[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1195-S1196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              ARMS CONTROL

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the issue of arms 
control this morning. There are many issues that we consider in this 
country. We have the deafening sounds of Democracy as the American 
people and politicians discuss, debate, and describe many, many issues. 
Both candidates and crowds these days are generously discussing issues 
ranging from abortion to economic growth to defense policy, and so on. 
But there is dead silence on the subject of the spread of nuclear 
weapons and the threat it poses to every single person on this Earth 
and especially the threat it imposes to our children.
  Let me describe where we are with nuclear weapons. In 1985, the 
Soviet Union had 11,500 nuclear warheads on long range missiles. 
Defense analysts predicted that would go up to 18,000 or 20,000 nuclear 
warheads by the mid-1990s. These numbers do not even mean much. What is 
a thousand nuclear warheads? Each Soviet warhead had about 20 or 30 
times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
  Instead of the 20,000 warheads many predicted, Russia has only about 
5,000 warheads today. Why do they have 5,000 warheads? Because they 
have gotten rid of about 6,000 of the nuclear warheads they used to 
have. The Soviet stockpile, now the Russian stockpile, has been cut by 
the equivalent of 175,000 Hiroshima bombs. How did that happen? Because 
of arms control agreements. We agreed to reduce our nuclear weapons and 
they agreed to reduce theirs.
  I will describe what has happened. We have something called the Nunn-
Lugar program, named after our colleagues, former Senator Nunn and 
Senator Lugar. They said a good way to reduce the threat is by helping 
a potential adversary destroy his weapons while we reduce our own 
weapons. As a result the Nunn-Lugar program has reduced the threat to 
the United States by eliminating 4,900 Russian nuclear warheads, 471 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, 12 ballistic missile submarines, 
and 354 ICBM silos.
  For example, this is a picture of a Typhoon submarine owned by the 
Russians. It carries 20 missiles with 10 warheads on each missile. That 
is 200 nuclear weapons that can be fired from this Typhoon-class 
submarine. This submarine is twice the length of a football field and a 
third larger than the Trident submarine, the largest U.S. submarine.
  What is going to happen to this submarine? It is going to be 
dismantled, and we are going to help pay for the dismantling of this 
submarine under the Nunn-Lugar program. We are going to reduce the 
threat by taking a Typhoon-class submarine and destroying it. This is a 
picture of what it looks like today. This is what it will look like 
later this year. You can see what once was a submarine carrying 200 
nuclear warheads aimed at U.S. targets is now a shell being taken apart 
and turned into scrap metal.
  This picture shows the elimination of intercontinental ballistic 
missiles. They pull them from the ground and take off the warhead, and 
then cut the missile to pieces.
  This is a picture of an ICBM silo, the last piece of metal being 
removed. The dirt is then piled over and sunflowers are planted. This 
is in the Ukraine. Is that progress? You bet your life it is progress. 
A silo in which a missile once rested aimed at the United States of 
America with multiple warheads with nuclear explosive power is now 
eliminated. The Ukraine is free of nuclear weapons because of the Nunn-
Lugar program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show this piece of a wing 
strut from a Soviet bomber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. How did I get this? Did we shoot the bomber down? No. 
This bomber was sawed up. The wings were sawed off as a result of an 
arms control agreement that we have with the Russians by which we 
reduced our delivery systems and nuclear weapons and they reduced 
theirs. Their submarines are dismantled, their intercontinental 
ballistic missiles are dismantled, and their bombers have had the wings 
sawed off.

  This is a picture of the heavy bomber elimination, TU-95.
  That is what is happening with arms control. It is, in my judgment, 
exciting and breathtaking.
  What is expected to happen in the future? Under START III, we are 
expected to go to 2,500 nuclear weapons. Think of that--2,500 nuclear 
weapons. What is one nuclear weapon? In most cases, the yield of a 
nuclear weapon is many times the yield of the one used in Hiroshima. 
Mr. President, 2,500 weapons on each side if we get to that--we are not 
there.
  What has the Senate done with respect to arms control treaties? The 
U.S. Senate over the years has done a great deal. We passed START I, 
START II, the 1988 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty--a whole 
series of arms control initiatives. We have funded the Nuclear Cities 
Program to employ scientists in Russia who know how to make nuclear 
bombs so they are not hired by the Iranians, the North Koreans, and 
others. We funded the Nunn-Lugar program. We have done a lot of things.
  The fact is, there is no discussion anymore about arms control in 
this Senate. In fact, all the discussion is about deploying a national 
missile defense system, abrogating the ABM Treaty, and making a full 
retreat on issues on which we were making significant progress. We need 
to change that.
  In addition to that, last year, after languishing for 2 years without 
even a hearing, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty was defeated 
by the Senate. The President just asked General Shalikashvili to head a 
task force to see if everybody can work together toward a common goal 
and resolve the concerns many Senators have about the treaty.
  Does anybody really believe it is in our interest or anybody's 
interest to begin testing once again nuclear weapons? What a huge step 
backwards. My

