Of all of these cases, only 18 involved small amounts of plutonium or highly-enriched uranium, the so-called_weapons-usable material that is required to make a nuclear bomb. But even a small amount of low-level nuclear waste, if planted in an urban setting, would have the potential to sow considerable panic unless authorities were quickly able to neutralize the incident in the public mind. For that reason, I believe that quick action to analyze and clarify for the public the nature of radiological threats should be an important goal of public policy in the current environment, whether here in the United States or in other countries around the world where such incidents might occur.

Now let me turn my attention quickly to nuclear and radiological threats deserving more attention. In my view, we must now strike a balance between the most dangerous nuclear threats and the less lethal but profoundly disruptive radiological threats. I would like to suggest in my spoken testimony today that we focus immediately on four priorities as threats that would deserve more attention, and I will pay a little more time on the radiological threat because I think that is essentially a new priority coming to play now. But I also wanted to note that given the demand on U.S. budgetary resources, we should also be considering new methods of funding such projects, which I will specifically remark on, as well.

The four priorities that I would suggest are: Halting the production of weapons-grade plutonium in Russia; securing nuclear facilities that remain vulnerable in the former Soviet Union on a quick fix, quick turnaround basis; closing down nuclear warhead production plants in Russia, that is, the production of warheads and maintenance of warheads at plants in Russia; and improving the security at nuclear reactors and other sites where lower-level, that is, non-weapons-usable nuclear material is stored. I offer these four in no particular order of priority. That is not a relative list, but I do believe that all should be given serious and urgent attention.

Before I turn for a moment to the radiological priority, the fourth on my list, I would like to mention a new kind of funding that I think we should consider, given that there are many demands on the U.S. budget at the present time. One good idea, I believe, has already been suggested by Senators Biden and Lugar in some recent legislation, that is the so-called debt-for-security swaps. Under this concept, we would forgive Soviet-era debts that the Russians are holding in exchange for Russia putting more rubles into nonproliferation programs, and sir, I believe that should be an overall priority for U.S. policy at this point, emphasizing urging Russia to put more of their own budgetary resources into these important programs.

Now let me say just a few words about my priority with regard to improving security at nuclear reactors and other sites where lower-level nuclear material is stored or used, because, as I mentioned at the outset, I believe it addresses the radiological threat that has taken on new importance in the wake of September 11. Traditionally, U.S. cooperation with the countries of the former Soviet Union to reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation have emphasized so-called higher-value nuclear materials and facilities, sites associated with the weapons complex and especially with nu

given that radiological threats have taken on new importance, programs should be emphasizing these particular kinds of threats, and I believe that one simple step the United States could accomplish would be to restore funds for international nuclear safety in the Federal budget.

For nearly a decade, the United States has been working with countries of the former Soviet Union to upgrade the safety of Soviet-built nuclear reactors and prevent another Chernobyl-style incident. This has been a largely successful program, and, in fact, the permanent shut-down of the last unit at Chernobyl occurred in December of last year. For that reason, the program is slowly ramping down, dropping from over $30 million in fiscal year 1999 to just $10 million in fiscal year 2002. The program, I believe, could be quickly ramped up in order to improve security at nuclear reactors and other sites where low-level non-weapons-usable nuclear materials are stored, and these efforts could be undertaken not only in Russia and the former Soviet Union but also other countries around the world where such facilities are vulnerable.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to note what I believe is a potential important development in nuclear technology that will, I think, impact in important ways on the future of export controls with regard to nuclear systems. Increasingly, those who are engaged in nuclear technology development, particularly for electricity generation purposes, are interested in new approaches that would limit the cross-over between peaceful uses of nuclear technology and the weapons sector.

They want to avoid the kind of situation that has been inherent, for example, in the Soviet Union, where the Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk reactors produced plutonium for the weapons system at the same time they were producing heat and electricity for the local urban areas, and this continues today. In fact, the civilian use of these reactors continues apace while these reactors are still pumping out plutonium that adds to stocks of plutonium available potentially for weapons purposes in Russia, although Russia, of course, says that no longer they are used for that purpose.

