I raise in my written testimony. Those questions are: First, are multilateral nuclear treaties effective? Second, where do multilateral treaties fit in a broader strategy against nuclear terrorism? And finally third, what is the role for Congress?

Let us begin with the first question: Are multilateral nuclear regimes effective? Of course, multilateral nuclear institutions come in a variety of forms. Some are treaties, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. Others are informal multilateral groups like the Nuclear Suppliers Group, while still others, like UNSCOM and KEDO, are at hoc agencies that were developed in response to a particular crisis.

Now, of course, creating a multilateral institution is one thing but having an effective multilateral institution is quite something else. Some multilateral institutions have been tremendous successes while others have been abject failures. How are we to judge the regime, the nuclear regime and the way it has performed? I would like to take just a minute and look in particular at the role of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and related regime components and their effect on the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

After 50 years the most striking feature of the nuclear age is that there are so few nuclear weapon states, far fewer than predicted by virtually every expert and every policy-maker. As one observer noted, "Almost all published predictions of the spread of nuclear weapons have turned out to be too pessimistic." Perhaps the most famous or infamous prediction of nuclear proliferation was offered by President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy warned that in 10 years-this was back in the early 1960's-that in 10 years an additional 21 countries might develop nuclear weapons. And published work at the time from universities, from think-tanks and defense intelligence estimates endorsed that prediction. As one commentator put it, "The belief was common that the nuclear spread has proceeded and would continue to proceed as fast as the technology would take it." The French military theorist Pierre Gallois observed that proliferation was as irreversible as the generalization of fire arms.

Yet the results have been far different than those predictions. An overwhelming majority of nuclear-capable countries have opted to forego nuclear weapons and, over time, the rate of proliferation has actually declined. Let me repeat that, that the rate of proliferation has actually declined. After peaking in the 1960's the number of new nations joining the nuclear club each decade has gone steadily downhill and several nations that built or inherited nuclear weapons South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan-chose to renounce their nuclear weapons.

When in history, asked one scholar, have so many nations had the capability to produce a powerful weapon and chosen not to exercise it? Indeed, I would argue that the absence of widespread proliferation may be the greatest unheralded public policy success of the 20th Century.

A key factor in the success was the establishment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Archival documents, interviews with

gests that the NPT had a decisive impact on the spread of nuclear weapons.

Now it should be emphasized that the nuclear non-proliferation regime is not a magic bullet. Several factors in addition to the NPT have contributed to nuclear restraint and, like any policy instrument, the non-proliferation regime suffers from imperfections and trade-offs. The record suggests, however, that many of those earlier predictions of widespread proliferation would have come true in the absence of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Let me turn to the second question. How can these multilateral instruments fit into a broader strategy to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism? It seems to me that any strategy to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism should recognize at least two principles. The first principle is that the United States is only as secure as the weakest link in international security. Applied to the issue of nuclear terrorism, what that means is that the security of nuclear materials and nuclear technology is determined not by the level of security at the most protected facilities but rather, by the level of security at the least protected facilities.

The second principle, and I think it is self-evident, is that it is better to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction than trying to stop them after they have already gotten them.

Together these principles suggest that in the field of WMD terrorism, homeland security begins abroad. The United States has to improve its level of domestic security-I think that is obvious-particularly in the areas of aviation and infectious disease, but that will not be enough. We cannot wait for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials and then try to stop them once they are bound for America on their deadly mission.

Instead, homeland defense abroad suggests five policy objectives. One, prevent and otherwise reduce the number of nuclear weapon states. Two, reduce the number of states with stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Three, secure all remaining nuclear weapons materials and facilities. Four, increase the number of area and interstate nuclear checkpoints. And five, develop the capacity to quickly identify and trace nuclear materials.

All of these objectives lend themselves to multilateral regimes. These regimes provide a way to build the first line of defense against nuclear terrorism. Moreover, they do so in a way that is financially and politically prudent. The United States cannot singlehandedly improve the security of all the world's nuclear installations. Such a task is neither financially nor politically feasible. Working with other nations through multilateral nuclear regimes provides a practical alternative for reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Finally, let me turn to the third question: What is the role of Congress? And here I am going to talk about nuclear terrorism in particular and I can talk more generally about non-proliferation in the Q and A if there is interest there.

There are a number of actions that Congress might take to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. These legislative responses fall generally into one of three categories: Oversight, appropriations,

First, oversight. Congressional oversight can be a powerful tool for change. Hearings, annual reporting requirements and appropriations tied to certification can focus the attention of the executive, the bureaucracy and the public. Given the events of the last several months, there are a number of things Congress might do in this area and I will just name one here.

Congress should insist on all available information about nuclear terrorism. Congress cannot fulfill its legislative responsibilities without such information and yet much of it is scattered or being withheld from the public domain. A variety of news organizations, including the Times of London and CNN, have their own cache of documents collected from al Qaeda safehouses and training facilities. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense and various executive agencies have their own set, a separate set of documents, as well as the results of prisoner interviews and the results of forensics tests. Most of this information can be made available without endangering sources and methods.

This is a small but critical step in the fight against nuclear terrorism. The history of WMD terrorism suggests that it is self-defeating for the executive to maintain a monopoly over information. Most of the important nuclear initiatives of recent years have had their origins outside the executive-in Congress, for example, with cooperative threat reduction, in university research centers, and with nongovernmental organizations.

If Congress is going to pursue new approaches to WMD terrorism and if scholars are going to provide independent assessments of the dangers and opportunities, then Congress has to take the lead in seeing that the relevant information is available.

