise its nuclear force present course,’’ is also a theme of the re- know where to put it. But in terms of levels and posture.’’ port. The Pentagon calls this hedge ‘‘the re- getting rid of nuclear weapons, the In addition to surveying the potential situ- sponsive force.’’ The notion that the United ations in which nuclear weapons might be States is reserving the right to rapidly in- United States is on a path from 40,000— employed, the report discussed the sort of crease its nuclear forces has been an impor- and I can’t give you the classified num- force that might be needed. The Bush admin- tant concern for Moscow, which has pressed ber but I can tell you it is 5,000 or less. istration has said that it plans to reduce Washington to agree to binding limits and That is point No. 1. strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 even destroy some of its warheads. Point No. 2: The pit—the plural and 2,200 warheads, a big reduction from the The Responsive Force, the Pentagon report ‘‘pits’’ is not a very nice sounding 6,000 or so nuclear weapons that the United says, ‘‘retains the option for the leadership word—is an absolutely necessary incre- States has now. to increase the number of operationally de- mental part of a nuclear weapon. With- Critics of the Bush administration say the ployed forces in proportion to the severity of cuts are roughly the same as those foreseen an evolving crisis,’’ the Pentagon report out a pit, there is no nuclear weapon— by the Clinton administration, which agreed said. As part of this concept, bombs could be none. that future strategic arms treaty should re- brought out of the non-deployed stockpile in The United States is not engaged in duce nuclear weapons to between 2,000 and days or weeks. Other efforts to augment the producing new weapons but, rather, is 2,500 warheads. While the reductions pro- force could take as long as a year. seeing to it that we make sure what we jected by the Bush administration seem To maintain the nuclear infrastructure a have will work. That is called science- deeper, the Pentagon has changed the rules number of steps are planned. The Pentagon based stockpile stewardship, which for counting nuclear weapons and no longer says that an ‘‘active’’ stock of warheads counts bombers or nuclear missile sub- should be maintained which would incor- means about 6 or 8 years ago we voted marines that are in the process of being porate the latest modifications and have the to have no more nuclear underground overhauled. key parts. testing. There is nothing in this Adding new detail to previous briefings, The report says that the United States amendment that says we are going to the Pentagon says that its future force needs a new capability to produce plutonium break that. If it was, we would be up structure will have the following compo- ‘‘pits,’’ a hollow sphere made out of pluto- here arguing that we are here to break nium around which explosives are fastened. nents. By 2012, the United States will have 14 the agreement that the United States Trident submarines with two in overhaul at When the explosives go off they squeeze the one time. They will be part of a triad that plutonium together into a critical mass, has. The Senate voted, then the House will include hundreds of Minuteman III land- which allows a nuclear explosion. The Pen- followed, and the President signed. It based missiles and about 100 B–52 H and B–2 tagon said the production of Tritium for nu- was Mark Hatfield who offered the bombers. clear warheads will resume during the fiscal amendment. It passed here as a con- ‘‘This will provide an operationally de- 2003 year. sequence. ployed force of 1,700 to 2,200 strategic nuclear Another sensitive political point involves We are not involved in underground warheads and a wide range of options for a the report’s discussion of the United States moratorium on nuclear testing. The Bush ad- testing. I repeat: We are not involved. responsive force to meet potential contin- This amendment would strike a pro- gencies,’’ the report says. ministration has refused to ratify the Com- But the Pentagon report said that nuclear prehensive Test Ban treaty, but says it has vision—let us take them one at a planning is not merely a question of num- no plans yet to resume nuclear testing. But time—that says over there in Nevada bers. The Pentagon also wants to improve the report suggests that it might be nec- there is a great operation wherein we existing nuclear weapons and possibly de- essary to resume testing to make new nu- used to do underground testing. It is velop new ones. clear weapons and ensure the reliability of huge. It is complex in nature. We said The report cites the need to improve existing ones. ‘‘While the United States is making every in the Senate when we put our blood on ‘‘earth-penetrating weapons’’ that could be the line, no more testing. That is a used to destroy underground installations effort to maintain the nuclear stockpile and hardened bunkers. According to a secret without additional nuclear testing, this may vote far from unanimous. We said, we portion of the Pentagon study, more than 70 not be possible in the indefinite future,’’ it will always keep that Nevada desert nations now use underground installations. said. test site ready for tests. It notes that the only earth-penetrating Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can Did we say that because we planned a weapon that exists is that B61 Mod 11 bomb we get the yeas and nays? new generation of nuclear weapons? Of

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 course not. We said that because there funding at Los Alamos to see if we can ance problems on aging stockpiles as is a huge risk to America in the make a pit. I regret to say it has been they arise. The Senate bill does that. science-based stockpile stewardship as one terribly tough job. I cannot state The Nuclear Posture Review suggests a method of assuring the validity of today—and I know as much as any- we should keep our nuclear scientists our nuclear weapons. There are sci- one—whether they have produced one engaged and thinking about the nu- entists in America who at their own that meets all the test requirements. clear stockpile of the future and what expense would come and tell us it will Frankly, it is the only place in Amer- it should look like. Might I repeat, the not work. In a few years, you will not ica that if tomorrow we said, Get a pit, Nuclear Posture Review suggests we know whether your weapons will work we need to replace one, one of our should keep our nuclear scientists—the or not. That is why we said, keep Ne- nukes needs a new pit, it is the only greatest in the world, excited about vada ready. place to look to. What in the world is their work, living at one of three great All this amendment says—and it is wrong with an administration that laboratories—engaged and thinking high time; we should have done it 4 or says the time has come to build a man- about what the nuclear stockpile of the 5 years ago—spend a little bit of ufacturing center for pits? future should look like. money, less than $20 million, and begin The good Senator from California It does not commit us to build any to make the Nevada Test Site ready so ties it into the fact that she thinks it new weapons. And there is no money in instead of taking 3 years to get it is for a new generation of nuclear this bill to build new weapons. Let me ready for a test, we get it ready in 18 weapons. Where is the authority to repeat, there is no money in this bill to months. That is all it says. build a nuclear weapon? Read this law build new weapons. It suggests that our Incidentally, Senator FEINSTEIN, we we are funding and tell me where there scientists should remain flexible, that are both worried about our grand- is authority to build a new nuclear we should not have to have them wor- children. We probably cannot decide weapon. This Senate would have to ried all the time whether thinking who loves our grandchildren more. At stand up and vote to build a new nu- about certain aspects of a nuclear this time in my life, I have twice as clear weapon. Believe you me, it would weapon of the future is a violation of many plus three, so if you are worried be a bigger day of debate than this par- the law or not. about your five, I am worried about my ticular afternoon in the Senate. It They should be permitted to think 13. But I am clearly not worried that would be a red-letter day when the about—based upon what we have this amendment, the language you are United States sends to the Senate floor learned, what we know about both our striking, this funding, has any chance a proposal to build more nuclear weap- friends and our enemies and war so far, of harming my grandchildren. That is ons. And it is not this day. That is not and what people are creating in the an absolute myth. what we are doing. There is not one world—they should be able to think Does making the Nevada Test Site single word that says we are going to and design and posture, but not build a capable of conducting an underground build a new nuclear weapon. single new weapon, whether it be one test ready in 18 months endanger the So two proposals the Senator is talk- the Senator from California talks children of America? Fellow Senators, ing about in this language, the fear for about in terms of tactical weapons—I there is a valid argument it helps the the future and what we are going to do do not even know where that comes future of our children and America’s to the world: In building pits for the fu- into this thinking. There is no author- future to have it ready on 18 months’ ture we are going to do nothing to the ity for tactical weapons in this bill, in notice instead of 3 years. That part world. They are already wondering why this money, as the Senator in the chair does not belong in this amendment and we have not built them. That is what knows. There was nothing in the au- should not be stricken. It should be in others are wondering. They are asking, thorizing committee that said that. this bill. We should make Nevada mod- What is the matter with America? There is much more to say, but I be- ern so if we need it, we use it, not 3 We want to begin a plan. I am not lieve I have done my best, in a few mo- years after we decide we need a test be- sure when they bring the plans that I ments, to dispose of the idea that cause we have some idea there is some- am going to agree to as big a plant as America is on a path that will cause thing amiss in some of our weapons they want. Maybe we will build a little the world to start rebuilding new nu- which are 35, 40, and 45 years old. Our plant. But this says, begin the planning clear bombs in anyone’s stockpile to nuclear weapons are that old. And we and designing. It provides not one react to our improving the Nevada are saying, they will work. We used to penny for construction, nor does it de- weapons site. The idea that any coun- test them. But now we have these great cide where this place to build pits will try is going to react by saying, ‘‘We are scientists and the laboratories—two of be. Do they need it now? It could wait. going to go do something now and them in my State—and they are doing But we have been waiting pretty long— build more bombs because they are get- it by assimilation. And they are say- for 9 years, maybe 10. The planners ask ting Nevada ready,’’ is an absurdity. It ing, we think they will work. what is going on, why can’t we build has no logic to it. Then the Senator talks