For that reason, the nuclear industry today, and here and around the world, is beginning to concentrate on developing so-called proliferation-resistant technologies, particularly in the reactor arena, that will minimize the production of weapons-usable material in their cycles. Ideally, proliferation-resistant reactors, for example, would burn plutonium, dispose of plutonium, rather than breeding it.

Although such reactors may be 20 years or more from commercial application, I think it is important that there is a new strategic approach developing in the nuclear industry. The industry is emphasizing proliferation-resistance along with other attributes such as minimization of nuclear waste and stringent design for safety and security. If this trend develops successfully, it will simplify the export control problem for nuclear technologies, and, in fact, may also prove to be the best way to fulfill the promise of peaceful nuclear uses under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Thank you, sir, for this opportunity.

I would like to yield to the Ranking Member and friend, Senator Cochran, for any statement. Following his statement and before the questions, I am going to ask that we recess. There is a vote that is on now that is on the floor, and then we will be back shortly. Senator Cochran.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I congratulate you for organizing and calling this hearing. It is a very important subject for us to learn as much as possible about.

I wonder, while we are over voting, whether the panelists can be thinking about whether the recent experiences that we have had with the anthrax attacks have led them to reach any new conclusions about the proliferation of bioterrorism capabilities and what, if anything, we should plan to do about it.

One of the major efforts that we have made is to reach agreements with other countries to try to prevent the export of weapons or technologies that could be made into weapons of mass destruction, especially in the chemical and biological area. Do you think any of these agreements can serve as guides for the future and have we prevented any terrorist acts or activities by reason of these conventions and agreements that countries have joined to use as a way to combat proliferation of weapons, particularly_the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention? Have they kept states or terrorist groups from acquiring weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. Chairman, I think, since we have jurisdiction over the proliferation subject, it is certainly important for us to begin a set of hearings on this subject and I congratulate you for leading that effort.

Senator AKAKA. As I mentioned, you have worked on this before in this Subcommittee and we are still continuing this.

We all have questions for you, and I would ask that we recess and come back to ask you the questions. In the meantime, I want to say that your full statements will be printed in the record. Are there any further comments before we recess?

[No response.]

Senator AKAKA. The Subcommittee recesses.

[Recess.]

Senator AKAKA. The Subcommittee will be in order.

I want to thank you again for your testimony. I am impressed with the work you have accomplished on nonproliferation issues.

Let me begin with some questions for Dr. Moodie, and you mentioned this, so I am asking the question about this. I agree that the threat of agriculture terrorism has been given little attention, as you mentioned. Do you believe that USDA has access to the intelligence reports and information required to perform a full risk assessment of American agriculture?

Mr. MOODIE. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the inner workings of the Department of Agriculture to be able to say exactly whether they have access to that material or not. I do think that the appreciation of the agricultural dimension of this problem was slow in developing, and therefore, the Department of Agriculture as a play

table. As a consequence, I think they are still trying to establish the kind of relationships among the other players, probably including the intelligence community, that they need to do the job that they have to do.

So while I cannot be specific, my hunch would be that they probably need to improve their access, not just in terms of looking at the information or the intelligence, but dealing with the intelligence community on an ongoing basis so that they have an ongoing, evolving appreciation of the nature of the challenge that they confront.

Senator AKAKA. You suggest that smallpox is unlikely to be a threat, if you would mention something about that again. Which kinds of chemical and biological threats do you see as more likely at this time?

Mr. MOODIE. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the smallpox threat, I would put smallpox into that category within the threat assessment that I talked about of contingencies against which we have to hedge. Certainly, the consequences of a smallpox attack are potentially so great that we have to have taken some measure of preparation. But you can have a smallpox scenario that either is that is so horrific that it either causes policy paralysis because it is too hard to do or that you put so much money against it that you never have enough.

