[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 167 (Wednesday, November 13, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5968-H5973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE INCREASING THREAT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to focus on one of the most
serious issues of our time: the increasing threat of nuclear weapons.
Over decades of negotiations, a multilayered architecture of nuclear
arms control agreements resulted in significant reductions in the total
number of nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads in the arsenals of the
United States and Russia. It also promoted and built an international
consensus to shun nuclear testing and embrace nonproliferation.
Today, we face the challenge that the only remaining arms control
agreement between the U.S. and Russia, New START, expires in February
2026, just a little over a year from now.
The world stands at the brink of a nuclear arms race with no
guardrails or no limits. The U.S. has committed itself to modernize its
nuclear arsenal over 30 years at a cost estimated to exceed $1.5
trillion.
Russia repeatedly has threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine
and even against NATO nations for any reason he perceives as the West
making threatening moves against Russia.
North Korea continues to threaten South Korea, Japan, and the United
States with a nuclear strike while forming a new alliance with Russia.
China is engaged in a buildup of its own nuclear arsenal. The
Pentagon estimates China will likely have 1,500 nuclear warheads by
2035 if the pace of its buildup continues. Iran may decide to build
nuclear weapons following tit-for-tat missile strikes with Israel and
the U.S.' failure to revive negotiations on restoring curbs on Iran's
nuclear program.
Adding to this uncertain and tense global nuclear security landscape,
the American people voted to return Donald Trump to the Presidency for
a second term.
Now, during his first term as President, he withdrew the United
States from the Iran nuclear deal and allowed other arms control
agreements to expire or for the U.S. to withdraw.
It will be on his shoulders to help the world back away from the
brink of the first use or exchange of nuclear weapons since the end of
World War II, and to avoid a new nuclear arms race with all of its
financial and geopolitical costs.
If he chooses to take on these challenges, he will not find himself
alone.
In 2017, most of the nations of the world came together to adopt the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW. The treaty is an
international agreement that prohibits the development, testing,
production, and use of nuclear weapons. It entered into force in 2021.
The TPNW's goals are to eliminate nuclear weapons and reduce global
nuclear arsenals to zero. Currently, 93 nations have signed the treaty
and 74 have ratified it.
Along with my colleague Earl Blumenauer, I am the proud author of H.
Res. 77, a bill that calls on the President to embrace the goals and
provisions of the TPNW and make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of
U.S. national security policy. It also calls on the United States to
lead a global effort to move the world back from the nuclear brink and
to prevent nuclear war by returning to negotiations that advance
nuclear arms reduction. I am grateful that 43 of my House colleagues
have joined this resolution as cosponsors.
I am also the sponsor of H.R. 3154, the HALT Act, which would freeze
current nuclear arsenals and press for a return to the negotiating
table.
Further, on November 1, in the First Committee on International Peace
and Security of the U.N. General Assembly, delegates voted to study the
impacts of nuclear war for the first time since 1989.
While there is already a wealth of robust research on the effects of
nuclear weapons, this has not been comprehensively brought together in
35 years. During these decades, there has been major progress on
climate and scientific modeling tools, and this new study will allow
scientists to review the improvements in our understanding of the
effects of nuclear war.
Mr. Speaker, 144 nations voted in favor of the resolution, including
nuclear powers like Germany and nations who suffered from atomic
testing in decades past. Only three nations opposed: Russia, France,
and the U.K., with the latter saying this matter has been studied
enough. Thirty nations abstained, including the United States.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in October, the Nobel Committee decided to
award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 to the Japanese organization Nihon
Hidankyo. This grassroots movement of atomic bomb survivors from
Hiroshima and Nagasaki received the Peace Prize for its efforts to
achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through
witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never ever be used again.
The award reminds us most vividly of the cost of nuclear war. As many
of my
[[Page H5969]]
House colleagues know, for over a decade I have championed the cause of
the atomic veterans to be recognized for their sacrifice, suffering,
and patriotism in working on U.S. atomic testing and production sites,
often with little or no protection from radiation.
{time} 1430
After years of bipartisan work by Congress, in September 2023, in a
moving ceremony, the Pentagon awarded the Atomic Veterans Commemorative
Service Medal in-person and online to those still-surviving atomic
veterans and posthumously to their families.