about the one? We keep asking scientists to build We should never have let it go to 3 planning or a plant to manufacture it at Los Alamos, but that is not a pro- years. That is what it takes to get pits for the nuclear weapons. Fellow duction center. They do not have the ready to test one there—not test a new Senators, we need to manufacture pits facilities. They have built the facilities one, to test one we have, to test one if for the weapons we have, not the weap- and I have seen them. It is more like a science-based stockpile stewardship ons someone is dreaming we will build. science lab than a manufacturing fails. There is nothing in this law that says plant. One could say, let them keep I repeat, the other part of it is we do we will build one additional nuclear doing it that way. I don’t like it and I not want to start planning a design for weapon. Does the Senator know that don’t think anyone planning for the fu- a manufacturing center for pits in an every country which has nuclear weap- ture thinks it is a very good idea to inventory which would then make ons has spare pits, extra pits, to make plan for our future in terms of replace- America have an inventory of spare sure they will never run short—except ments at Los Alamos. parts like other countries do instead of one country. This country. We have no That leaves the part of this amend- being the only one without them. spare pits. I don’t want to infer it is ment wherein we agreed with the Sen- Now, if you finish those two, and the end of the world. It is just a fact. ate. We already voted in this Senate on then you argue the one that wants to For those who think we could make a these issues. We voted affirmatively in give these engineers and scientists au- new nuclear weapon and break all our the Senate on these issues in the armed thority to think about what weapons agreements, they have to know right services authorizing bill. We already might look like in the future, you have now we do not have a spare pit to put voted on every one of these issues. The the whole substance—the cake, the in a nuclear weapon. And the world nuclear posture review suggested the strawberries. Everything that goes knows it. credibility of our nuclear deterrence is with it in this amendment is encap- Senator DOMENICI is not giving any dependent upon flexibility and adapt- sulated in those three ideas. secrets to anyone. It is a truism. For 8 ive production complexes, ones that Now, I have argued with many Sen- years we have been fooling around with would be able to fix safety or perform- ators. I have been in the Chamber on

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11443 many issues. I have respect for some, speak on this amendment. At an appro- are so willingly generous to give up great respect for others. The Senator priate time—I have made some notes— some time. from California is among those for I would like to respond to him. But I do I don’t intend to take an undue pe- whom I have great respect. But in this not want to delay everybody else. riod of time, but it is typical of the instance, the conclusions that have Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am going Senator from West Virginia, his cour- been drawn with reference to what is in to speak on another subject, and I do tesy and his respect for the institution, this bill, and what was proposed by the not want to interfere with the discus- to permit us to make a presentation on review people of the United States who sions on this amendment. an extremely important matter. I review our nuclear posture, are just Does the Senator from Massachusetts thank him very much. not so, plain and simple. wish to speak on this same subject? Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I think the Senate should not follow Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would like to Mr. KENNEDY. I am not surprised, the House. The House, for some reason, do so. This is an amendment offered by but I am always impressed with the decided to spend this money on water Senator FEINSTEIN and myself dealing spirit with which the Senator respects projects. That is fine. with the development and testing of this institution and an individual I say to the Senator, we would like nuclear weapons. Member’s ability to raise important $40 million more for water projects. Mr. BYRD. All right. Does the Sen- matters to make the case which Sen- But this Senator is not going to prevail ator from Arizona wish to speak on ator FEINSTEIN and I are making this and preside over a committee, because this subject also? afternoon. Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished we are short of water money, that All right. Mr. President, inasmuch as I have Senator. looks at these projects in the wrong Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we the floor, I would like to propound a way and then, in the end, says: Well, live in a dangerous world, and the unanimous consent request. we will have $21 or $24 million more for greatest danger of all is still the dan- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- you House Members’ water projects. ger of nuclear war or the use of a nu- ator may proceed with his request. Not this Senator. We will put it right clear weapon by a terrorist group. We Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan- here. This is what this money ought to know that terrorists are still plotting imous consent that when the four Sen- be for. each and every day to find new ways to ators on the floor at the moment, other We are going to vote on this bill. We kill Americans. are going to vote sooner rather than than I, finish their discussions on this The United States has a responsi- later. Hopefully, Senators will see it amendment, I be recognized. I make bility to do what it can to make this a like they saw it before. A substantial that request. Now, what I am saying is, safer world—not as a lone ranger, not majority voted yea on the authorizing when Senator DOMENICI, when Senator as the world’s policeman, but for our bill to do this. We came along in an ap- KYL of Arizona, when the Senator from national security, and for the prin- propriations bill and said: The Senate California, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and the ciples of freedom and democracy that told us to do this. Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. KEN- make our country what it is. We voted for it. So we have done NEDY, have finished their colloquies, We can’t afford to let our own policy what the Senate asked us to do. their discussions, or their statements, help ignite a new nuclear arms race. At I hope the Senate will say: Having that I then be recognized to speak on the very time when we are urging other done what we asked you to do, we will another subject. nations to halt their own nuclear weap- leave the money that you put in to do The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there ons programs, the administration is what we asked you to do. We will leave objection? rushing forward to develop our own it right there. We won’t put it on the The Senator from New Mexico. new nuclear weapons. debt or put it in water projects. We will Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, re- This bill contains $6 million for the put it right where you asked us to put serving the right to object, let me just development of the so-called ‘‘mini- it. talk with the Senator for a moment. nukes’’, and $15 million for the so- With that, I yield the floor. That means I have a chance for re- called nuclear bunker-buster. They The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- buttal? want to speed up the testing of nuclear ator from West Virginia. Also, I say to the Senator, I wanted weapons, and select the site for a new Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the to tell you—I am not sure if you pit facility—a factor for new nuclear Pastore rule run its course? knew—the yeas and nays have been or- warheads. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has dered on this amendment, and I assume These provisions demonstrate the not. you are going to debate an issue unre- dangerous new direction of our nuclear Mr. BYRD. How long will it require lated to this. How long might we ex- weapons policy. They continue the go- to do so? pect you to speak? it-alone, damn-the-torpedoes approach The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will Mr. BYRD. I would suspect that my to the delicate balance of international run its course at about 5:30. speech would require an hour. arms control in today’s world. Mr. BYRD. Five thirty. Very well. Mr. DOMENICI. An hour? By passing this amendment, we can Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir. demonstrate that we are not embark- what was the question? I am sorry, I The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there ing on this reckless new nuclear policy. did not hear it. objection? It makes no sense for us to tell other Mr. BYRD. I made a parliamentary Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection. nations to ‘‘Do as we say, not as we inquiry of the Chair. It has nothing to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without do.’’ We must do a better job of leading do with what you are saying, your ar- objection, it is so ordered. the way in reducing reliance on nuclear gument or hers. Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and all weapons and honoring our commit- Mr. DOMENICI. OK. Senators. ments to international arms control. Mr. BYRD. I want to speak on an- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- The House bill takes this approach, be- other subject. That is what I want to ator from Massachusetts. cause it prohibits the use of funds for do. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I the development of low-yield nuclear Mr. DOMENICI. OK. thank my friend and colleague from weapons and nuclear bunker busters. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have the West Virginia for being typically cour- There’s a reason why arms control floor, do I not? teous to the Members offering this has been such a key element of our for- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. amendment and also being courteous eign policy and defense policy over Mr. BYRD. May I inquire of the dis- to the consideration of this issue which many decades. Last month, an infuri- tinguished Senator from California if is of central importance not only to ated gathering took place in Hiroshima she wishes to respond in any way to the this appropriations bill but also in to honor those who died there in 1945. Senator from New Mexico? terms of the whole question of security The world knows the massive devasta- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Sen- for our country. We don’t find too often tion that a nuclear weapon can un- ator from West Virginia. I would. But I where our colleagues and friends wait leash. Since 1945 nuclear weapons have know Senator KENNEDY has come to their time here on the Senate floor and never been used again in war.