[[Page S1196]]

hope is we can, once again, on the Presidential campaign trail and in 
the Senate and in this country, as a matter of discussion among 
American citizens, talk about what we want for our future and our 
children's future.
  Do we want a future with 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 nuclear weapons? Do 
we want a future, by the way, in which more and more and more countries 
have access to nuclear weapons? Because that is going to happen unless 
the country provides some leadership.
  There is no significant leadership in the world at this point to stop 
the spread of nuclear weapons. It is our responsibility to do that. It 
is our job to do that. Most people do not understand the danger that 
was posed just a year or so ago when India and Pakistan--countries that 
do not like each other, countries that have fights on their border--
both exploded nuclear weapons, virtually under each other's chin. Most 
people do not understand the potential consequences of that.
  But we must, once again, as a Congress, and as a Senate, begin 
working seriously on the issue of controlling the spread of nuclear 
weapons and reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons. We must get to 
full implementation of START II, and get to START III, and continue 
discussions, and not abrogate the ABM Treaty, and pass the 
Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. We must do those things.
  It seems to me we must not run off and decide: Well, now what we want 
to do is start an arms race once again. Let's deploy a national missile 
defense system. It does not matter what it costs. It does not matter 
what the consequences are. We don't care what the Russians think. We do 
not care what it does to the Nunn-Lugar program. We do not care that it 
abrogates the ABM Treaty. We just do not care. In my judgment, that 
kind of mindset does not serve this country's long-term interests well 
at all.
  What will best serve this country's interests is if we decide that a 
safer world will be a world in which we provide world leadership to 
stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We do not want any additional 
countries to access nuclear weapons.
  I know people say: But we have these rogue states. They may shoot an 
intercontinental ballistic missile at the United States. That is 
probably the least likely threat this country faces. A rogue nation is 
not very likely to shoot an intercontinental missile. They are much 
more likely to acquire a cruise missile, for which a national missile 
defense system would not provide a defense. They are far more likely to 
get a suitcase nuclear bomb and plant it in the trunk of a rusty Yugo, 
plant it on a dock in New York City, and hold the city hostage. That is 
a far more likely threat than that some rogue nation would actually 
achieve access to an intercontinental ballistic missile.
  Even more likely than all of that is the threat of a deadly vial of 
biological or chemical agents, that is acquired by a rogue nation or 
some terrorist, planted in a subway system in a major city.
  Those are the most likely threats. Yet we have people in this Chamber 
who stand up and say: We demand deployment, immediately, of a national 
missile defense system. What that threatens to do is pull the legs out 
from under every bit of arms control efforts we have had underway for 
15 years in this country.
  The reason I show this chart is that I want to show that arms control 
has achieved the reduction of 6,000 nuclear weapons in the Russian 
arsenal. Six thousand nuclear weapons are gone. The experts predicted 
it would grow from 11,500 nuclear weapons to 18,000 or 20,000 nuclear 
weapons. They were wrong because arms control agreements with the 
Russians and the old Soviet Union represent a substantial decrease in 
the number of nuclear weapons they now have in their arsenal. The 
equivalent of 175,000 Hiroshima explosions has been eliminated from the 
Russian arsenal.
  Will our children and grandchildren live in a world in which 
thousands of nuclear weapons are targeted at their homes, at their 
cities, at their country? I hope not. Will our children live in a world 
in which dozens of additional countries have access to and have 
acquired nuclear weapons and can and may use them to hold others 
hostage? Will our children live in a world in which terrorists will 
have access to nuclear weapons and hold cities and countries hostage? I 
hope not.

  But the answer to those questions depends on the will and the 
aggressiveness here in this country of a President and the Congress to 
stand up and say: Arms control works. The United States of America will 
lead in this world to achieve new arms control agreements, dramatically 
reduce numbers of nuclear weapons, and reduce vehicles to deliver those 
nuclear weapons, with a substantial regime of inspection and monitoring 
and a Senate that will pass the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. The 
American people should expect us to do that.
  Let me conclude where I started.
  There is a deafening noise in this country about a lot of issues--
some important, some not. That is the noise of democracy. It is the 
sounds of democracy. But there is a dead silence on the subject of arms 
control.
  When Members of the Senate walked out of this Chamber last year, 
after having voted in the majority against the Comprehensive Nuclear 
Test-Ban Treaty, most must surely have felt some dissatisfaction about 
that. That treaty was signed by over 150 countries, sent to this 
Chamber, and not one hearing was held in 2 years. Most must surely have 
left this Chamber with a feeling of dissatisfaction.
  I hope that dissatisfaction can persuade those of us who care about 
controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing the arsenal of 
nuclear weapons to come together and work together. There is nothing 
Republican or Democrat about the issue of nuclear weapons.
  I say today, I hope the Presidential campaign can be about these 
issues. I hope the debate in Congress can be about these issues 
because, in my judgment, there is no issue more important to our future 
and our children's future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized for up to 45 minutes.

                          ____________________