However, members of the military were not the only ones who suffered.
Civilians, especially in the State of Nevada, were also victims of
atomic testing. Known as the down-winders, these civilians and their
lands suffered from the impact of nuclear radiation and drift carried
by wind and water. They, too, deserve to be recognized and honored.
Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues and I are talking about here today is
a big deal. This issue needs more attention. The relevant committees
here in Congress ought to be doing hearings. We ought to be discussing
this more and more on the House floor because, really, the ultimate
question here is the salvation or the destruction of our planet.
Certainly, we all can come together to protect not only the people of
the country but the people of the world from nuclear weapons.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the House to
prioritize disarmament diplomacy.
Mr. Speaker, 2024 marks 80 years since the world was introduced to
nuclear weapons. In that time, there have been several instances when
complete catastrophe was at our doorstep. At the height of the Cold
War, we narrowly avoided a nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Thanks to extraordinary leadership, the United States and
Soviet Union were able to pull back from the brink at the very last
minute.
Years later, early warning system errors, once again, brought us
within minutes of a nuclear exchange, and we are not the only countries
that have nearly ended life on Earth through nuclear escalation.
Today, there are close to 13,000 nuclear weapons across the globe, a
figure that continues to rise at an alarming rate because the world is
turning away from nuclear nonproliferation treaties. Nine countries
currently own nuclear weapons, while six others have them stored within
their borders.
While many of these countries are historically rational actors within
the international community, countries that see nuclear weapons as the
ultimate deterrent, the ever-changing state of the world today demands
that we not remain complacent. Not all nuclear states are rational
actors, and there is no guarantee that rational nuclear states will
always remain rational.
As Putin continues to attack Ukraine and threaten Europe and the
United States with nuclear war, the world is made less safe. When Kim
Jong Un supplies Putin with soldiers to fight in Ukraine, North Korea
inches closer to launching a nuclear strike. In the Middle East, where
ISIS-K is reemerging in Pakistan amid political and economic
instability, the prospect of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
bad actors grows by the day. Years after the Trump administration
decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, we risk yet another
adversary developing a nuclear arsenal.
As democracy deteriorates across the globe, even the United States is
not impervious to nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists.
The world today is far different from what it was at the end of World
War II, yet our policy toward nuclear weapons has not fundamentally
changed. Now more than ever, we must pursue nuclear disarmament. Rather
than bringing the world closer to disaster, let us prioritize
disarmament diplomacy and make real progress to creating a safer,
better world for our children, our grandchildren, and all generations
to come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for organizing
this Special Order hour, and I encourage all Members of Congress to
cosponsor H. Res. 77.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative McGovern for holding
this Special Order hour to discuss the importance of nuclear security.
As the only Ph.D. physicist in Congress, I feel I have a special
responsibility to join this discussion and to ask what we can do to
strengthen our global nuclear security architecture and maintain U.S.
leadership in this area.
I am proud to be the co-chair of the Congressional Nuclear Security
Working Group along with Representative Chuck Fleischmann. It is
important to continue the dialogue on nuclear security and the
significance of arms control, especially as it connects to current
events.
One of our caucus' main goals is to continue to engage on the Hill
and with external organizations to facilitate awareness of global
threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. It is our hope
that through building awareness and generating bipartisan dialogues we
can create practical legislative solutions for these critical national
security issues.
With the escalation of China's nuclear program, Russian nuclear
threats amid the invasion of Ukraine, Iran's growing nuclear
capabilities, threats by Israeli cabinet members to use its nuclear
arsenal against its neighbors, and the escalation of North Korean
missile testing, this is not a small task.
Above all, we see Ukraine, one of the few governments on Earth that
has voluntarily given up its nuclear weapons in return for an
international promise of territorial integrity, we see it threatened to
be abandoned by some, including some in the United States.
If we are going to be successful in confronting these unprecedented
challenges, then we need to work across party lines as we look to the
119th Congress and beyond.
One particular place where we are already working together in a
bipartisan manner is at our national laboratories. As the co-chair of
the bipartisan National Labs Caucus, our national labs create the
underlying foundation for all of our nuclear security
efforts, including the nonproliferation and national security
priorities that we are here to talk about today.