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 Yet, this year on the anniversary of from 7,500 tactical warheads to less Some say these efforts on arms con- those tragedies, the Bush Administra- than 2,200. But while they plan for trol have not prevented the spread of tion’s Strategic Command held a secret these reductions, the Department of nuclear weapons. But look at the past meeting in Nebraska at Offut Air Force Energy continues to ask for funding 15 years; South Africa, Belarus, Base to discuss the plan for a new gen- sufficient to support the stockpile lev- Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine—the eration of nuclear weapons. They els set by the START I Arms Control world’s third largest nuclear power— barred congressional staff from the Treaty in 1991 a level set before the fall renounced the use of nuclear weapons meeting. Their nuclear policy is being of the Soviet Union. If we build 500 plu- and joined the Non-Proliferation Trea- discussed in the dark, without telling tonium pits a year, it will far exceed ty as non-nuclear states. the American people or our allies what the number needed for the current Britain and France ratified the Com- the policy is. stockpile, even if we make the reduc- prehensive Test Ban Treaty. Even The administration disbanded an ad- tions planned by the administration. though the U.S. Senate did not ratify visory committee to the National Nu- The numbers don’t add up. We are esca- this landmark treaty, every signatory clear Security Administration with lating the nuclear arms race, not re- and ratifier has obeyed the spirit of the membership that ranged from James ducing it. treaty and not tested nuclear weapons. Schlesinger to Sidney Drell. Obviously, These actions demonstrate the ad- The United States and Russia have re- the administration is not interested in ministration’s contempt for the Nu- moved thousands of nuclear weapons what some of the best minds in our clear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the from alert status, reduced the number country and the world have to say foundation of all current global nuclear of weapons, and coordinated in pro- about nuclear policy in today’s world. arms control. The Non-Proliferation tecting nuclear materials from theft. It’s wrong to begin a new nuclear arms Treaty, signed in 1968, has long stood Without this amendment, we turn race by designing, building, and testing for the fundamental principle that the our backs on five decades of progress in new weapons. world will be safer if nuclear prolifera- reducing the threat we and the world The administration wants to lift the tion does not extend beyond the five face from nuclear weapons. Some in 1993 statutory ban imposed on devel- nations that possessed nuclear weapons the administration argue that in to- oping ‘‘mini-nukes.’’ But these weap- at that time—the United States, Great day’s world the yield of the nuclear ons are far from the type of small, sur- Britain, the Soviet Union, China, and weapons in our current arsenals is so gical-strike weapons that the name France. It reflected the worldwide con- immense that our enemies know that suggests. They will not keep us safer or sensus that the greater the number of we will never use them. They argue more secure. Mini-nukes are a dream nations with nuclear weapons, the that these massive nuclear weapons come true for rogue regimes and ter- greater the risk of nuclear war. have no deterrent value against many rorists, and a nightmare for every The Non-Proliferation Treaty has of today’s adversaries and that we need other nation on Earth. Just one of clearly prevented a worldwide nuclear smaller, more ‘‘usable’’ nuclear weap- these weapons, carried by a terrorist in arms race. Since the treaty was signed, ons to make deterrence more credible. a suitcase, can devastate an entire only five additional nations acquired In fact, if we start treating nuclear city. A five-kiloton weapon would be nuclear weapons, and out of them weapons as just another weapon in our half the size of the Hiroshima bomb. South Africa later got rid of them. arsenal, we will increase the likelihood Some claim that these weapons are Israel, India, and Pakistan never of their use—not only against our ad- needed against deeply buried, hardened signed the treaty. North Korea signed versaries, but also against ourselves. bunkers. But current technology will it in 1985, but withdrew from it last We would be dangerously blurring the allow such a warhead to burrow only year. line between nuclear and conventional fifty feet into the ground or less. Deto- The Bush administration’s policy weapons, and tear down the firewall be- nating even a one-kiloton weapon at jeopardizes the entire structure of nu- tween these weapons that has served us that depth would create a crater larger clear arms control so carefully nego- so well in preventing nuclear war in than the World Trade Center, larger tiated by world leaders over the past the entire half-century since World than a football field. It will spew a mil- half century, starting with the Eisen- War II. lion cubic feet or radioactive dust into hower administration. As Secretary of State Powell said the atmosphere. Imagine what a five- The history of those years is still last year, ‘‘Nuclear weapons in this day kiloton blast would do. vivid in our minds. I was 13 years old and age may serve some deterrent ef- Not only is the Bush administration on that fateful day in August 1945, fect, and so be it, but to think of using developing their new nuclear weapons, when a B–29 bomber named ‘‘Enola them as just another weapon in what it’s also rushing to test them. As Dep- Gay’’ dropped the first nuclear weapon, might start out as a conventional con- uty Assistant Secretary of Defense, ‘‘Little Boy,’’ over Hiroshima. More flict in this day and age seems to me to Fred Celec said in 2003, if you, ‘‘design than four square miles of the city were be something that no side should be a new nuclear weapon . . . you will instantly and completely destroyed. contemplating.’’ probably have to have a nuclear test.’’ More than 90,000 people died instantly. It is difficult to believe that these In fact, the administration coupled Another 50,000 died by the end of that new types of nuclear weapons serve any its request to design their nuclear year. Three days later, another B–29 rational military purpose. As we saw in weapons with a request to speed up the dropped ‘‘Fat Man’’ over Nagasaki, the first Persian Gulf war and again in time it would take to test them. killing 39,000 people and injuring 25,000 the war against Iraq, precision-guided No one questions the safety of our more. conventional and stand-off weapons nuclear stockpile. This accelerated test In 1957, when the Soviet Union serve us incredibly well. How could readiness is not needed to preserve our launched Sputnik, it became clear that low-yield nuclear weapons be any more existing arsenal. The only reason for two oceans could not protect us from a effective than the precision-guided con- rushing to achieve the shortest pos- nuclear attack at home. ventional weapons? And their radio- sible testing time is to test new kinds The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 active fall-out would be far more dan- of nuclear weapons. showed the entire world how close it gerous to our ground troops and to ci- Consistent with this goal, the admin- could come to catastrophe, and gave vilian populations. istration has also requested funds to supreme urgency to nuclear arms con- Our goal is to prevent nuclear wars, design a large-scale production facility trol. not start them. I urge my colleagues to for plutonium pits, which are factories In 1968, the Non-Proliferation Treaty approve the Feinstein-Kennedy amend- for new nuclear warheads. The admin- was signed in Moscow, London, and ment, and say ‘‘no’’ to any such fateful istration wants a facility able to Washington, DC, and went into full ef- step on the road to nuclear war. produce 500 of these pits a year, a level fect in 1970. For the next 20 years, the I wanted to thank my good friend that far exceeds what is needed to United States and the Soviet Union ne- and colleague from California for her maintain the current stockpile. gotiated a series of landmark treaties presentation earlier this afternoon and The administration claims that it is to keep the world from blowing itself also for her eloquence when we ad- reducing its current nuclear stockpile up. dressed this issue earlier in the session.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11445 She has reminded us in this body about rorism, we are finding ourselves in a sources and attention to a series of new ini- how this administration has been situation where the administration tiatives. evolving its whole nuclear policy with wants to alter that policy in terms of What they are saying is, shouldn’t we very subtle changes, moving us in a development and testing. Mininukes— certify before starting this program? very dramatic and different direction and there is really no such thing as a Shouldn’t we certify to its safety? than has been generally embraced over small nuke; a nuke is a nuke. It is no There are just a few reasons to do that. the period of the last 50 years. different by nature, disposition, and its I am going to bring up the Rocky Flats What she has commented on, and capability. Those who have served in plant northwest of Denver. what troubles me and, I think, increas- the military are familiar with a great Fourteen years ago, this plant, which ingly Members of the Senate at these deal of information regarding nuclear had produced pultonium pits, sank per- hearings that have been held, by and weapons. Our present Secretary of manently into a multibillion-dollar large under security conditions and not State wrote a book and included the cesspool of contamination, criminality, in the broad daylight for public debate comments I stated. As a former mili- and managerial incompetence. I am and discussions—I think, hopefully, as tary officer, he understands this. At a quoting from an article in the bulletin of Atomic Scientists: a result of these discussions and the time, frankly, when we are unsurpassed understanding we have developed here, in terms of our military capability, Not to worry says, the Department of En- ergy, Rocky Flats II will have all the nec- and has been particularly well devel- why in the world do we want to develop oped—I think in the House of Rep- essary equipment for suppressing plutonium small conventional systems which will fires that regrettably cannot be totally resentatives by many of those on both trigger other countries to do that. eliminated, but whose frequency and sever- sides of the aisle, I might add, Repub- That could compromise what we have ity can be reduced, and even planned for, in lican and Democrat alike, who have ex- today in terms of our military and our the structural and process designs. amined this in considerable detail, Armed Forces. This keeps getting mixed up. We al- they have reviewed this and made a There is one modern military force in ready have $2.3 billion appropriated for very strong recommendation we not the world, and it happens to be the a pit facility at Los Alamos, and that move in this direction. United States. We have to keep it that facility will begin producing 20 pits per I don’t think anyone can say our way. Why put at risk that advantage year in 2007 and can be equipped to House colleagues have been negligent with the proliferation by other coun- produce as many as 80 pits per year and in assuring that we were going to de- tries of small useful nukes—I think can be further enlarged to produce 150 velop the kinds of defense systems and that is unwise—as well as the dangers pits per year. At what are we throwing also the defense capability to ensure it would pose in terms of the growth of this money? How big does this thing the protection for our national secu- terrorism. have