Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I just have 3 minutes from the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. I think for the reasons he gives, we should not walk down a road which tells both our people and the rest of the world that we are going to consider the development of what was called the bunker buster, which, as a matter of fact, is from 28 to 70 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. What we decided last year was we would put a fence around the first year's study and we would get, indeed, a report before that money was spent. It is a report which is totally unsatisfactory. So there was a lot of doubt--a lot of doubt--in this body about whether we should proceed down a road which considers the utilization of nuclear weapons in new forms that are 28 to 70 times the size of Hiroshima. Now we are also told, this morning, that now there may be some chemical and biological sites that could be underground for which these weapons would be used. Well, first of all, conventional weapons are perfectly adequate to close entrances and holes. But putting that aside for a minute, just think about it. The intelligence community said they had identified 590 suspect sites in Iraq--590 sites, according to Secretary Rumsfeld. Now, that used to be a classified number, but apparently the other day it was just declassified by Secretary Rumsfeld, so I will use that number. The intelligence community said 590 sites over there in Iraq are suspect chemical and biological weapons sites. We are going to drop a nuclear weapon on those sites based on the intelligence of the CIA? Are we kidding? Do we know what we are dealing with when we are talking about nuclear weapons 28 to 70 times the size of Hiroshima? Those are the weapons being considered for modification for the so-called bunker buster. They are not bunker busters. These are world peace destroyers. These are city destroyers. These are nation destroyers. For us to casually--and I think it is casual--talk about, ``Let's go down this road, we are not talking about development here, we are only talking about research,'' we have the person who is the top person in the Defense Department as the adviser to the Secretary of Defense on nuclear matters, Fred Celec, who says, ``If a hydrogen bomb could be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock, it will ultimately get fielded.'' Now, that is not one of the supporters of the Dorgan amendment who is saying that. That is the top adviser to the Secretary of Defense who is saying: If we can show that it will work, and design it, it will be fielded. The rest of the world does not ignore what we do here. What we are doing here is marching down a road which is dangerous and reckless in terms of world peace and security. And we should not do it. This is not just simply a study. This is a step--a very important step--down a road, in a direction which, apparently, according to Fred Celec, who is the Deputy Assistant Security of Defense for Nuclear Matters, will be ultimately fielded. I support the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I do point out that there was a fence around last year's money. It was not as though last year we decided to proceed. There were some conditions which were attached. As far as I am concerned, when you read that report, it is very unsatisfactory, very general, and not at all sufficient to justify moving to the next $15 million.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. But it is important to point out that there was so much concern about step 1, there was a fence or a condition attached to the expenditure of the money. It is incumbent upon all of us to read the report and ask, does that satisfy us that we ought to take the next step?

Mr. LEVIN. It is, indeed.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I very much support this effort on the part of the Senator from Florida. It is a very precise, straightforward, and short amendment. The language has great meaning. The Secretary of Energy is not allowed, under this language, to commence the engineering development phase of a robust nuclear earth penetrator without specific authority of the Congress. Each word has meaning. There are not a lot of words in this amendment. It is one of the shortest amendments we have seen around here. But every single word in that amendment has meaning. I thank not just my good friend from Florida but also the Senator from Virginia because they have really made a constructive contribution to this entire debate by supporting this approach. It is not as strong as some of us would have liked, but it nonetheless is very clear and very specific and says you may not proceed to engineering development unless Congress specifically authorizes that action. It is a significant improvement of the bill.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his generosity. His mind works extremely clearly and extremely quickly. However, the good Senator from Florida deserves much of the credit because he has been taking the lead in a whole lot of these areas. I thank both of them.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time does the Senator from Vermont have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time is there on this amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first I thank and commend the Senator from Iowa for this amendment. It is an amendment which raises a lot of very significant issues about the Department of Defense inventory. It is a subject I had quite a bit to do with many years ago, particularly when we raised issues about the amount of the warehousing that exists in the Department of Defense, the amount of purchases which were made which contributed to that inventory, which was excessive. We made some progress. This was a number of years ago, but nonetheless we made some progress. I think we actually reduced the number of warehouses at that time by about 40 percent. But it is obvious we still have a problem and we are going to have a greater problem if we do not address it because of the increased size of the Defense budget and the purchases of the Defense Department. The GAO has issued a report. It is a fairly new report. Frankly, we have not had a chance to even analyze that report. Many years ago, when we took up this subject and had hearings and made some progress on this issue, we had some differences with the GAO over their approach, over the way in which they measured things. I don't know whether that is still a problem because, again, we have just not had a chance to review this report. It is very recent. We have not had a chance to meet with the GAO or the Senator from Iowa and his staff. If the Senator is willing, I would make a commitment--I know the chairman would join me in this commitment because I have spoken with the chairman about this subject--to look into the GAO report and to do so promptly, to review it, and then to meet with the Senator from Iowa to review it and address those issues he thinks need to be addressed. We will do that promptly. We are not trying to delay it because the Senator has pointed out matters which could save us significant amounts of money. On the other hand, if we do it wrong, for instance, if we sell things which are excess to inventory which will not be excess a few months from now, if we bring the inventory down--for instance, if we have 2 years of inventory for things we only need a year and a half of, we may not want to sell that extra 6 months; we may want to bring the inventory down to a year and a half. There are some complications. I have had a chance to talk with our dear friend from Iowa. His heart is absolutely in the right place. His head is in the right place. His staff is in the right place. We want to try to be in the right place with him and join him in this effort and have the opportunity which I have just described to review this GAO report with him and take the appropriate action. I urge he consider allowing that course to occur and not to press his amendment at this time. I know the chairman of the committee has some thoughts on the subject as well.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if I can get the attention of the Senator from New Mexico, and Senator Allard as well. I ask the Senator from New Mexico to yield me 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from----

