[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7541-H7542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to voice my strong 
opposition to a proposal recently announced by the President of 
France--that his government, i.e., the Government of France intends to 
explode eight nuclear bombs in certain atolls in the South Pacific 
beginning in September of this year--that's one nuclear bomb explosion 
each month for an 8-month period, and each bomb explosion is ten times 
more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan--some 50 
years ago commencing next month.
  Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of France, Mr. Chirac, why is he 
playing with the lives of millions of people of the world by starting 
another nuclear arms race?
  Mr. Speaker, we will commemorate next month--when 50 years ago our 
Government decided to drop and exploded two atomic bombs on the cities 
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan at the height of World War II in the 
Pacific.
  Mr. Speaker, the atomic bomb we dropped on the city of Hiroshima 
resulted in the deaths of some 140,000 men, women, and children of that 
city, and with some 70,000 buildings either severely damaged or 
completely destroyed.
  The very center of this atomic bomb we exploded on the city of 
Hiroshima resulted in temperature measurements in excess of 5,400 
degrees Fahrenheit, and the explosion destroyed literally everything 
within the 1\1/2\ mile radius. As many as 28,000 persons dies as a 
result of exposure to radiation, and also as a result of the nuclear 
explosion, the winds blew radioactive black rain and caused exposure of 
radioactive contamination to many others who were not directly exposed 
to the nuclear explosion.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to elaborate further on the pros and cons 
as to whether our country made the right decision to explode these two 
nuclear bombs against Japan--however you want to argue this issue, but 
war has one basic mission in mind, and that is to kill
 your enemy. But in our present day, Mr. Speaker, man has devised such 
weapons of mass destruction that war has taken an entirely different 
perspective. One thing is absolutely certain, Mr. Speaker, nuclear bomb 
explosions do not discriminate against soldiers and civilian 
populations, especially when during the Cold War and perhaps even now--
by pressing that nuclear button, both military and densely populated 
cities have become targets for mass destruction.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the President of France why does he want to 
explode eight more nuclear bombs to further contaminate the fragile 
marine environment in the Pacific Ocean--where an island community of 
some 200,000 Polynesian Tahitians and Europeans living in French 
Polynesia may face serious exposure to radioactive contamination from 
these nuclear explosions.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, these eight nuclear bombs the 
government of France intends to explode in French Polynesia will only 
add to the very serious danger where this volcanic formation under the 
Mururoa Atoll has already been exposed to some 139 atomic explosions--
to put it another way, Mr. Speaker, some 139 holes have already been 
drilled into this volcanic mountain that surrounds the rim of the 
Mururoa Atoll--some holes are as deep as 3,000 feet, and in each of 
these holds a nuclear bomb device was exploded within this volcanic 
mountain.
  Mr. Speaker, one does not need to be an expert nuclear scientist to 
tell any person living in the Pacific Region that not only is this 
volcanic mountain seriously contaminated with nuclear radioactive 
wastes, but that this mountain is basically below sea level, and that 
underwater mountains is totally surrounded by ocean water. Mr. Speaker, 
that ocean water in the Pacific carries the most basic life giving form 
as the most vital marine life resource--plankton. Mr. Speaker, another 
serious danger to those since French nuclear explosions in these atolls 
has been a tremendous increase of liguatera poisoning of the coral 
reefs and a variety of fish and other forms of life common to any 
marine environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the President of France can really 
demonstrate his capacity as an outstanding world leader by simply 
recognizing the fact that the government of France does not need to 
explode these nuclear bombs; our country already has the technology 
France needs to improve its nuclear capability, and I understood our 
nation has already offered to share this technology with France.
  Mr. Speaker, with the combined nuclear capability of the United 
States, Great Britain and France--can anyone honestly believe a nation 
or group of nations can ``win'' a nuclear conflict? Mr. Speaker, this 
is why it is so important that the five nuclear nations--also the five 
permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations to show 
real leadership and initiative by abolishing nuclear bombs testing and 
provide strict controls over the proliferation of nuclear weapons and 
prevent another unnecessary nuclear arms race--and on this the 
government of France has failed miserably to show real leadership among 
the nations of the world.