Second, appropriations. Progress against nuclear terrorism will not be possible without financial resources. Unfortunately, efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism have not been a funding priority. This year billions of dollars will be devoted to new weapon systems and other activities whose purpose is to respond to a terrorist attack and yet only a tiny fraction of this amount will be expended on efforts that would prevent WMD terrorism from taking place in the first place.

In the past, Congress has used its power over the purse to ensure that funds were devoted to the problem of nuclear terrorism even in the face of executive and bureaucratic indifference. Today the need for Congressional leadership is stronger than ever before. With rising deficits and a long list of interests lining up for their share of the anti-terrorism funds, this will not be easy. But success in the fight against nuclear terrorism depends on continued leadership from Congress. Congress must find a way not only to fund efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism but fund them at a scale commensurate with the size of the problem-at a scale commensurate with the size of the problem.

Finally and quickly, third, policy innovation. One of the most exciting areas where Congress can contribute to nuclear security is in the field of policy innovation. For reasons of time let me simply list some of these areas.

One, internationalizing the concept of cooperative threat reduction beyond the Soviet Union. Cooperative threat reduction started

that this has been a successful innovative program, not without problems but nevertheless successful and innovative, that can be expanded beyond the former Soviet Union.

Two, developing world-wide civil constituencies for nuclear security. During the Cold War, the United States pursued a variety of initiatives to promote democracy around the world and to defeat communism. It set up a special institute to support democratic institutions abroad, established Radio Free Europe, and funded a variety of programs whose purpose was to develop a constituency for democratic governance. Congress later used this tactic in support of a different objective when it established the private U.S. Institute for Peace. For its own part, the executive has established a series of special funds; for example, the special fund on AIDS in Afri

ca.

These same tactics can be applied to the new problem of nuclear security. Congress could, for example, establish a foundation or an institute for the prevention of WMD terrorism. Acting as a private entity, this institute could train and support the development of professional nuclear societies, journalists and locally-based environmental groups and others from other countries, from foreign nations, and then these people could go and monitor the state of nuclear security and press for improvements in their own country, much as we did the same thing in our fight against communism decades ago.

Third, Congress might look at the establishment of legislator-tolegislator dialogue with legislators from other countries on this issue of nuclear terrorism and WMD terrorism.

This list of initiatives is obviously not exhaustive. Instead, it is meant to illustrate how Congress might approach the question of policy innovation. Simply put, it makes sense for Congress to think about policy instruments it has used in other issue domains and how they might be creatively applied in the new context of nuclear terrorism.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it has been a great honor to speak with you today. In my testimony I have suggested that multilateral regimes have proven to be effective and that they can be even more effective if considered as part of a broader strategy against nuclear and WMD terrorism. This strategy, premised on the notion that homeland security begins abroad, seeks to prevent terrorism at the source, to stop terrorists before they reach our shores.

September 11 was a wake-up call, as the Chairman rightly said. It is history grabbing us by the collar and telling us to act now before it is too late. No institution has shown more vision, steadfastness or creativity on the problem of WMD terrorism than the U.S. Senate but recent events clearly demonstrate that additional action is required. My hope and expectation is that the Senate will respond to this challenge as it has responded to the challenges of the past and that America will be a stronger and more secure Nation as a result. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

Before I ask for Mr. Gormley's statement I would like to ask Sen

Senator STEVENS. I am sorry to be late, Mr. Chairman. I had another meeting. I have no opening statement.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Gormley, your statement, please.

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS M. GORMLEY,1 SENIOR FELLOW, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES

Mr. GORMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to offer my suggestions on ways to enhance the Missile Technology Control Regime to cope with the prospects of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of both state and nonstate actors.

I fear we have fallen short in adapting the MTCR to cope with rapid changes in the technologies underlying WMD delivery. The most egregious shortcoming is in the way the MTCR is ill prepared to deal with the next great missile proliferation threat, that of land attack cruise missiles. Concern about the spread of land attack cruise missiles is driven by two realities. First, the quantum leap in dual use technologies supporting cruise missile development, and these include satellite navigation and guidance, high resolution satellite imagery from a host of commercial vendors, unregulated flight management systems for converting manned aircraft into unmanned aerial vehicles, and digital mapping technologies for mission planning.

And second, the fact that the 33-nation missile technology control regime is much less effective at controlling the spread of cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles than ballistic missiles. To be sure, ballistic missiles receive top priority because they are already widely proliferated while land attack cruise missiles have only begun to emerge as a threat, but that is precisely the reason why improved controls on cruise missiles are so critical now. Were the gaping deficiencies in the way the current MTCR provisions handle cruise missile transfers eliminated, the MTCR could conceivably do as well with cruise missiles as it has with controlling the spread of highly sophisticated ballistic missiles.

So far, ballistic missile technology that has spread is largely 50year-old SCUD technology, a derivative of World War II German V-2 systems. Many of the weaknesses of this technology can be exploited by missile defenses.

It is equally important to say what has not spread because of the MTCR-sophisticated Pershing-2 technology with terrain contour guidance and maneuvering reentry vehicles, as embodied in Argentina's and Iraq's forestalled Condor missile program, which would have greatly stressed today's missile defenses. My prepared statement goes into some detail on ways to repair the regime but let me offer just two stark examples of what might very well occur absent essential reforms.

First, whereas today's MTCR has hindered advanced ballistic missile sales, ambiguities surrounding the ground rules for determining the true range and payload of cruise missiles threatens to open the floodgates of advanced cruise missile sales. This would be the equivalent of uncontrolled sales of Pershing-2 missiles to states outside the MTCR membership.