to get? That is what is going on in rity. I yield the floor. this. It may be that Los Alamos is hav- As shown on this chart, we review The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. ing trouble with it. I don’t know. But I very briefly the half century of arms MURKOWSKI). The Senator from Cali- do know this: Throwing money at it is control. Going back over the period of fornia. not the solution. time, in 1963 there was the Partial Test It might be useful to put the entire Ban Treaty, and there was the Non- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I very much thank report language in the RECORD. I ask proliferation Treaty in 1970. We also unanimous consent to print the report see the SALT and ABM Treaties, and the distinguished Senator from Massa- chusetts for his remarks. I appreciate language in the RECORD. also SALT II. These are all efforts by There being no objection, the mate- very much his leadership and support both Republicans and Democrats to rial was ordered to be printed in the on this issue. I want to make some move us away from the real dangers of RECORD, as follows: nuclear confrontation and nuclear war. comments in response to the chair- man’s comments. FUNDING, HOUSE LANGUAGE ON NEW NUCLEAR As we remember, a number of years WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR TESTING, SEP- The first is, on July 16, the House ago we talked about the ‘‘nuclear win- TEMBER 12, 2003 ter’’ as well. We have seen enormous published their report. I would like to The Senate is currently considering the progress that has been made and great read excerpts from the House Energy Energy & Water Appropriations bill. On leadership by both Republicans and and Water Development Appropriations Tuesday, Senators Feinstein and Kennedy Democrats. Many of our colleagues in Act into the RECORD because I think it will offer an amendment to reduce and re- sets some things straight: strict funding for specific nuclear weapons the recent past, such as Senators Rich- budget items. Details on what has already ard Lugar and Sam Nunn, with the de- Before any of the existing program goals have been successfully demonstrated, the transpired are below. velopment of the Nunn-Lugar provi- [Dollars in millions] sions, tried to get those countries that Administration is now proposing to spend millions on enhanced test readiness while have been willing to sign on and move Adminis- Senate maintaining the moratorium on nuclear tration House approps us away from the dangers of nuclear testing, aggressively pursue a multi-billion request action action proliferation, to get help and assist- dollar Modern Pit Facility before the first Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator ... $15 1 $5 $15 ance from the United States to help production pit has even been successfully Advanced Weapons Concepts ...... 6 ...... 6 them achieve that goal. Now we have a certified for use in the stockpile, develop a Enhanced Test Site Readiness ...... 24 .8 ...... 24.8 very different direction. robust nuclear earth penetrator weapon and Modern Pit Facility ...... 22 .8 10 .8 22.8 Finally, we have these statements begin additional advanced concepts research 1 The Committee directed that the DOE use the $5 million to work with on new nuclear weapons. It appears to the the DOD ‘‘to maximize the dual-use applicability for both conventional and made by the administration. Fred nuclear weapons.’’ Celek said: Committee the Department is proposing to rebuild, restart and redo and otherwise exer- EXCERPTS FROM THE HOUSE ENERGY AND If a nuclear bomb could be developed to cise every capability that was used over the WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, penetrate rock and concrete and still ex- past forty years of the Cold War and at the 2004—HOUSE REPORT 108–212 plode, it will ultimately get fielded. same time prepare for a future with an ex- The Committee provides $5,000,000 for I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable panded mission for nuclear weapons. Nothing RNEP and eliminates funding for additional yield because I have advised the use of that in the past performance of the NNSA con- advanced concepts research in favor of high- which will cause minimum destruction. vinces this Committee that the successful er priority current mission requirements. We are basically talking about an ef- implementation of Stockpile Stewardship The Committee is concerned the NNSA is fort that recognizes a very important Program is a foregone conclusion, which being tasked to start new activities with sig- part of our history—Republicans and makes the pursuit of a broad range of new nificant outyear budget impacts before the Democrats—to move us away from nu- initiatives premature. Until the NNSA has Administration has articulated the specific clear proliferation, and the United demonstrated to the Congress that it can requirements to support the President’s an- States has been a leader. Other coun- successfully meet its primary mission of nounced stockpile modifications. Under cur- maintaining the safety, security, and viabil- rent plans, the NNSA is attempting to mod- tries have been willing. That has been ity of the existing stockpile by executing the ernize the industrial infrastructure of the the result of 50 years of work of Repub- Stockpile Life Extension Program and weapons complex and restore production licans and Democrats. Science-based Stewardship activities on time plant capability in order to refurbish the en- Now, in a world of increased tension, and within budget, this Committee will not tire START I stockpile, reengineer the Fed- in many respects as a result of ter- support redirecting the management re- eral management structure of the complex

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 and downsize the workforce by 20 percent by That is exactly what I have been say- prove existing nuclear weapons and the end of fiscal year 2004, while struggling ing. That is exactly what we are doing. possibly develop new ones. The report to successfully demonstrate its core mission We are sending a message we are doing cites the need to approve earth-pene- of maintaining the existing stockpile through the Stockpile Stewardship Program. it and, believe me, others will follow trating weapons. In general, the Pen- Before any of the existing program goals suit. tagon report stresses the need for nu- have been successfully demonstrated, the Then he went on and said: clear weapons that would be more easy Administration is now proposing to spend We should be concerned about the develop- to use against enemy weapons because millions on enhanced test readiness while ment of weapons of mass destruction even in they would be of variable or low yield, maintaining the moratorium on nuclear the case of low-yield weapons, the foreign be highly accurate, could be quickly testing, aggressively pursue a multi-billion minister said in an interview to be published targeted. dollar Modern Pit Facility before the first in the Austrian daily Die Press on Friday. It is going on. No matter how one Muhammad el-Baradei, the head of the Inter- production pit has been successfully certified wants to cloak advanced weapons con- for use in the stockpile, develop a robust nu- national Atomic Energy Agency, accused the clear earth penetrator weapon and begin ad- United States last week of effectively break- cept designs, it means new nuclear ditional advanced concepts research on new ing a ban on the proliferation of weapons of weapons, and that is what we are nuclear weapons. It appears to the Committee mass destruction through its research on so- doing. We are breaking a 60-year tradi- the Department is proposing to rebuild, restart, called mini-nukes. tion. We are going to move up testing. and redo and otherwise exercise every capability The chairman says there is no re- Testing does not need to be moved up. that was used over the past forty years of the search going on regarding mininukes. Why do they want to move up testing Cold War and at the same time prepare for a fu- Then why did we repeal the Spratt- to the basic minimum time possible ture with an expanded mission for nuclear when the experts say it is not possible weapons. Nothing in the past performance of Furse language that for 10 years pre- the NNSA convinces this Committee that the vented the development of mininukes? to do it in 18 months? successful implementation of Stockpile Steward- Why did we do it if we were not going Now, you can believe that we can be ship program is a foregone conclusion, which to build it? This is the deception. This fairly assured by the fact that we spend makes the pursuit of a broad range of new ini- is the covert nature of these programs. $400 billion a year on our defense, more tiatives premature. Until the NNSA has dem- I do not doubt that we are building than every other nation on Earth com- onstrated to the Congress that it can suc- them. bined; that maybe ought to give us an cessfully meet its primary mission of main- To say this is not happening really element of security; but I think to taining the safety, security, and viability of open this door, to walk through a nu- the existing stockpile by executing the bothers me. If my colleagues do not be- Stockpile Life Extension Program and lieve it is happening, reread the Nu- clear door, to propose that we are Science-based Stewardship activities on time clear Posture Review. Every Member going to begin to develop low-yield nu- and within budget, this Committee will not has access to the classified version of clear weapons and nuclear bunker bust- support redirecting the management re- the Nuclear Posture Review which ers sets an example for the world. They sources and attention to a series of new ini- came out in January of 2000. They can read the Nuclear Posture Review. They tiatives. (Emphasis added.) read the unclassified version. For these read the Washington Post. They read Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. purposes, I am going to quote from the the French press. They read the Madam President, it may be useful to New York Times of March 10. This is speeches. They know what is hap- think for a moment—the chairman about the Nuclear Posture Review. pening. So we are setting an example started me thinking. He asked the It stresses a need to develop earth- for other nations. We say all the time question: Why did we need 40,000 nu- penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy that we do not want to proliferate, and clear weapons? The answer is we didn’t. heavily fortified underground bunkers, we are encouraging proliferation by Now 40 years later, we are left with including those that may be used to our own actions. Forty thousand nu- enormous problems: 40,000 nuclear store chemical and biological weapons. clear weapons, I guess 45 years ago or weapons which this country entered Now I am quoting from parts of the 40 years later—I bet there is no one in into the study, the research, the de- article. the United States who can say we need sign, and the development of. We could There is a quote again from the Pen- 40,000 nuclear weapons, but we develop blow up this Earth time and time and tagon: This administration is fash- them. They are there. A lot of them time again, obliterate it from exist- ioning a more diverse set of options for have been disarmed. ence. Does anyone think that makes deterring the threat of weapons of We are going to begin now this next sense—40,000? No, because what hap- mass destruction. That is why