One of the features that you have got of being a Member of Congress,
Mr. Speaker, is that if you ask, you can be taken into the room in our
national weapons labs where you can see our nuclear weapons taken
apart. If you enter that room and you talk to the experts about the
details of the nuclear weapons, why they are built that way, what the
capabilities are, and what the implications are if these are detonated,
if you don't take your job seriously after entering that room, then you
are not thinking clearly. I find that Republicans and Democrats upon
entering that room think about their job in a different way than they
would otherwise.
This whole discussion is even more important than ever as we face an
uncertain geopolitical environment that pushes against the
international rules-based order and toward an age of strategic
competition. I find so many of the lessons that have been well-known by
Members of Congress during the Cold War seem to have been forgotten
today. The simple lesson, for example, that there are weapons that you
can own that make you less safe, which was well understood by Members
of Congress back in the fifties and sixties, seems to have become a
completely alien concept to Members of Congress today. That has led, I
think, to some very bad policy, like people thinking that hypersonics
make you safer; whereas, in fact, if you have hypersonics and your
enemies know you have hypersonics, then they are more likely to react
on a hair trigger to anything that looks like a launch against them and
not have the time that they need to react rationally.
Over the years, I have focused my attention specifically on several
areas to strengthen our nuclear security architecture.
First and foremost is H. Res. 1079, a resolution I introduced in the
House with 39 other Members supporting arms control and condemning
Russia's purported suspension of its participation
[[Page H5970]]
in the New START treaty. The current extension of New START is set to
expire in just over a year, and anyone who remembers previous arms
control negotiations will know that there is almost no time left to
negotiate a subsequent treaty.
Additionally, any negotiations, whether with Russia, China, or any
other country, require partners who are willing to have discussions on
arms control, something that is easier said than done. In a time when
traditional channels of dialogue in arms control and strategic
stability have been closed or are quiet, we will rely even more on
keeping alternative channels open.
Nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and research institutions
kept dialogue open during the worst parts of the Cold War, and we may
need to rely on them to fulfill those roles again.
Another institution that is crucial in these times will be the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. We are already seeing the
incredibly hard work that Director General Grossi and his staff are
putting in to responding to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the
nuclear plants that are being put at risk there and all the myriad
other crises that are at their doorstep.
In recognition of that work, I have also been leading H. Res. 641, a
resolution that highlights the indispensable role that the IAEA plays
in strengthening nuclear security and safety around the globe.
Again, I thank Representative McGovern for this time and this very
important discussion. There is a decent chance that everyone on Earth
will spend their last few moments wondering why we did not spend more
attention on nuclear weapons. I do not want to be part of that mistake,
so I thank the gentleman for letting us participate today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful
comments and for urging both Democrats and Republicans to learn more
about this issue. Democrats and Republicans ought to have a mutual
interest in survival, because that is really what is at stake here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman McGovern for putting
this together and for the opportunity to speak on this crucial topic.
Since their creation, nuclear weapons have shocked the world with
their destructive potential and left us grappling with how to limit
their dangers. Today, it is even more important than ever that we take
the steps, however difficult they may seem, to reprioritize
deescalation and prevent a new nuclear arms race.
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev,
two Cold Warriors commanding the largest nuclear arsenals on the
planet, declared that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be
fought. This profound truth has been repeated often, and it has been
reaffirmed by the leaders of all five nuclear-armed states in 2022. It
should serve as both the starting point and the guiding principle in
every discussion we have about nuclear weapons.
Yet, today, we seem to be overlooking the lessons even the most
resolute Cold Warrior strategists understood. Despite our successes in
eliminating nuclear testing, shrinking stockpiles, and preventing
proliferation, we now risk drifting from these hard-fought
achievements. Instead of advancing cooperation, we find ourselves amid
a resurgence of the same Cold War mindset that once pushed us
dangerously close to the brink of nuclear annihilation.
The path before us is clear: we must either continue to build on our
successes in reducing the risk of nuclear war or return to the
insecurity and dangers of the Cold War era.
Instead of pursuing the obvious choice, hawkish perspectives on all
sides have locked the U.S., Russia, and China into a nuclear build-up,
each country racing to develop new long-range missiles, stealth
bombers, and space-based systems, fearing the gains of the others and
responding with more weapons of their own.
