[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18034-18036]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague 
for those eloquent and passionate and insightful remarks, and for his 
extraordinary leadership, not only in this time but as he shows 
throughout all of our work in Congress. I thank him for his guidance on 
this issue which is so important. I look forward to joining him on this 
issue when we reconvene next week.
  Mr. President, as the Senator from Connecticut so eloquently spoke 
about for the last half hour or so--about the importance of alliances 
at this time, the importance of international alliances, the 
extraordinary opportunity that has been given to us out of this tragedy 
to build a new framework of mutual trust and mutual cooperation for the 
benefit of all citizens of this world who love freedom, who hope for a 
better life, who want only for themselves, their children, and their 
grandchildren to live free of oppression, free from fear, free from 
hunger, free from want, it is really an extraordinary time.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership that I have seen in this body in 
a way that I never thought I would. I am certain that most people in my 
State and in many States don't completely really understand yet the 
extraordinary length to which the Members of this body, both Democrats 
and Republicans, have worked to overcome some very difficult issues in 
trying to work so closely with the President, and have done this in a 
remarkable way under his tremendous leadership, as the Senator from 
Connecticut also pointed out.
  I think we have made great progress in the last 2 weeks, since 
September 11. We are on the right track and at the right pace. We just 
have to steady our course and continue to support our President and 
debate where we need to and not give up our right to judgment, and do 
it in a way that will strengthen our country and will honor the spirit 
that Americans everywhere are showing us around the world and move 
forward to win this war.
  I want to spend a few minutes before we close today speaking about an 
important part of this effort, an important part of the Defense 
authorization bill, which we have been engaged in debating now under 
the great leadership of Senator Levin from Michigan and the Senator 
from Virginia, Senator Warner.
  In my mind, the cold war finally ended at 8:45 a.m. eastern time on 
Tuesday, September 11. Literally, up until that moment, this Congress 
had engaged in something akin to shadowboxing.
  We swung our arms about in search of enemies, and in search of a 
unifying purpose to our national security. Yet in life, it is often 
tragedy and crisis that lifts the fog from our eyes. Suddenly, we see 
the world with crystal-like clarity. We understand better that which is 
trivial and that which is absolutely essential. We look back on our 
priorities before this crisis, and I think many of us have been shaking 
our heads wondering: What could we possibly have been thinking?
  One truth that should now be evident to America's collective world 
view is that we need a strong and practical relationship with Russia. 
There is a bond between the United States and Russia that defies 
coincidence. Of course, we share the common experience of the cold war. 
It was not a pleasant experience, it was not a good experience, but it 
was an experience that we shared. Now it appears we will share the 
experience of fighting in Afghanistan.
  Russia itself has been attacked by terrorists, supported by elements 
of the Arab Afghan army, the very force that we trained during the cold 
war and now has unleashed its terror upon us.
  In short, our countries have a history of lashing out at each other. 
Yet when we do, we inevitably hurt ourselves. It is an instinct we 
learned during the cold war, but we must unlearn that instinct to 
succeed in this silent war. Hopefully, on September 11, we closed for 
good that chapter in our relationship.
  There are many things that make me proud about this Defense 
authorization bill that we have been debating and will hopefully 
conclude that debate

[[Page 18035]]

when we reconvene next week, but one of the things that makes me 
proudest about this year's Defense authorization bill is that even 
before the events of the 11th, we understood the importance of our 
relationship with Russia. Senators Nunn and Lugar deserve the thanks of 
the whole of the American public for their extraordinary foresight. 
They realized that at the end of the cold war, in the tremendous vacuum 
that was created, we needed to be aggressive in forming a new 
relationship with Russia. It would not be a relationship based on fear, 
deception, and suspicion. Rather, it would be a relationship grounded 
in our common history, our common roles as great powers, and our mutual 
interest in establishing a world where our citizens could flourish.
  The only way forward to this goal is up the trail blazed by Senators 
Nunn and Lugar. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program sponsored by 
the Department of Defense has been under assault in this Congress since 
I joined the Armed Services Committee. It was derided as welfare to ex-
Communists. We slashed and hamstrung the programs, claiming to react to 
mismanagement.
  With the hard work of my friend and now partner, Mr. Roberts, the 
Senator from Kansas, we reversed that trend this year. The subcommittee 
mark for the Emerging Threats included full funding for the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program at $403 million. Of these funds, $50 million 
is dedicated to chemical demilitarization of the Soviet Union.
  The facts before us should be crystal clear to everyone. There should 
be no more urgent priority for this country than to secure and destroy 
the chemical, biological, and nuclear stockpiles of the former Soviet 
Union.
  On that exact point, there was a beautifully written op-ed piece by 
former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. I ask unanimous consent to print 
the op-ed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 16, 2001]

                   Living in a New Era of Insecurity

                             (By Sam Nunn)