we are generation. It is wrong. It is morally pens is the economic urge, the paro- pursuing advanced conventional forces wrong. It is wrong for our children. It chial nature of States—all of this takes and improved intelligence capabilities. is wrong for our soldiers who have to over and subliminally, under the radar, A combination of offensive and defen- go on the battlefield. huge weapons systems become devel- sive and nuclear and nonnuclear capa- Take another look at Hiroshima. oped which need to be maintained, se- bilities is essential to meet the deter- Both Senator KENNEDY and I spelled cured, activated, and deactivated. rence requirements of the 21st century. out the number of deaths. If we add It is a crazy system, and we all pat In my mind, what that means is the them all up within a year, I think be- ourselves on the back and think we are smaller nuclear weapons will be built tween Hiroshima and Nagasaki it to- good Americans. Does anybody believe below 5 kiloton. The difference is kind tals 220,000 dead. That is a combination the United States of America needed of blurred between conventional and of a 15-kiloton bomb—what was it, a 21- 40,000 nuclear weapons? But we built nuclear weapons and it makes it easier kiloton bomb at Nagasaki—and we are them. That is what is happening here to use the nuclear weapon on the bat- talking about a 100-kiloton nuclear again. That is exactly what is hap- tlefield. That is what I believe is going bunker buster. pening here again. on. Look at this devastation. This is one We are appropriating money for a $4 Another place states: Adding new de- bomb. I will never forget as a 12-year- billion bomb factory in addition to the tail to previous briefings, the Pentagon old what we grew up with. Children $2.3 billion bomb factory we already ap- says that its future force structure will today have different fears, but what we propriated. If they can’t do it for $2.3 have the following components. By grew up with was the fear of an atomic billion—and I am talking about Los Al- 2012: 14 Trident submarines with two in bomb. That is why the daisy spot that amos run by the University of Cali- overhead at one time. They will be part was used in the Goldwater campaign fornia—if they can’t do it, let’s take a of a triad that will include hundreds of had such an impact because there was good look at the reasons. Minuteman III land-based missiles, 100 a whole generation of young children Other nations know what we are B–52, H and B–2 bombers. That is an who were impacted by it. I was one of doing. The Finnish Foreign Minister, operationally deployed force of about them. Senator KENNEDY is the same just a week ago, commenting on our 1,700 to 2,200 strategic nuclear war- generation. He was one of them. failure to ratify the Comprehensive heads. When we were young, we said: We are Test Ban Treaty, the move sent com- The Pentagon said that nuclear plan- never going to let this happen again. pletely the wrong message to the inter- ning is not merely a question of num- But in the Senate we are letting it hap- national community. bers. The Pentagon also wants to im- pen again. If this Senate does not do

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11447 what the House of Representatives people from what we do have—from her that is indicated by the fact that we does, I think there is a moral degrada- knowledge of the lab directors—that have already appropriated $2.3 billion tion spread over this whole body be- we are able to give them the assurance for this plutonium pit facility at Los cause we will then become the ones that our nuclear stockpile is current Alamos and reportedly this pit facility, who launched the new generation of and capable and ready to meet the test if it is able to be built correctly, can nuclear weapons. if called upon. take care of all of the needs for the Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, foreseeable future. good enough to yield for one or two respectfully, to the Senator from Mas- But this is another $4 billion pro- questions? sachusetts, I think no one can give an gram—that is over 10 years—of which Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. unequivocal statement that our nu- an amount is authorized in this bill Mr. KENNEDY. I saw the photograph clear supplies, plants, et cetera, are un- that we are trying to strike because that the Senator has of Hiroshima. I equivocally safe. I think a lot of steps there is no need for it. I think we have have a chart that gives us a for in- have been taken. tried to lay out the arguments here. stance. If we use a 5-kiloton earth-pen- As to whether they are adequate to This is not an easy issue. I really be- etrating nuclear explosion in Damas- meet any challenge, I have never heard lieve we will probably never have more cus—this is just a for instance, obvi- anyone say they were not. of an issue of conscience in this session ously—and they had the traditional Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the dis- than we do in this vote. I think the winds that flow from the east to the tinction the Senator has made. She House of Representatives have given west, it gives the general flowline of gets to the nub of the issue: The ques- their consciences a test and measured where the radioactivity and the dust tion, in other words, is whether we up by eliminating the funds. They said would flow, but we can see roughly it have an adequate stockpile—more than clearly we are not ready to spend these would go from Syria, across northern an adequate stockpile, as the Senator funds in the report language that I Israel through southern Lebanon, just has pointed out. read and put in the RECORD. And the north of Haifa. The best estimates I thank the Senator. This is an issue balance really rests with the Senate. would be 230,000 fatalities and 280,000 of enormous importance and con- I suspect we may be defeated. It will casualties. This is a 5 kiloton bomb. sequence. I share the view of the Sen- be a conferenceable item, and all of I have heard the Senator from Cali- ator that we have many different, im- those who want this new generation of fornia talk about the fact that this is a portant issues that are before Congress nuclear weapons will end up prevailing. mini-nuke, but she has just again re- this year: Obviously, the overarching But I can tell you I don’t want my fin- stated very clearly that there is really issues, the conflict in Iraq and the war gerprint on it. I don’t want to have to no such thing as a mini-nuke. We are on terror, and how we are going to deal say what I have done to my children. talking about weapons that have such with those, as well as other priorities Every bit of information I have ever a massive, distinctive, unique, and spe- to which we are committed. But the received indicates that with the most cial quality that they have such an ex- issue in terms of the security, even as superior conventional weapons forces traordinary danger to all of those who we are thinking about the nature of in the world, and an amount of money are directly affected, and those who terrorism, I think she would agree with spent that is more than that spent by would be indirectly affected well into me, is also related to the whole issue of all of the nations put together, a huge the future. the battle against terrorism, as well, in nuclear arsenal, and the ability to dial So we are looking at these casualties terms of what the potential may be in up or down the kilotonnage of our nu- the Senator mentioned, Hiroshima and the future with the development of clear bombs—my hope is we will con- Nagasaki. We can also look at what the these, what they call mini-nukes, and tinue our commitment to the Nuclear casualties would be with the 5-kiloton what that means in terms of the pro- Nonproliferation Treaty; that we will earth penetrator that went down to 30 liferation issue. not be hypocritical; that we will live feet in depth. We are talking about I thank the Senator for her com- by our words, our statements; if we major devastation that this country, as ments. want other nations not to proliferate; Senator FEINSTEIN has said so elo- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Sen- that we will see that we do not develop quently, has never accepted—through ator from Massachusetts. The Senator the mechanisms by which proliferation Republican and Democratic control; was not in the Chamber. But the chart is incentivized or carried out. this has not been a partisan issue over I used was of a predicted radioactive a long period of time. fallout from a B61–11, the 300-kiloton So I think this is a very big vote. I Let me just ask the Senator a final explosion in west Pyongyang, North really hope the Members of this es- question that is the question I think Korea, using historical weather data teemed body will vote yes to strike the all Americans are wondering about: for the month of May. It is a similar money from this bill. whether we have security of our cur- chart to what the Senator has shown, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- rent nuclear capacity. This is raised in but it gives the 48-hour dose of radi- ator from New Mexico. discussion and debate. Why should we ation contamination. The possible ef- Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, ever take a chance, in terms of what fects of radioactive fallout should a nu- Senator KENNEDY is still in the Cham- we do have, in terms of a current capa- clear weapon be used include, possible ber, and he asked a question of the dis- bility? radiation burns; change in blood chem- tinguished Senator from California I have seen and read and heard the istry, hemorrhaging, as well as deaths about the safety of our nuclear weap- directors of the laboratories that have in weeks or months—it is a terrible ons. responsibility for this repeatedly indi- chart to have to look at. Of course, this Senator KENNEDY, once a year, each cate their sense of assurance. They are is an extraordinarily large device, so of three civilian men—it happens in skilled, committed individuals who we are not talking about a bunker this case they are men. I don’t think have dedicated basically their lives to buster. That is 300 kilotons. But that is there has been a woman in charge of ei- ensure the deterrent capability of our the chart that we happen to have. ther of the three nuclear laboratories capacity, in terms of nuclear weapons. I think the thing that bothers me since their inception. But, once a year, They give the assurance to us that we most about this program is that no- three civilians certify to the President can give to the American people that body really knows what is going to be of the United States that, to the best we have the capability and it is cur- produced with all this money. It al- of their knowledge, the nuclear stock- rent. ways happens kind of under the shelf. pile is intact, safe, and reliable. I am just interested, as someone who Then the economics of it become so im- That has been going on for well over has spent a great deal of time on this, portant that there needs to be a con- 60 years. But only 8 years ago, or 9, we because this is an issue that has been tinuation of it. I really suspect that is changed the way those men concluded talked about a great deal even during why we ended up with 40,000 nuclear the weapons were safe and reliable and the course of this debate, whether the bombs—because once you get into it, it ready. Properly or improperly, we said Senator believes she can give assur- just keeps going and keeps rolling; no more underground testing. Prior to ances unequivocally to the American there are constant demands. I think that, every time a certification was