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Colorado have raised a point that there has been a significant amount of money that has been invested in this item, and there should not be a prohibition on reviewing the work, studying the work, on doing research in this area. As I understand the language in the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, it is not intended to prevent studies or, indeed, research. It is intended to say that before you get to the design stage, which is beyond research and beyond studies, you come back for specific authorization. So the point being made is, if the Senator from New Mexico is not intending to prevent a review of all the work, which was done apparently in the 1980s, and is not intending to prevent studies or even research under 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2, I wonder whether the Senator from New Mexico would be willing to make that clear and explicit in that amendment, if that addresses satisfactorily the issue raised by the Senator from Virginia. I have just talked to the Senator from New Mexico. There is no intent in the language to prevent a study of previous work. All this language says is that before you begin the design stage--that is beyond pure research--before you begin the design and development stage, come back and get specific authority. I don't think that is what is intended to be done with this money this year, from what the chairman and Senator Allard have said. So I ask the question of the Senator from New Mexico whether the Senator would be willing to add language to his amendment that nothing in here is intended to prevent the study of the hit-to-kill capability, or previous analyses, or research prior to the design stage?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 794

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Wyden, Collins, Clinton, Byrd, and Lautenberg, I offer an amendment which requires a report on contracting for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the duration of this and all other amendments which Senator Warner and I are offering this evening.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of S. 1050 and any votes thereon. I further ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Kolbe, a legislative fellow in the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the consideration of S. 1050.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I don't know what consultation exists between the Parliamentarian and the staffs of committees relative----

Mr. LEVIN. If I could just complete my statement?

Mr. LEVIN. I would ask the Parliamentarian for a definition of ``relevance.'' I would follow his definition. If the Parliamentarian asked me whether or not that provision was germane to the bill under the common germaneness definition, I would say, Boy, it sure sounds germane to me. But the Parliamentarian would tell me, No, sorry, that's not germane to the bill. I don't know what the technical definition of ``relevance'' is. But it is technically defined like the word ``germane.'' It is not just a general word which is taken from the dictionary. There is a parliamentary definition of the word ``relevant.'' That is the definition which is incorporated, I believe, in every single unanimous consent request that there be a relevance standard. Again, I repeat, and I think it is important we find this out, it is not uncommon to have a relevance standard in a unanimous consent request to limit amendments to debate so we can keep within the parameters of the bill. If I could add one other thing, to my friend from North Dakota. It seems to me what the Senator from North Dakota may be arguing at the moment is that, in fact, his amendment is relevant, or that it could be made relevant within the meaning of the word as defined by the Parliamentarian. If so, it seems to me that takes care of the issue. I know the Senator from North Dakota----

Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry?

Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman will yield for an inquiry, if we could put in a very brief quorum call, I think I would be able to straighten out which of the other amendments might be offered while we are awaiting a vote on the Graham of South Carolina amendment. I need to make two quick calls and could then give a report.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provisions in this bill relating to the development of new nuclear weapons mark a major and a very dangerous shift in American policy. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat we face. Uncorking the nuclear bottle to develop new and modified nuclear weapons goes in the opposite direction of the commitment we made when we signed the nonproliferation treaty. We are a party to that treaty. It has been said on this floor that North Korea is a party to the nonproliferation treaty, and they have to live up to it. They got something in return for their signature. They did, indeed. They got our signature, and our signature committed us to end the nuclear arms race. Uncorking the nuclear bottle, which these provisions do, makes a mockery of our argument to other countries around the world that they should not go nuclear. Just think about some of the headlines in the last few months about North Korea: ``U.S. Assails Move by North Koreans to Reject Treaty.'' That is the nonproliferation treaty to which we are a signatory, too, that commits us to end the nuclear arms race, not to start a new chapter in the nuclear arms race. So we assail their move. Another headline: ``Military Action Possible, U.S. Warns North Korea.'' We take their move toward nuclear weapons so seriously that we have actually suggested we may initiate military action to stop them from moving in a nuclear direction. Yet we, if these provisions stay, are moving in that same direction. We have told Iran the same thing. We have urged Russia: Do not help Iran go nuclear. Do not supply them with any materials which they might use to go nuclear. Yet in these provisions in this bill, we would, if they stay in the bill, lift a prohibition that exists in current law in the United States which prohibits the research and development on nuclear weapons that could lead to the production of new nuclear weapons. That is what the so-called Spratt-Furse language does. It prohibits research and development on nuclear weapons which could lead to their production. That is the language which was stricken by a 15-to-10 vote in the Armed Services Committee, and that is the language which the amendment offered by the Senators from California and Massachusetts would restore to the law. We have a special responsibility for a lot of reasons. No. 1, we are the leader. We have to live up to what we say we want others to do. But we are also the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons. We say we are determined to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Are we serious about that? If we have a prohibition in our law which says we will not do research and development on nuclear weapons which could lead to their production, are people around the world going to take us seriously that, in fact, we want to stop other countries from going nuclear, gaining nuclear weapons, that our major fear is the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we take the position that an existing prohibition in law on research and development that could lead to production of those weapons is going to be lifted by us? We have a special responsibility. This is a security issue for us. Are we really more secure in the world where that nuclear bottle is uncorked and uncorked by us, by lifting an existing ban in our law? Nuclear weapons cannot be seen as just another option for warfare. They cannot be seen as usable as warfighting weapons. Yet the administration is moving to change the historic position of one U.S. administration after another by looking to make nuclear weapons more usable, not just as another capability but usable in warfighting, and that is the language which has been quoted on this floor. The language of the head of the nuclear weapons program talks about the desirability of designing weapons which are usable. That is his word, ``usable.'' One administration after another has gone in the other direction. The specific weapons that are covered by the ban are so-called low- yield nuclear weapons. What a misnomer that is for reasons so many of us have given on the floor this afternoon. Five kilotons, which is the definition of a low-yield weapon, is roughly one-third the size of the nuclear bomb that was used on Hiroshima which immediately killed 140,000 people, left hundreds of thousands radiated and injured in other ways. And by the way, 140,000 people was almost half the population of Hiroshima. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, whether they are a third the size of the bomb that was used at Hiroshima or 20 times the size or 40 times the size. They are weapons of mass destruction. The administration seeks to repeal a ban on research and development which could lead to the production of a weapon of mass destruction. That is the bottom line, and the statement by the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Mr. Linton Brooks, makes it very clear that there is an intent here to develop weapons which are ``usable.'' That is not my word. That is not the word of the supporters of the amendment, the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts. That is the testimony of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration who said that he has a bias in favor of things--referring to weapons--that might be usable, referring to the so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. It is more than research. In this law which exists, unless we repeal it, are prohibitions on research and development. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in charge of these programs, Mr. Celec, who has also been quoted today, specifically said the following. Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, made clear that: The administration wants the weapon and it is moving forward. He is talking about a weapon that could be a deep penetrator. It could be a so-called bunker buster, but also it could be a low-yield weapon. He is not specific. If a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded, Celec said in an interview with the Mercury News. The San Jose Mercury News in 2003 ran that story, and we have confirmed that, in fact, that is what he said. He was not misquoted. So we have the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters saying that if a hydrogen bomb can be designed to penetrate hard rock and still explode, ``it will ultimately get fielded.'' That is the path the language in the bill repealing the so-called Spratt amendment would take us down. All of this is being done in the context of what is called the Nuclear Posture Review which was completed by the administration in December of 2001. This was the first step in an effort to develop new usable nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Posture Review is the basis for a new strategic policy that is described in a March 23, 2002, Washington Post article: Would give U.S. Presidents the option of conducting a preemptive strike with precision-guided conventional bombs or nuclear weapons. That is the policy shift which occurred back then. That is the environment in which we are determining whether or not to lift a prohibition on research and development of new nuclear weapons. That Nuclear Posture Review walks away from a longstanding policy that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons against a nonnuclear state. That Nuclear Posture Review, again according to the Washington Post article, specifically identifies countries that could be targets, including North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya. The legislative proposal that accompanied the administration's request to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons says the following--that is the proposal that accompanied the request that the committee voted to approve by a 15-to-10 vote. This is what the administration's language says: In this regard, the . . . Nuclear Posture Review urged exploration of weapons concepts that could offer greater capabilities for precision, earth penetration-- And other things. The justification concluded that the Spratt-Furse law impedes this effort. It does indeed. Without the Spratt-Furse law, there is no legal impediment to the development, testing, production, or deployment of new, usable nuclear weapons. Will that impediment be removed? That is the issue we are going to decide tonight. At a time when we are trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea's pulling out of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, when we are spending over a billion dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology, it seems to me that lifting this prohibition on the research and development of nuclear weapons which could lead to their production sends a terrible message. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we would be recklessly driving down that same road. In short, the United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate in others. We live in a dangerous world where proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat we face. The answer is not to make the world more dangerous by our own actions. If Senator Allard wishes to alternate, there would then be someone to speak from his side. If not, I know Senator Feinstein is next in line. I yield the floor.