       The bitter events of last week will never pass from the 
     American memory. But whether they are remembered as an 
     isolated, unrepeated horror or the first nightmare in a new 
     era of insecurity may well depend on what we do now.
       The terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks of 
     Sept. 11 showed there is no limit to the number of innocent 
     lives they are willing to take. Their capacity for killing 
     was restricted only by the power of their weapons.
       As we strengthen airport and airplane security, we must 
     automatically assume that the next attack against America 
     will be like the one we just experienced.
       Though we may not yet know with certainty which group 
     sponsored these attacks we do know that Osama bin Laden 
     declared in 1998 that acquiring weapons of mass destruction 
     is ``a religious duty.'' This statement should not be taken 
     lightly. We have had a look at the face of terrorist warfare 
     in the 21st century, and it gives us little hope that if 
     these groups gained control of nuclear, biological and 
     chemical weapons they would hesitate to use them.
       As America prepares a response, we must build a new 
     framework for national security that protects us from the 
     full range of new dangers we face.
       Ten years ago a communist empire broke apart. Its legacy: 
     30,000 nuclear warheads; more than 1,000 tons of highly 
     enriched uranium; 150 tons of plutonium; 40,000 tons of 
     chemical weapons; 4,500 tons of anthrax and tens of thousands 
     of scientists who know how to make weapons and missiles but 
     don't know how to feed their families. Russia's dysfunctional 
     economy and eroded security systems have undercut controls on 
     these weapons, materials and know-how and increased the risk 
     that they may flow to hostile forces.
       Our nation understands from heart-shattering experience 
     that America is targeted for terrorist attack. But we do not 
     fully grasp how Russia's loose controls over weapons, 
     materials and know-how dramatically increase our 
     vulnerability to an attack with nuclear, biological and 
     chemical weapons. In 1998, an employee at Russia's premier 
     nuclear weapons laboratory was arrested for trying to sell 
     documents on weapons design to agents of Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. Just this year, former Bin Laden associate 
     admitted to a federal grand jury his role in a plot to 
     purchase uranium.
       Threats of terrorism and threats of weapons of mass 
     destruction are not separate but interrelated and 
     reinforcing. The world's security now depends in great part 
     on who is faster and smarter--those trying to get weapons, 
     materials and know-how, or those trying to stop them.
       To reduce these threats to our own security, we have--for 
     the past 10 years--helped the Russians secure weapons and 
     weapons materials to prevent theft, convert nuclear weapons 
     facilities to civilian purposes and employ their weapons 
     scientists in peaceful pursuits. But we need to do much more.
       Russia itself has experienced terrible terrorist attacks in 
     recent years, and its outpouring of support in the past few 
     days indicates there may be a real opportunity for enhanced 
     U.S.-Russia cooperation.
       Early this year, a distinguished bipartisan task force 
     declared loose weapons, materials and know-how in Russia 
     ``the most urgent unmet national security threat to the 
     United States,'' and called for a fourfold funding increase 
     to reduce these threats. We need to reflect this sound advice 
     in our budget priorities. Keeping weapons of mass destruction 
     out of terrorists' hands is either a priority or an 
     afterthought. If it is an afterthought, after what?
       The tragic events of this week have given us a rare 
     opportunity to lead a world coalition against terrorism. 
     NATO, for the first time in 52 years, has formally declared 
     that the alliance has been attacked, and 19 democracies are 
     now committed to join America in hitting back. We also have 
     other partners in Europe Asia, the Middle East, Latin 
     America, and Africa.
       To carry out the Bush Administration's declaration of war 
     against terrorism, we must:
       Prevent terrorist groups from getting nuclear, biological 
     or chemical weapons, weapons materials and know-how.
       Eliminate terrorist cells wherever they are, including in 
     the United States.
       Enlist the support of our coalition partners to destroy the 
     infrastructure and cut off the funding of terrorist groups 
     wherever they are.
       Make no distinction between the terrorists who committed 
     these acts and those who knowingly harbor them, as President 
     Bush has said.
       Take every feasible and reasonable step in our military 
     planning to avoid inflicting large numbers of civilian 
     casualties that will only sow the seeds of the next 
     generation of fanatical, suicidal terrorists.
       Make it clear by our words and actions that our war is 
     against terrorist, not a war against Islam at home or abroad.
       Continue to address the underlying conflicts and condition 
     around the world that breed fanatical hatred and terrorism--
     probably our most difficult challenge.
       Promote and enhance the diplomacy, intelligence gathering 
     and cooperation that are our first line of defense.
       In implementing this strategy, we must make sure that we 
     don't undercut the international cooperation we need to 
     protect ourselves against a wide range of dangers.
       The United States cannot identify and eliminate terrorist 
     groups, destroy their funding and support, apply pressure to 
     rogue regimes, secure dangerous materials, limit the spread 
     of weapons of mass destruction and gather intelligence 
     without the support and active cooperation of allies and 
     former adversaries. While we must be prepared to act alone if 
     necessary, if we are going to go after terrorists before they 
     come to our shores, we must have partners abroad.
       We must develop a comprehensive defense against the full 
     range of threats, based on relative risk and supported by 
     strong alliances so that the pain of today will not be known 
     by the children of tomorrow.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to quote a few sentences from 
this beautifully written piece. He says:

       The terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks of 
     Sept. 11 showed there is no limit to the number of innocent 
     lives they are willing to take. Their capacity for killing 
     was restricted only by the power of their weapons.
       Though we may not yet know with certainty which group 
     sponsored these attacks, we do know that Osama bin Laden 
     declared in 1998 that acquiring weapons of mass destruction 
     is ``a religious duty.'' This statement should not be taken 
     lightly. We have had a look at the face of terrorist warfare 
     in the 21st century, and it gives us little hope that if 
     these groups gained control of nuclear, biological and 
     chemical weapons they would not hesitate to use them.
       As America prepares a response, we must build a new 
     framework for national security that protects us from the 
     full range of the new dangers we face.

  Mr. President, we cannot, we should not try, it would be foolhardy to 
begin to try to build this framework without a strong partnership with 
Russia.
  We know of nearly 400 incidents to purchase or smuggle this material 
since the end of the cold war. We can safely assume that for every 
purchase or smuggling operation we stopped--

[[Page 18036]]

and we stopped many--others succeeded. Yet the technology and framework 
for locking down these stockpiles is within our grasp.
  Today we fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program at $403 
million a year. We spent 100 times that amount of money in 1 day to 
respond to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  Let me repeat that. Today we fund this Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program at $403 million a year. We spent 100 times that amount in 1 day 
to deal with the crisis that hit us at the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon 2 weeks ago.
  Keep in mind that this is the immediate cost only to the 
stabilization, rescue, and cleanup of these sites. We will be spending 
billions more.
  Now imagine the cleanup costs that result from an attack by a weapon 
of mass destruction. As horrific and as heartwrenching and as merciless 
as were the attacks and the casualties from those attacks on September 
11, a weapon of mass destruction promises to be a whole scale of 
magnitude worse. The devastation could be beyond our imagination.
  Yet there have been many reports on this subject. The Baker-Cutler 
report notes that we need to spend, in their estimation, nearly $30 
billion to address just the nuclear side of this equation over the next 
8 to 10 years. At our current rate of $3 billion a year, that would 
require a tenfold increase.
  Furthermore, it is my opinion that we cannot wait 8 to 10 years, and 
we must address all weapons of mass destruction in a more direct, 
focused, urgent, and intelligent way.
  All of this is a long way of saying that Russia's stockpiles of 
weapons of mass destruction constitute a vital national security 
interest second to none. No resource should be spared, no bureaucratic 
hurdle left standing, no diplomatic initiative left unexplored to 
eliminate the risk these weapons represent.
  The preamble of our Constitution makes it incumbent on this Congress 
to ``provide for the common defence . . . and secure the Blessings of 
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' If we take the lessons 
learned from September 11 and destroy these weapons, we will have done 
ourselves and our posterity a great service.
  As we embark on this extended and silent war against terrorism, I 
believe that nonproliferation represents one of the true front lines. 
If we lose the momentum necessary to destroy these stockpiles now, the 
outcome of this war must be in doubt.
  I know the American people understand the heavy costs we will have to 
bear. This is surely one of those costs, but I am confident, because I 
have seen on the faces of Americans everywhere--people in my home 
State, children who have stopped to talk with me, friends who have 
called, strangers who have walked in my office and left notes and 
missives, telephone calls I have received--that the American people are 
ready, they are united, they are willing, strong enough, and without 
fear to accomplish this goal.
  I believe there are a variety of answers to that question when people 
ask: When will we know this war has been won? I will say this: One of 
the best indications of whether or not we are winning this war is our 
success in cooperative threat reduction. The struggle is on, but this 
is an objective that freedom-loving people must take and hold.
  I have every confidence the Members of this body, both Democrats and 
Republicans, regardless of their views, will understand, and with new 
insight will appreciate, because of the tragedy that is before us, the 
urgency of this subject. I am looking forward to doing my part, with 
other committees that obviously have influence in this area, to work 
across party lines, to work with House leaders, to work with men and 
women who have served before in this body, who have quite an expertise 
in this area, as well as our private sector, think-tanks, our 
universities, to put all of our best thoughts and efforts in action and 
to be focused as a laser so we can provide for the common defense of 
this Nation, the common defense of civilizations and freedom-loving 
people around the world, and that Americans will do what Americans do 
best, which is to put our best foot forward with clarity, with 
commitment, with purpose, with the practical way that Americans move 
forward to take on this task and to do it well. I am confident that as 
we do, we will be successful in this endeavor.

                          ____________________