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 made to the President, it was predi- down substantially while three or four not a factory. It will not take care of 30 cated upon the single best way to de- new countries are added that I don’t or 40 years of the future. It is a make- termine the validity of a weapon, and think had anything to do with this shift assembly in the city of Los Ala- that was to test it. amendment. Pakistan had nothing to mos as part of the research laboratory. Now we have said let us do it another do with this amendment as they devel- It has been a devil of a job for them to way. Let us send a signal to the world oped their nuclear weapon. I don’t be- manufacture consistent with the need we don’t want to test underground. lieve this amendment has anything to for a plutonium pit for a nuclear weap- This amendment is relevant, which I do with the North Koreans. This on. will tell you about in a moment. amendment says get that site ready in Today we are discussing things which We said to the scientists, How much case we have to test the weapons we we hardly ever discuss. But I believe at money do you need to get the best own. 10 minutes of 5 on the 15th day of Sep- equipment, including new equipment, We can get up here and talk all we tember on a Monday, if we were au- to determine the validity of the weap- want about America is already building thorizing the building of new nuclear ons without testing? That is called new nuclear weapons, but it isn’t true. weapons, there would be a block of science-based stockpile stewardship. If any Senator stands up here and says Senators on this floor. There would be There are many who do not think it we are making new nuclear weapons steam heat from those who oppose it. will work, that we will have to return and they are just little nuclear weap- The truth is that isn’t what the someday not for a new stockpile, but to ons, I submit they ought to ask any- amendment does. It is not an amend- answer that question we might have to body they want under oath anywhere ment that will build any new nuclear return to testing. in the Government, and the answer will bombs. I know the Senator from Massachu- be we aren’t, we haven’t, and we will I repeat: As important as it is, and as setts has studied these issues, and he is not build a nuclear weapon until Con- magnificent as the Senator from Cali- a very involved Senator. But I spent a gress says we can. fornia is in her presentation on Sep- huge portion of my life learning this. Building a nuclear weapon is not in tember 15, it is not an amendment that We are going through the throes of the this language. Look at it. Look at has anything to do with building or not most incredible kind of research just to every single word. See if it says you building nuclear weapons, for we are determine there is nothing wrong with are going to build one nuclear weapon not authorizing that. It won’t happen the innards of a 40-year-old bomb, or with the money in this appropriations because of what we are doing. And she 30-year-old bomb as we reduce from bill. It in no way permits the building won’t stop it from happening with her 40,000 to 5,000, or less, which is where of a nuclear weapon. It does what I said amendment because it isn’t happening we are now and heading down. about the Nevada Test Site. It says to to begin with. Essentially, the Senator indicated it Yes. The answer is if you follow that our scientists at these laboratories, In is a moral issue. That is an easy term sequence, those men not too long ago the meantime you can study, you can to throw around—a moral issue. I could told the President they are OK. But in research weapons of the future. And it probably say it is a moral issue, also. I this amendment, one portion the Sen- names the kinds of things we might be understand it in stark, objective terms. ator from California strikes is a provi- looking at in the future. sion that could be freestanding and im- I submit that for a great nation to It does not frighten me a bit. As a matter of fact, I am more fright- portant. It has nothing whatsoever to say anything to its scientists but you ened to think of having the scientists do with a new weapons system. It just can do that is absolutely crazy. Do you who have manned our nuclear labora- says bring the test site in Nevada cur- mean we are going to tell these great tories told they cannot think and plan rent so it doesn’t take 3 years if you scientists we don’t know what is going for the future regardless of what their make a decision to use it. One portion to be here in 15 years, but you better great brains say might be around the does that. Instead of letting that sys- not be studying what kind of weapons corner, over the hill, or in some decade tem in Nevada degenerate so that if we are going to need in 15 years be- to come, for these United States. That you need it, it will take 3 years to cause we are scared of that, we think frightens me more and creates more of build it up, part of this amendment that means we are going to build new a moral issue than the issue that is not says move it along so it is only 18 weapons? I don’t believe that. I believe even an issue, to wit, we are building months. they ought to be permitted to study. more nuclear weapons, a new arsenal, If you want to conclude that is in They ought to be permitted to think. and the like. there because we want to build a whole We ought to be wondering about under- It cannot be a moral issue for me be- new system of weapons, you can do ground chemical plants that might be cause a negative can hardly be. If you that. But the truth is it is in there be- building things to destroy the world. I are not doing it, it does not seem to me cause the time has come to get it more see nothing wrong with that. I do not to be an issue, moral or otherwise. relevant to the problems we may be see that as threatening to anyone, for That is how I see it. confronted with in terms of one of it builds nothing. If anything, it builds The Senator suspects we will win. I these directors saying we had better brainpower on the part of the great sci- am not sure. If the Senate has any con- test the weapon. Then we have to wait entists, and that is it. sistency, we should. We already won 3 years. Part of this amendment says The last one about a plant to manu- once. In fact, since then we have no, you will only have to wait 11⁄2 facture pits: This request says that for learned a lot more. But we have re- years. That part should pass under all the next 40 years—40 years—we may duced it to dollars and to programs circumstances. Why the United States need pit replacements from time to that had been authorized. It is easier to House of Representatives said no, I time for our nuclear weapons. That is a see what we are and are not doing in can’t understand. The Senate said yes given. It says let us design the complex this amendment, in this appropriations already, overwhelmingly. to do that. bill, than it was when we voted in favor This amendment would take it out This amendment doesn’t say cut it in of the authorization bill. I am not sure and say leave it at 3 years; let the reli- half, we don’t want you to make it so how it will come out. I am not sure ability kind of lie in wait in case we big. We say send us the plans and we what will happen in the House. I guar- need it to test a weapon; let it be 3 will look at them. This says don’t do antee if the Senate votes to go to con- years instead of 11⁄2 years. it. Why not do it? Every other country ference with the language we have The second part of this amendment: with nuclear weapons has spare pits, I written in this bill that came out of There is no use today on the floor of regret to say. But for us, it doesn’t Appropriations, we will consider it a the Senate in terms of this amendment mean much. Nobody has to be scared. very important issue for America’s fu- to talk about the fact that years ago That doesn’t mean next week or next ture. It will not be easy to give it away we had 40,000 nuclear weapons and the month, but it is something our experts to a House that canceled it and spent Soviet Union had 60,000. Those are true are saying shouldn’t exist too long. the money on water projects instead of numbers. That happened. I am not sure And we are busy trying to build a cou- these issues. That was the outcome. the last number is right, but it is plen- ple in a makeshift manner, to which Mr. KENNEDY. If I could inquire ty more than 40,000. We are on the way my friend from California alludes. It is quickly of the Senator, as I remember,

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11449 we had the support of the Joint Chiefs there is a single member of the Joint That was such a scary thought in the of Staff at that time in 1998 when we Chiefs of Staff, a single expert in the cold war it deterred aggression. considered the comprehensive test ban United States of America on its nu- The question is, Would that same de- treaty. We did not ratify it, but it was clear weapons arsenal, that if asked terrent work? I ask in the case of Iraq, supported. I don’t know, as a member would they prefer that the Nevada Test if Iraq used chemical or biological of the Armed Services Committee, of Site be ready for tests in 18 months or weapons against the United States, any request by the Joint Chiefs of Staff 3 years, would not answer: 18 months; 3 does anyone believe that a credible that they have made, any representa- years is too long. United States threat would have been tion to the Armed Services Committee If you ask me, I will tell you. I be- dropping one of our large massive nu- that they believe our nuclear capa- lieve there is no one who is certain clear weapons over Baghdad, killing bility and capacity is in any way that over time what we are doing is millions of innocent Iraqis? It is not a threatened today. going to work and that we are not credible deterrent. We do have the testing capability. It going to have to go to testing at some So in a world where you have ter- takes anywhere from 24 to 36 months to time. Almost everyone says that. Since rorist organizations and terrorist-spon- move ahead on the tests. I don’t know they say it, I am confident they would sored states, and you no longer have that we know of any requests made by rather have the Nevada Test Site ready the two great superpowers—the Soviet the Joint Chiefs or any chiefs or the in a shorter timeframe rather than Union and the United States—facing Secretary of Defense specifically sug- longer. off against each other, the question is, gesting our capability regarding our I thank the Senator for the question. What kind of a nuclear deterrent nuclear weapons is anything but robust I yield the floor. should we have? and capable now. It is very important Mr. KENNEDY. If the only question, What this amendment would do is we know as we debate this issue. I then, is an issue of timing and upgrad- stop us from even thinking about that. It seems to me we ought to be thinking would be interested in the Senator’s ing the testing to reduce it from 2 about that. And if smaller, more pre- answer to that. years to 18 months or 21⁄2 years, I don’t Second, I understand what has been think we would have an amendment cise weapons could do the job just as done with the separate amendment here. We know that alone