KENNEDY: I want to commend both of you and think you've done really an excellent job in laying out the groundwork for NATO expansion that may very well make sense. But I want to just be sure that we have our national security priorities straight.
If we think about the most serious threat to American lives in 1997, '98 and '99, what is the case for making the enlargement of NATO the number one priority? It seems to be the U.S. security policy towards Russia.
When we look at the amount of time and energy that the president, Clinton, has spent with President Yeltsin at Helsinki, Secretary Albright in her discussions with Europeans and Russians, Secretary Cohen in his travels and discussions, it appears to me that about 10 times as much effort has been spent on NATO enlargement, compared to what seems to be a much more deadly clear and present danger, and that's the very loose controls over Russian nuclear weapons or nuclear materials.
As I understand it, more than 30,000 nuclear weapons are stored across Russia. More than 100 sites are under the control of Russian military units whose paychecks for last December have still not arrived. The conditions under which the highly enriched uranium is stored in Russia are much worse.
And if the people who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building had filled their truck with a crude nuclear device instead of their fertilizer bomb, Oklahoma City would have literally disappeared, and so would any other city in America.
So helping Russia to control its nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in the fewest possible sites with good controls at those sites to prevent the theft and sale and leakage to terrorists seems vastly more important for America's security than the question of NATO enlargement.
We spent a lot of time at the various highest levels of government on that question. This is my question. Can you assure us that you're giving the adequate priority with Russia to this enormous problem of nuclear terrorism and that NATO enlargement won't simply make that problem worse by complicating our relations with Russia even more?
Secretary Cohen?
COHEN: If I could respond just quickly on that. First of all, we have not minimized the significance of the threat posed by the lack of control over nuclear materials in Russia.
The vice president has met with Mr. Chernomyrdin extensively. At least twice a year, he has this commission that has been established, which has been very productive. And I participated in the last round of discussions in which that is at the very top of the agenda -- as to how we continue to help control the destruction of nuclear materials, as such, and also chemical weapons. That's also part of the cooperative threat reduction.
The Nunn-Lugar funds which we have provided over the years, recent years, those have been directed to help destroy chemical weapons as well as nuclear materials.
And so we place a very high premium on dealing with the Russians. As I say, this still remains high on our agenda. And we are working cooperatively with them. And frankly, these kinds of arrangements whereby we're talking about a NATO-Russia charter, that's part of it. But by engaging the Russians, showing that we are still very much concerned about this threat.
And I'd also point out and have Secretary Albright elaborate on this, but during the Helsinki summit, the president spent a great deal of time negotiating the subject matter of START II. That's going to require leadership on the part of President Yeltsin -- to persuade his Duma that it's in the interests of the Russians to ratify START II, as we have done, so that we can start lowering the numbers.
And as soon as they do that, the president has indicated we want to go much further. We want to start talking immediately about START III so we can get the levels down, because we're well aware of the threat that these weapons pose.
KENNEDY: Well, just because the time is moving along, there's no question that Helsinki was both with regards to NATO expansion and nuclear reductions, but I'm talking about nuclear materials as well. I think we're aware of the Nunn-Lugar efforts. A number of the members of the committee have been involved in it. But it's also the material as well and the dangers that are posed by that.
With the decline of the Soviet military capability, it would appear that there'll more reliance for Soviet security on nuclear weapons. That is the case, and also with regards to this nuclear material.
I'm interested -- are we giving the attention in terms of the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear materials besides just the reductions of nuclear weapons that it really poses in terms of the proliferation, the potential for proliferation around the world with all the dangers that it could mean in terms of the United States?
We're able to see the kinds of passage of materials -- substance that are used -- substances abuse coming into this country. The proliferation of this dangerous material poses a very important security area. And I'd appreciate just in the time that's left maybe Secretary Albright or Secretary Cohen give assurance that we're -- this is a high priority on the administration's list.
ALBRIGHT: Senator, I think you're absolutely right to draw attention to this. I think we are obviously all concerned with nuclear proliferation of various kinds, as well as the way that you have been describing it, and we do give it the highest priority.
We are -- we have a different set of problems that we have to deal with every day in terms of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and what it meant to how nuclear weapons are controlled and how one deals with the issues that you've described.
And I can just assure you that we are giving it our highest priority.
COHEN: Yes, I add just again the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission is very much concerned about this. Last week, a DOD team went to Moscow again to talk about ways in which we can come to grips with this.
KENNEDY: We'd welcome a chance to get updated on that, Mr. Secretary. I certainly would, maybe other members of the committee as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.