Rather than challenging these approaches, Congress continues to
authorize steps that are increasing the pace of this new nuclear arms
race. This fear-driven rhetoric promotes the dangerous myth that more
weapons make us safer, yet nothing could be further from the truth. In
reality, without arms control agreements, every new weapon we build
only fuels an unwinnable race as adversaries respond in kind.
When advocates tell us that our nuclear modernization will cost $1.7
trillion, it is difficult to fathom just how much money that truly is.
To be clear, the cost is more than the Iraq war cost us over 20 years,
and the costs just keep rising. The Sentinel program which will replace
the Minuteman III ICBMs has already ballooned to $200 billion, an 81
percent cost overrun.
For comparison, we could buy 20 aircraft carriers for the cost to
modernize a few hundred unusable missiles and warheads. For a fraction
of the cost, we could keep our current ICBMs, subs, and air-based
bombers, but we continue to spend blindly without ever saying enough.
It is fascinating that from across the aisle, deficits don't seem to
matter when it comes to defense.
Mr. Speaker, $58 billion for the State Department? Oh, that is
excessive. However, $200 billion for one-third of our nuclear triad
doesn't seem to even prompt a congressional hearing. For the same $200
billion, we could fully fund the National Institutes of Health's annual
budget for 10 years or provide universal pre-K education for every
child in the U.S. for nearly 30 years.
However, the cost is not just financial. The soaring price tags of
these nuclear programs are shocking in their own right, but it is also
the human cost, the cost of our global security, and the increased risk
of catastrophic conflict.
Congress must reclaim its role in shaping a rational, responsible
nuclear strategy, one that prioritizes diplomacy over escalation,
deescalation over deterrence, and arms control over arms races. The
American people deserve a government that works to reduce risks not
magnify them.
We must rebalance our focus toward arms control, recognizing that
diplomatic engagement and meaningful treaties are proven tools for
reducing the global stockpiles of nuclear weapons and curbing the
spread of those weapons. These efforts demand our unwavering
commitment. History has shown that reliance on nuclear arsenals as the
core of our security is misguided.
With nuclear stockpiles increasing worldwide, our collective call for
restraint and deescalation is more crucial now than ever.
{time} 1445
Our diplomatic efforts should match the intensity of our military
programs. This requires making difficult choices, ensuring that our
limited resources support our true long-term security goals.
Pouring billions of dollars into nuclear modernization while
neglecting diplomatic initiatives is not a sustainable strategy. It is
a trajectory toward greater danger and increased instability.
I stand before my colleagues today to say that we still have a
choice. We can choose to invest in a future that prioritizes dialogue
and cooperation. We can choose to modernize our thinking rather than
just our weapons. We can also choose to move toward the total
elimination of nuclear weapons, recognizing that it is the only true
way to ensure a safer world for future generations.
The road ahead is not going to be easy, but it is clear. Let us
reaffirm our commitment to arms control, to oversight, and to a nuclear
policy based on reason and restraint, not on fear and reflex. Let us
continue to work together toward a world free of nuclear weapons, where
security is based on peace and cooperation and not the perpetual threat
of annihilation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi) for his powerful remarks. I thank the gentleman also for
being the co-chair of the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working
Group.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the other co-
chair of the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I stand with my colleagues today to help raise the alarm
about our unsustainable and reckless
[[Page H5971]]
nuclear posture. Sadly, we have come a long way in the wrong direction
since Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev pledged to rid the world of
nuclear weapons.
Many of my friends in this Chamber, particularly on the Republican
side of the aisle, speak passionately and eloquently about our fiscal
trajectory and the rising national debt. I share their concerns and
believe we need to be clear-eyed about the scale of the increasingly
serious debt problem and we must seriously consider the merits of
additional spending in a difficult fiscal environment.
Yet, many seem to forget this issue when it comes to the larger
defense budget and, specifically, our nuclear weapons modernization
program.
The CBO estimates that it will cost us over $1.5 trillion over the
next 30 years and $800 billion over the next 10 years. Please remember
that our current estimates in defense costs are always wrong, and they
are always wrong on the low side. We always underestimate
significantly, sometimes dramatically.