does not well, wouldn’t people of good will, who which prohibited the development and show the thrust of what we believe will are concerned about unnecessary testing of mini-nukes, as well as a be permitted with this policy. death, be interested in at least think- ing about weapons that would pose a number of provisions in the Spratt I yield the floor. deterrent to an attack but would not amendment in the authorization com- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- kill as many people, would not kill so mittee. When we get a conference re- ator from Arizona. indiscriminately? port, as a member of that conference, Mr. KYL. Madam President, I appre- ciate the opportunity to speak on this One of the great lessons from this the conferees understand that issue Iraqi experience is that we now have amendment in support of the Senator will be resolved. The Spratt amend- the capability of delivering weapons from New Mexico and in opposition to ment will no longer be in effect. very precisely. Wouldn’t it be better to So on the one hand the authorization the proponents of the amendment. It seems to me, this amendment do that, even in a nuclear context, committee will eliminate the Spratt than the one we are in now? seeks to put our head in the sand and amendment, which would have actually The Senator from Massachusetts just ignore circumstances around us in the prohibited the development of any- alluded to the great progress made in thing below the 5 kiloton. Now we are vain hope that somehow everyone else precision conventional weaponry. Even on the second phase of this appropria- in the world has as good intentions as that, however, was not sufficient to de- tions process in terms of the Depart- the United States and if we just wish stroy at least one, and I believe some, ment of Energy, and the Senator is hard enough that they will not cause of the bunkers in Iraq. And without saying the money in here cannot be trouble. getting into a lot of detail, let me just used for this development. But it is The amendment says we ought to at say we are well aware that there are clear, as the Senator from California least be thinking about what we would countries in the world that have devel- has pointed out, from the Nuclear Pos- do in the event that we decide our de- oped extraordinarily robust under- ture Review, the debate on the author- terrent was no longer credible enough ground facilities that we are going to ization, and the elimination of the to deter the threats against us. have to take out if we are ever to win Spratt amendment, the continued ef- Everyone supports the idea of a de- a military conflict with them. If we do fort to put the money in mini-nukes, terrent. That includes a nuclear deter- not have the capability of doing that, this is the dangerous direction the ad- rent. That is, frankly, one of the things they have the upper hand. ministration is moving. that kept the Soviets and the United Wouldn’t it make sense to be able to I hear what the Senator has said and States from engaging in a hot war dur- deliver very precisely the kind of weap- the assurances the Senator has given ing the cold war. on that we are asking just to be able to to Members, but I wonder why we can- What we are saying is, sometimes think about here in order to destroy not have more clarity regarding the when things change, you have to think that kind of facility? The conventional legislation. about what that means in terms of weaponry will not do it, as precise as it Finally, I will add with regard to the your defense posture. This is one of is. As the Senator from New Mexico scientists and what they were able and those times. What the amendment pointed out, we are not asking for not able to pursue. As the Senator would do is stop us from thinking money to do it. We are just asking to knows, we had the most extraordinary about it. If you concede we need a nu- allow our scientists to think about upgrading of weaponry, particularly in clear deterrent, you should not propose what would be necessary and what the Iraq situation, particularly on the an amendment that says we cannot would be possible—perhaps maybe not precise guidance and precision bombs. think about it. even necessary but perhaps make rec- We will not take the time in this de- One thing that has changed, we no ommendations to us so we could then bate to review it, but there has been longer face an opponent which, like the act on those recommendations. absolutely extraordinary progress United States, had these huge To this matter of the time, I am glad made in the area of conventional multimega tonnage weapons that were the Senator from Massachusetts per- forces. The scientists have been work- basically conceived, developed, and de- haps conceded the point that if we need ing effectively. That has enhanced our ployed in order to scare the other side to reduce the time necessary to prepare capability. into believing if they ever attacked, we our Nevada Test Site, we should have I am interested whether the Senator would incinerate most of the people in the ability to do that. All of the ex- knows of any Joint Chiefs who believe the other country. These were not perts—the Senator from New Mexico is the nuclear weapon stockpile would re- bunker-busting bombs. These were correct—agree that we should not have quire additional testing? city-killing bombs, bombs that would to wait 3 years to even test a weapon. Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, be detonated over the opponents’ city, As a matter of fact, one of the prob- let me answer this way: I don’t believe killing literally millions of people. lems is that we do not necessarily

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY S11450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 15, 2003 know whether our nuclear weapons— If North Korea, for example, just should fall into the trap of attempting the existing ones—will work well after speaking hypothetically, believes we to separate research from development. all of these years. And our opponents are serious about preventing them The Senator from New Mexico made do not necessarily know. from acquiring a lot of nuclear weap- the point that nobody is talking here Also, the Stockpile Stewardship Pro- ons and proliferating them around the about producing weapons. And we are gram, which is merely a bunch of com- world, clearly, that must mean we are not. But I hope we do not get to the puters designed to tell us, as best they willing to use our own nuclear weap- point that we are so committed to can, whether they think these weapons ons. They have to depend upon the eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons that will work, is not a perfect system at United States being confident of our we would make a decision that said we all. It is not going to be done for years. nuclear deterrent and being willing to will never develop or, at this point, we It is not at all sure it will provide us use it under certain circumstances. If are going to put a legislative ban on what we need to know. they cannot be confident of that, then the development of any such weapons. But if we have an inkling that one of what incentive do they have, except That would send a very bad signal to our weapons cannot be certified, and their good will, to not develop their nu- countries of the world against which we decide to have a test in order to de- clear weapons? we want to have some kind of nuclear termine whether it can be certified, So far, the idea that we have to not deterrent. It is a little bit like asking right now we are in for a very long pe- develop or even think about our nu- what our exit strategy from Iraq is. We riod of time in which our potential en- clear weapons in order to induce other would like to leave Iraq. But the point emies know full well that we do not countries not to do the same has prov- is, you don’t start signalling before the have full confidence in our stockpile; en an utter failure. And there are other time is ready that we want to get out that we are preparing to conduct tests, countries in the world, whose names I of there as soon as we can or the ter- and obviously the only reason we are could mention, that we believe are also rorists will simply wait us out. You preparing to conduct tests is that we trying to acquire this nuclear capa- want to demonstrate that you are com- do not have full confidence, and we are bility. So our self-imposed moratorium mitted to stay as long as it takes. going to have to test something in of even thinking about these weapons We want to demonstrate to our po- order to see what kind of changes is not doing a very good job of con- tential enemies that we are prepared to do what it will take to defend the would have to be made. And that proc- vincing other countries to do the same. United States. Why would you want to ess would take 3 years. That process Better that we recognize reality, get signal to them that you are going to makes no sense at all. our head out of the sand, and acknowl- put an absolute moratorium on re- Another argument that makes no edge that if we are going to rely upon search and an absolute prohibition on sense at all is that it is important for a nuclear deterrent, we had better be development? That makes absolutely the United States to lead and that it is able to think about it and even, at going to be impossible for us to argue— no sense. some point in the future, be able to do It also ensures that the great sci- how little confidence this shows in the something about it. entific minds that in the past have United States. Can we have confidence Let me just make a couple of quick been willing to work on these projects that we are right? The argument is other points, Madam President. are no longer going to be willing to that we cannot lead if we even think We have made the commitment, sub- come to the National Laboratories of about developing new nuclear weapons; ject to future development, of course, the great prominence we have all been we cannot tell others in the world to to reduce the very large arsenal of our so proud of in the past because there is nuclear weapons, and not just to re- stop developing nuclear weapons as no future in it. They tell us now that duce the number but to reduce the long as we are developing nuclear they are not getting the kind of stu- quantity of the very high megatonnage weapons. dents coming out of the universities Now, that is perverse thinking. When weapons. One of the reasons—well, they were used to. Their manpower, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty there are a couple of reasons that are terms of the capability in nuclear test- was entered into, it recognized that relevant here, but one of the reasons is ing, has dwindled to virtually nothing. certain countries in the world, includ- that we do not think we would need If they ever had to go back to a test, ing the United States, had nuclear that kind of weapon in the future be- let alone develop, a nuclear weapon, weapons. This was not a bad thing. In cause we no longer are facing a super- they would have to bring people out of fact, the NPT even called for us to power potential enemy such as the So- retirement who understood how it share our nuclear peaceful technology viet Union. They are also expensive to worked back in the 1960s and 1970s, but with other countries if they would fore- maintain, I might add. And, thirdly, we they would have a lot of difficulty even swear development of their weaponry. know that over time these