And I think that for those of you who are responsible for allocating limited resources, this kind of open-ended vulnerability assessment that has huge consequences is not the best scenario on which to do your planning and to make the kinds of decisions with respect to limited resources that you have to make. Having said that, as I mentioned, I do think you have to get a hedge against that possibility.

I think, though, that we have not necessarily, in our focus on smallpox on anthrax, necessarily examined the full range of other biological agents that have traditionally been examined as potential biological weapons, including hemorrhagic fevers, plague, tularemia, and things of that kind.

I also do not think that we have necessarily looked, especially on the chemical side, looked at some of the low-tech threats. We have been fascinated by the higher-end, VX, sarin, the nerve gases, when, in fact, a contingency or a couple of contingencies that we have not really looked at in as much detail as perhaps we should are simple things like somebody hijacking a chlorine tanker and blowing it up outside Wall Street or somebody trying on a deliberate basis to produce the kind of consequence at a chemical production facility that we saw in Bhopal, essentially a deliberate Bhopal that caused enormous loss of life. Those do not involve sophisticated or exotic agents, but they are the use of chemicals to create mass disruption and potentially mass casualties.

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Tucker, in your testimony, you mentioned that many developing countries have obtained or might develop chemical and biological weapons capabilities as a result of foreign investment by chemical and biotechnology industries. Just as we have laws against bribery by American companies in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, should we be considering restrictions on

Mr. TUCKER. I think we should with respect to countries of proliferation concern, though it may be difficult. If we do not invest in such a country, it is very likely that our competitors will do so. So the problem with unilateral U.S. action in this area is that we can be very easily undercut by other countries, not only our allies, but also countries that are not friendly to the United States but that are increasingly investing in the developing world.

So that is why I view the utility of U.S. export controls with some skepticism. I think this is a threat that has to be dealt with in a multilateral context. We have the Australia Group, but it encompasses only 33 like-minded countries that export chemical or biological-relevant materials and equipment. But there are other countries that are now in a position to provide equipment and materials to countries of proliferation concern, so it is a broader problem that we need to look at in a multilateral framework.

Senator AKAKA. You mentioned the Bush Administration several times in your testimony. The Bush Administration has recently made proposals to enhance the enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention. You recently stated that these efforts are insufficient, since they would not be part of a treaty with rights and obligations. What other measures would you recommend the administration take in this area or in regard to other unilateral actions? Mr. TUCKER. Well, I should say that the proposals by the Bush Administration would be useful. I do not criticize them. I just do not think they go far enough. For example, the idea of urging countries to pass uniform domestic laws that would regulate access to dangerous pathogens to make sure that these materials are only accessible to legitimate scientists and not terrorists or people who would misuse these materials to make weapons, I think that is a very desirable goal and should be encouraged.

But as you know, the United States withdrew in July from a 62year effort to negotiate a formal treaty that would provide measures to enhance compliance and deter violations of the Biological Weapons Convention. I do not think that the alternative U.S. proposals, at least as far as we know, will be effective. The details of these measures have not been released yet, but from the press release that the White House released last week, it appears that these measures are all voluntary, they are not legally binding, and, hence, they really depend on the good will of the participating countries.

My concern is, for example, if we set up a mechanism to investigate alleged use of biological weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease and if this is done, let us say, within the context of the United Nations but not in a treaty context, then any country that is accused could simply refuse access to the investigation team. It would have no legally binding obligation to grant access to the inspectors or investigators to determine that it is, in fact, in compliance or noncompliance with the Biological Weapons Convention.

So my concern about the Bush Administration approach is that it is too weak, and clearly, we are facing a real threat. These anthrax attacks have made it very clear that this is not a hypothetical threat, that this is a real threat. The actual use of anthrax against civilians is challenging the norm that has existed for many,