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the need for nuclear deterrence,
particularly with Russian saber-rattling and an expanding Chinese
nuclear arsenal, our spending priorities and nuclear strategy are
becoming divorced from reality, a reality of scarce resources and a
variety of competing national security priorities.
We are on track in the next NDAA to authorize billions of additional
dollars in spending on a host of unnecessary nuclear programs that
have, at best, a marginal benefit to our national security and, at
worst, destabilize the fragile peace we have today.
For example, the measure being negotiated would likely have us
continue to pour billions of dollars into a new nuclear sea-launched
cruise missile program, which is a costly solution to a nonexistent
problem. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Russia or China
would be any more deterred from using nuclear weapons if we were able
to field yet another low-yield weapon. We already deploy a vast array
of such weapons.
The reality is that our current nuclear arsenal presents more than
enough of a deterrent to our adversaries, and we simply do not have the
resources to spend lavishly on redundant nuclear weapons systems while
also maintaining and modernizing our conventional military
capabilities.
I am deeply concerned that, while we continue to overspend on our
nuclear arsenal, we are neglecting to engage in meaningful nuclear
disarmament diplomacy on the international stage, which is the only
real way to safeguard the country and the world from the horrors of
nuclear war.
I applaud the Biden administration for offering last year to discuss,
without preconditions, a new nuclear arms control framework with Russia
and a separate bilateral nuclear risk reduction arrangement with China,
but we need to do more in Congress to support these efforts and
encourage the next administration to carry the torch.
At the very least, before the expiration of the New START Treaty in
2026, the U.S. should propose to Russia that both sides maintain the
current limits of the numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons
until a more comprehensive agreement can be reached.
Looking ahead, the cornerstone of future arms nuclear talks should be
the adoption of a no first-use policy when it comes to our own nuclear
arsenal. Currently, the U.S. President has the ability to order the
launch of hundreds of nuclear warheads within 15 minutes with no
oversight or input required from anyone else, including Congress.
Vesting this much power into one person, Democrat or Republican, is
irresponsible, dangerous, and unnecessary.
Given our massive conventional military advantages over our
adversaries, there is no plausible circumstance that could justify the
use of nuclear weapons to respond to a nonnuclear threat.
Removing the specter of U.S. nuclear weapons first in a conflict
would be an important first step toward increasing strategic stability
and slowing down or stopping the global race to develop new nuclear
capabilities and advanced conventional-strike weapons.
In an increasingly unstable word, it is incumbent on all of us to
reduce the existential risk of nuclear war in every way we can. Let me
explain my use of the term ``existential.'' It is about actual
existence.
While we fret over who won or lost in a given election, we must not
forget that the real danger and the real challenge is the continuation
of humanity itself. Will we live as a species, or will we die? That is
the simple question before us.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks and,
again, for reminding us how costly the nuclear arms race is. The
American people want us to spend money on them and not on weapons that,
if ever used, could destroy this entire planet.
Mr. Speaker, I am now proud to yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, we know that a nuclear war cannot be won and
must never be fought. There are roughly 13,000 nuclear weapons
currently stored in bunkers, missile silos, warehouses, airfields, and
Navy bases all around the world.
One warhead has the power to wipe out an entire city. A full-scale
nuclear war could devastate life as we know it. The catastrophic risks
posed by nuclear weapons are growing. We know that Putin continues to
recklessly threaten the use of nuclear force in the war in Ukraine, and
genocidal maniac Netanyahu continues to recklessly raise the nuclear
threat level all across the Middle East.
The White House and Congress need to double down on efforts to work
toward diplomacy and negotiate new constraints to cap and further
reduce nuclear arsenals.
We must implement a new nuclear arms control framework to prevent an
unrestrained nuclear arms race. It is absolutely terrifying, Mr.
Speaker, for many of our residents in the United States that the
President of the United States has the power to decide to launch a
nuclear weapon right now. Think about that for just one moment.
The use of just a fraction of the nuclear weapons we possess, most of
which are ready for launch within minutes of an order from any
President, would lead to mass destruction on an unprecedented global
scale.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle should back
commonsense efforts to adopt measures to reduce the risk of nuclear
war. We must continue to work toward an international agreement, Mr.
Speaker, with all countries that possess nuclear weapons through a very
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that we already have.