weapons de- working with the new kinds of mate- We have had a self-imposed morato- teriorate, and at some point we are rials, with the new computer tech- rium now for many years even on the going to want to remove them from our nology and other advancements that testing of any nuclear weapon. Has it arsenal in any event. So we have made we would probably want to incorporate stopped countries from developing nu- that commitment. into any new designs. clear weapons? Has it stopped North Now, which is better? Which is bet- If we are going to entice the best Korea? Apparently not. Is it stopping ter? That we follow through with that minds to think about this, to keep up Iran? No. Did it stop China? No. Did it commitment to remove this large num- with people in other countries that stop India? No. Pakistan? No. ber of extraordinarily powerful nuclear have no compunction about doing this, It looks to me as though the self-im- weapons that may or may not be all we have to send them a signal that we posed moratorium is not very effective. that safe, and think about sub- are not forever going to shut off any And leading the world by saying, ‘‘We stituting, in some cases, much smaller, work in this area. What young sci- are not going to test any weapons, much more precise, much safer weap- entist would want to commit his life’s would you please not test weapons,’’ ons maybe or just keeping those large work to this when there is obviously no has resulted in a whole host of coun- weapons around, hoping they will be future in it? tries, most of which are not our allies, safe, hoping they will not deteriorate, We have to think about these things developing or seeking to develop nu- hoping they will work but, if we ever and not be a Luddite about it, saying clear weapons. That is not a good had to use one, understanding that it there is no problem; we are not going thing. It shows a failed strategy, not a would result in massive casualties? to think about it; we will just shove it successful strategy. It seems to me that the people who under the rug; we are not for progress; If these countries are led to believe really value life would want us to we are for only retaining what we de- that the United States will keep up think in 21st-century terms, not mid- veloped back in the 1960s and hoping it with them, or at least we will not pre- dle-of-the-20th-century terms, in that will work. vent ourselves from thinking about regard. That is very backward thinking. It is keeping up with them, maybe they will Another point: There is a very impor- very dangerous thinking. be a little less likely to develop these tant relationship between research and There are a lot of issues involved in weapons. development, and I do not think we this particular amendment. What it

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY September 15, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11451 boils down to, though, is this: Our first The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Mr. Murrow, one of the most honored obligation is to ensure the security of objection, it is so ordered. and respected journalists in our Na- the United States. (The remarks of Mrs. LINCOLN are tion’s history, criticized his colleagues One of the pillars of our security is printed in today’s RECORD under for failing in their obligation to the our nuclear deterrent. It must be safe ‘‘Morning Business.’’) people of this country. and it must be workable. It must be The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ‘‘Our history will be what we make relevant to the new threats we face. If ator from West Virginia is recognized. it,’’ Murrow said. ‘‘If there are any his- we are precluded by this amendment f torians about fifty or a hundred years from even thinking about those things, FCC VOTE ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP from now, and there should be pre- we have done a great disservice to our RULES served the kinescopes for one week of constituents. At a time when we are all three networks, they will find there not at peace but at war with terrorists Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in re- evidence of decadence, escapism, and around the globe and at a time when cent weeks, there has been a great deal insulation from the realities of the we are not the only nuclear power, but of discussion about a June 2 vote by world in which we live.’’ there are all kinds of countries that we the Federal Communications Commis- He continued: ‘‘One of the basic trou- are, frankly, quite concerned about de- sion to lift the lid on media ownership bles with radio and television news is veloping nuclear weapons, countries rules. Under the new regulations, a that both instruments have grown up such as North Korea and Iran and oth- broadcast network can own and oper- as an incompatible combination of ers that I could mention, that is ex- ate local television stations that reach show business, advertising, and news. actly the wrong time to be sending the as much as 45 percent of the Nation. . . . The top management of the net- What does that mean? According to signal this amendment would send; works, with a few notable exceptions, the Consumer Federation of America, that we are going to stick our head in has been trained in advertising, re- television and newspaper mergers will the sand; we are not going to support search, or show business. By the nature be allowed in about 200 markets where scientists thinking about these issues of the corporate structure, they also approximately 98 percent of the Amer- and even potentially recommending to make the final and crucial decisions ican people live. TV duopolies, where us the development of some kind of having to do with news and public af- new 21st century weapons that could one owner owns two television stations in the same market, and perhaps even fairs. Frequently, they have neither better protect our troops, better pro- the time nor the competence to do tect the American homeland, and bet- triopolies, where one owner controls three stations in one market, will be this.’’ ter defeat our enemies who would do us Here we are, almost 45 years later. allowed in more than 160 markets, cov- harm. What would Mr. Murrow think of to- I can’t think of any reason why ering better than 95 percent of the pop- ulation. day’s media? Would he consider the Americans would want to support that FCC vote a threat to a strong, inde- kind of a policy. Remember, we have This is a dangerous vote by the FCC. I fear that it will strangle voices that pendent media? The news and broad- not been successful in deterring other cast industry has had time to mature, nations by this unilateral embargo on disagree with corporate interests at virtually every level of news and com- to evolve into what Mr. Murrow hoped our own testing and development. They would be a responsible venture that ex- have gone right ahead with their pro- mentary. Local news media represent a com- alts the importance of ideas, and not grams, some of the worst countries in simply panders to the lowest virtues in the world. The ‘‘axis of evil,’’ North munity’s window on the school board, the city council, the county commis- the human race. Alas, I believe Mr. Korea and Iran, has gone right ahead Murrow would be disappointed in what with their programs. So what makes us sion. The local media, more than any other resource, educates people about he would see today. think that by the United States con- Instead of exalting ideas, mass media tinuing this see-no-evil unilateral mor- the issues that directly affect their lives. But these new rules, as approved today seem more often than not to atorium that the great moral situation worship at the altar of sex, blood, and of the United States will prevent these by the FCC, threaten that role by al- lowing one person or one corporate in- scandal. Instead of pursuing a higher countries from moving right along cause and taking the time to educate with their projects? History does not terest to control such a significant level of discourse and debate. News and the public about the issues and events support that view. affecting our everyday lives, we read Better that we have peace through information may be forced to fit into a and hear about things that serve to tit- strength. And strength is the strength corporate plan or personal agenda. illate or divide us. of the United States in terms of its I have been in Congress for more There are a few voices in the media commitment, in terms of its scientific than 50 years. If there is one lesson that attempt to educate, to inform, capability, and in terms of its will- that I have learned, it is that the rather than to incite. But too often power to think about what we are media and politicians share at least these men and women are sent packing going to need to defend America in the one common bond: both rely on public because their corporate bosses fear low future. trust for credibility. To earn that I hope my colleagues will defeat this trust, the public must know that it can ratings and a commercial backlash. amendment as they have before. rely on the honesty and integrity of This spring, for example, the General The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the people in critical decisionmaking Electric-owned cable network MSNBC, ator from California. positions. Credibility is jeopardized fired Phil Donahue from his evening Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, when questions about the veracity of talk show. Mr. Donahue was one of the by prior unanimous consent agree- reports are raised or when a news orga- few voices in the news-talk genre that ment, it is now the opportunity for nization is seen more as a biased pro- did not worship at the altar of the sala- Senator BYRD to address the body for 1 moter of opinion rather than as a fair cious story. He did not titillate. He hour. I know Senator LINCOLN had one arbiter of fact. spoke frankly, sharing his beliefs and brief statement she wanted to make. If In October 1958, a pioneer of the welcoming those who saw otherwise. there is no objection, I ask unanimous broadcast industry took the podium at And when confronted with a person of- consent that Senator LINCOLN be per- the Mayfair Hotel in Chicago to ad- fering differing opinion, Phil Donahue mitted to make her remarks at this dress his colleagues at the annual con- did not insult or bully that person. In- time, and perhaps the clerk could no- vention of the Radio-Television News stead, he debated calmly and fairly, tify Senator BYRD that his time has ar- Directors Association. On that night, and treated his guests with courtesy rived. when reporters, news directors, spon- and respect. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without sors, and network executives gathered Mr. Donahue was opposed to war in objection, the Senator from Arkansas together to honor excellence in their Iraq. He made his views known. He de- is recognized. industry, Edward R. Murrow called it bated, he argued, and he persuaded. Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I his duty to speak about what was hap- But at least one insider at the MSNBC ask unanimous consent to speak as in pening in the radio and television in- network said that Phil Donahue was morning business. dustry. fired because the corporate heads at

VerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Jan 14, 2014 Jkt 081600 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\2003SENATE\S15SE3.REC S15SE3 mmaher on DSKCGSP4G1 with SOCIALSECURITY