Also, many of my residents continue to say: Stop. Stop the United
States from being addicted to wars. We could be using so much of these
resources to fund clean water, to fund housing, to fund childcare, and
so much more that invests in the future and not the end of our world.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her inspiring
remarks and for always speaking truth to power.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield now to the gentleman from California
(Mr. DeSaulnier).
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the time for nuclear weapons stockpiling is over.
Instead, we should focus on the United States leading the world in
disarmament and diplomacy.
As the ultimate weapon of war, nuclear weapons should be an absolute
last resort or no resort. With the U.S. having enough nuclear weapons
to destroy the world, they become more than a deterrent. They become a
threat to ourselves and the rest of the world.
Today's landscape paints a picture of even more reasons to act
swiftly. The last remaining agreement limiting the world's two largest
arsenals is set to expire in 2026, and China has increased its arsenal
from 100 to 300 nuclear weapons on their long-range missiles.
At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin has refused to
take up President Biden's offer to discuss a new nuclear arms control
framework. China's leaders have also rejected U.S. offers for follow-up
talks on nuclear risk reduction and arms control issues.
As indiscriminate killers, nuclear weapons will not be the answer to
our current or future problems. It is in the world's best interests and
the United States', as the leader of these interests, that we reengage
in efforts to produce a new framework with Russia and China to further
cap and reduce nuclear arsenals.
[[Page H5972]]
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for being a leader on this
important issue and bringing us together to discuss it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
DeSaulnier) for his words. Again, I think what my colleagues are
hearing today are concerns that many of our constituents share, that we
are spending this excessive amount of money on stockpiling nuclear
weapons and the concern that we are not talking about the impact if
these weapons were ever used. It would be devastating.
Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mrs. RAMIREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman McGovern for holding
this Special Order hour to discuss the very real threat nuclear weapons
represent to our shared safety and our peace.
Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 80 years since the beginning of the
nuclear age. Given where we are at this precise moment, the risks posed
by nuclear weapons feels real, it feels present, and it feels tangible.
Despite warnings from advocates and the United Nations, the threat of
nuclear escalation is on the rise. In fact, our Nation's leadership has
played an important role in either mitigating or escalating this
dangerous reality. What we do and how we lead and what we say to the
world will continue to be a crucial factor in the nuclear arms race and
war in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I am tired of saying it, but words matter, and I quote:
``Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and
outlast them all.'' That was the incoming President's answer to the
question of a possible nuclear war back in 2016.
We know that, as our Nation and other States agreed in a 2022
declaration, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
Despite the claims of warmongers, including our President-elect and the
military industrial complex, nuclear weapons are not defensive or
an effective strategy for deterrence.
The bottom line is nuclear weapons are tools of war, death, and mass
destruction. They can't be used without catastrophic humanitarian
consequences that violate every single principle of international law
and our shared humanity. We are headed in the wrong direction with a
trigger-happy President about to take office.
Will he renew the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty?
Will he ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?
Will he decrease spending on nuclear weapons or decommission our
already massive nuclear arsenal?
Of course not.
When we invest in nuclear proliferation, I want us to remember that
we could be providing assistance in our communities. We could be
supporting the education of our children. We could be transforming our
infrastructure and delivering nutritious meals to families. We could be
assisting first-time home buyers. We could be building a quality
healthcare system.
Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on, and Congressman McGovern would need
another five Special Order hours, but what I am saying is that these
are life-giving investments in people. Nuclear weapons only bring total
annihilation. We must pursue another path forward. We have to pursue a
path toward peace, and we can do that together.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her powerful
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Titus), who can tell us firsthand about the impacts of nuclear
testing on people in nearby areas--not just nearby, but hundreds of
miles away--how it not only pollutes the air, but the water and the
soil and everything else.
{time} 1500
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern, Congressman
McGovern, for his leadership in this area and for setting up the
Special Order on such an important topic.
As a political science professor and a student of the history of
nuclear weaponry, and now a Member of Congress representing much of
southern Nevada, I have learned a thing or two about our nuclear
legacy. In fact, I wrote a book on Nevada's atomic heritage called
``Not In My Backyard.''
Nevada was the focal point of nuclear development during the Cold
War. Over four decades, the Nevada Test Site, which is located just a
hundred miles north of Las Vegas, hosted over 900 nuclear tests, more
than any other place in the country.
Throughout the 1950s, the mushroom cloud continued to loom in the
distance as people enjoyed what Las Vegas had to offer. It was almost
like a tourist attraction.
These tests were conducted to better understand the power and impact
of nuclear weapons, and the site played a major role in shaping
national and international policies regarding nuclear testing and
nonproliferation.
The radiation given off by more than 100 atmospheric tests, however,
has had devastating impacts on those downwind. That includes workers at
the test site, our atomic soldiers who did war games in the shadow of
the detonations, and also sheepherders across the border in Utah.
The fallout caused cancer and premature deaths for thousands across
the West and contaminated soil in the vicinity of the test site,
resulting in a loss of biodiversity.
The 800 underground tests also resulted in radioactive contamination
of groundwater, and that is still a problem today. Radioactivity levels
in the water are declining over time, but elements such as plutonium
and uranium are likely to pose a risk for thousands of years.
Fortunately, the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Program and the National Nuclear Security Administration and
its nuclear weapons laboratories have been able to certify that our
nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without needing to
resume explosive testing.
Mr. Speaker, in 2020, the Trump administration called for a
resumption of nuclear testing in the breach of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. I helped lead the charge in the fiscal year
2021 NDAA process to ensure that explosive nuclear testing could not be
resurrected in the United States because it would be right there in
Nevada.
With a second Trump administration taking office in January, that
same disastrous policy from 2020 is featured in Project 2025. That is
the blueprint that we understand Trump will be following in his next 4
years.
On page 399, Project 2025 calls for the rejection of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which will not only allow nuclear
testing here at home but will give the green light to other nuclear
powers around the world to do the same.
The result will put us on a collision course of catastrophic
proportions with Russia and China. It will undermine the entire arms
control regime, allow for the proliferation of these weapons to non-
nuclear states, and will once again put the health of Nevadans in
jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has been a beacon of nonproliferation
and responsible stewardship of nuclear stockpiles. Upon the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, we helped newly reformed republics like Kazakhstan
safely remove and decommission warheads and testing facilities while
ushering in a new era of nuclear risk reduction by implementing the
nonproliferation treaty, New START, and, of course, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty.
Those in favor of resuming nuclear testing under the principle of
peace through strength are merely contributing to additional nuclear
risks and challenges to strategic stability.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. In a nuclear arms race, there are no
winners, only losers. We must not provide foreign nations with a
justification to openly conduct nuclear test explosions while imposing
immense financial and health costs on our constituents.
The U.S. has been a leader on nuclear risk reduction, and we must
continue to act responsibly in that regard. It is one of the most
serious things that we face, and we must stand strong against it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for being such an
advocate on behalf of people who have been victimized by nuclear
testing. We appreciate all the work that she does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee),
who
[[Page H5973]]
has been a champion on arms control issues for many years.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for this
Special Order and for giving me a minute to speak, but also for his
tremendous leadership because this is such an important issue that I
think sometimes gets swept under the rug.
There are a couple of things I remember about my last life. I was a
very active member of the SANE/Nuclear Freeze disarmament movement. I
worked for a phenomenal Member of Congress, Congressman Ron Dellums. We
talked about nuclear weapons and how it is an equalizer. It is an
equal-opportunity destroyer.
I think everyone in our country and throughout the world needs to
understand what impacts nuclear weapons have had and will have. I
visited Nagasaki. I visited Hiroshima. I also had a chance to meet with
many children who were survivors of Chernobyl. I saw what the human
impact was: permanent disabilities, generational trauma, generational
DNA changes, physical disabilities.
Let me read you what one report explains in a very quick paragraph:
``Nuclear weapons produce ionizing radiation, which kills or sickens
those exposed, contaminates the environment, and has long-term health
consequences, including cancer and genetic damage.''
I have seen this with people who had relatives who were impacted by a
nuclear bomb and the genetic damage through the generations.
``Their widespread use in atmospheric testing has caused grave, long-
term consequences. Physicians project that some 2.4 million people
worldwide will eventually die from cancers due to atmospheric nuclear
tests conducted between 1945 and 1980.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this once again to
the attention of this body because this world should not have one
nuclear bomb. Our country should lead the effort for nuclear
disarmament. We should set the standard. We need to reduce the
investments that we make in the production of nuclear weapons. We need
to eliminate nuclear weapons, and we need to be in the lead for that.
Mr. Speaker, I will say again that a nuclear bomb is an equal-
opportunity destroyer.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership
on this and so many other issues.
During his first term, President Trump was right to initiate talks
and to try to negotiate a nuclear agreement with North Korea. Perhaps
he can be successful at this initiative over the next 4 years. I hope
it is something he decides to prioritize.
There are other important nuclear security issues that I hope he will
take to heart and, like his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and
Dwight Eisenhower, help lead the world away from the brink of a nuclear
arms race and a nuclear war.
These include taking a critical look at nuclear modernization to
ensure it will provide cost-effective deterrence, hold the Pentagon
accountable for unnecessary and costly weapons programs, adhere to the
nuclear weapons limits set forth in the New START agreement, extend and
expand upon existing arms control engagement, uphold the global taboo
on explosive nuclear weapons testing, and stop funding missile defense
programs that do not work.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should aspire to be a world free of nuclear
weapons. That is what you have heard over and over from the Members who
have spoken here today.
I want to close with one final thought. Mr. Speaker, when I was in
college, I worked my way through college, working in the office of
Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, no relation but one of my
heroes and a champion on nuclear arms control.
I accompanied him to a debate with William Buckley at Yale
University, and the debate was on: Resolve that the SALT talks are in
the interests of U.S. national security.
Governor McGovern closed that debate by saying, in 1963, we were
debating the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. ``Senator Everett Dirksen
[of Illinois] took to the floor to close the debate. He said that he
had just reread John Hersey's `Hiroshima,' the description of what
happened to that great city, the morning after, the scene of one family
sitting charred around the breakfast table; out in the yard, bits and
pieces of children's clothing; the broken arm of a doll; toys and
debris scattered over the landscape. And he said: `I thought about that
scene, and I said that someday Everett Dirksen will be buried in
Illinois, and when that happens, I don't want to put on my gravestone:
``He knew about this, and he didn't care.'' ' ''
Mr. Speaker, the choice is whether we are going to reduce and
eventually reverse this nuclear madness. That means not victory for
anyone if it is ever used but the death of all and perhaps the death of
our planet.
Many years ago, in ancient wisdom, it was said: I have set before
thee two choices, life or death. Therefore, choose life that thee and
thy seed may live.
That is the choice he wanted the United States to make in 1978. That
is how he concluded that debate. That is the choice I want the United
States to make in the year 2024.
Mr. Speaker, the stuff that we are talking about here today is not
theoretical. It is not just some abstract debate. This is real. It is
shocking that we are not focused more on this issue.
Again, Democrats and Republicans ought to have a mutual interest in
survival because if these weapons are ever used, it could mean the end
of our planet. As Mr. Foster from Illinois said earlier, we don't want
to look into the sky, see one terrible flash, and that is the end of
it, and we wonder how we got there.
We have it within our power right now to do something to reverse this
trend toward nuclear destruction. We just have to have the courage to
stand up to the defense contractors and all of their big money and to
people who, quite frankly, think that the only way we can be strong is
to build more and more nuclear weapons.
That is not the measure of our strength. The measure of our strength,
quite frankly, is the quality of life of the people in our country. We
live in the richest country in the history of the world. We have 47
million people who do not know where their next meal is going to come
from. We should all be ashamed of that. It is a national scandal.
When we try to raise that issue on the floor, we are told we don't
have the money. Yet, we have over a trillion dollars to build more
nuclear weapons? That is insane. That is mad.
Mr. Speaker, the plea of all of us here today, to Democrats and
Republicans alike, we want the issue of a nuclear-free world on the
table. We want that to be one of our goals. We want to aspire to that
goal. We want Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and
to make that a reality.
I hope that people across this country get more engaged on this issue
and demand more of their government on this issue. The trend right now
and the way we are headed is in the wrong direction.
Let's strive for a world free from nuclear weapons. Let's urge the
next President to do this. Again, I have great concerns, deep concerns,
about the next President and his priorities. Do you know what? We can't
give up hope. We ought to do everything we can to press him and this
Congress to move in a different direction.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for participating in this
Special Order, and I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________