[[Page H7542]]

  Mr. Speaker, I include the following three items from the Washington 
Post for the Record:

               [From the Washington Post, July 15, 1995]

                 Anti-Nuclear Protests Mar Bastille Day


              Chirac Says Test Plans In pacific Unchanged

       Sydney, July 14.--Demonstrators around the Pacific opposed 
     to French plans to resume nuclear testing held rallies and 
     marches to try to spoil France's Bastille Day celebrations 
     today.
       But in Paris, President Jacques Chirac brushed aside the 
     chorus of international protest and reaffirmed his commitment 
     to go ahead with the testing, telling a Bastille Day news 
     conference his decision was irrevocable.
       Chirac said civilian and military experts had advised him 
     unanimously when he took office in May that the tests were 
     necessary to ensure the safety of the country's nuclear 
     arsenal, complete the checking of a new warhead for France's 
     nuclear submarines and develop computer simulation 
     techniques.
       ``I therefore made the decision [to go ahead] which, I 
     hardly need to tell you, is irrevocable,'' he said.
       He repeated that France would sign and respect a complete 
     test ban treaty next year and told French citizens the 
     nuclear deterrent gave their ``big modern country . . . 
     political weight in the world.''
       Here in Australia's biggest city, Sydney, about 10,000 
     people shouting ``Stop French testing'' marched to a police-
     ringed French Consulate. Marchers, clogging four city blocks 
     at a time, carried banners reading ``Truffles not testing'' 
     and ``Boycott products of France.''
       Expatriate Polynesians burned a French flag at a protest 
     south of Sydney, and 1,000 people rallied outside a 
     convention center in Canberra as the French ambassador
      went ahead with an official reception. Protesters yelled 
     ``No more tests'' at guests.
       An Australian legislator presented a 100,000-name petition 
     to the French ambassador calling for testing to stop, and 
     unions hurt French businesses with a range of Bastille Day 
     boycotts.
       Air France cancelled Bastille Day flights between Sydney 
     and Paris and Sydney and New Caledonia due to a 24-hour ban 
     on French military planes and French airlines by transport 
     workers.
       In New Zealand, about 2,000 protesters dumped manure 
     outside the French ambassador's Wellington residence and 
     heckled the ambassador and luncheon guests by chanting 
     ``Liberty, equality, fraternity, hypocrisy.''
       About 2,500 protesters marched on the French Embassy in 
     Fiji's capital, Suva, and presented a 50,000-signature 
     petition to the ambassador. Placards read, ``This is not 
     Hiroshima'' and ``If it is safe, do the tests under Chirac's 
     nose.''
       On the other side of the Pacific, protesters marched in 
     Lima, Peru, and Bogota, Colombia.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 15, 1995]

                   A Tired Defense of Nuclear Testing

       To pirate Randy Ridley's colorful phrase in ``Why the Test 
     Ban Treaty Fails'' [op-ed, June 29], the ``overripe remnant 
     of the Cold War'' is not the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 
     as he states, but any further nuclear testing.
       Even when the United States and the Soviet Union based 
     their security on mutual assured destruction, they tried to 
     negotiate an end to nuclear testing and in 1978 came close to 
     success. After Moscow had accepted the American and British 
     position on key issues like indefinite duration, on-site 
     inspection and no exception for so-called peaceful nuclear 
     explosions, the United States drew back because of the same 
     flawed reasoning put forward by Mr. Ridley.
       Now, when there is no Soviet Union, and when Russia 
     desperately needs friendship with the West, the arguments for 
     continued (or resumed) nuclear tests merit even less 
     attention.
       After nearly 2,000 nuclear tests, the United States has 
     accumulated more than sufficient data to ensure the safety 
     and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This vast 
     experience would in fact lock in a tremendous U.S. advantage 
     in stockpile maintenance. Renewed U.S. testing would instead 
     automatically bring the British back into the game and impair 
     our capacity to encourage restraint by France, China and 
     possibly others.
       Even more important, our espousal and the successful 
     completion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would bolster 
     our objective of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. 
     Just last month, sustained and adroit efforts brought about a 
     consensus for
      the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty (NPT). The resolution on extension expressly noted 
     the goal of completing a ``comprehensive nuclear-test-ban 
     treaty no later than 1996.''
       To renege on this promise would impugn the good faith of 
     the United States and put the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 
     renewed jeopardy. The same adverse effect would be created by 
     any attempt to change the negotiating objective from a 
     complete nuclear test ban to a treaty creating a threshold of 
     as much as half a kiloton, as reportedly advocated by some 
     within the Clinton administration.
       Even after START II is fully implemented, the United States 
     will have 3,500 strategic warheads on intercontinental 
     ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and 
     bombers. No country contemplating a nuclear attack on the 
     United States could ever assume that all of them, many of 
     them or even any of them would fail to work. Our nuclear 
     deterrent would remain not credible but irrefutable.
       We made a solemn, formal commitment to achieve a 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty no later than 1996. We did so 
     because we believed this to be in the interest of our own and 
     international security. The decision was a correct one and 
     must not be repudiated.
                                                                    ____


                 Leaving Hiroshima to Future Historians

       To the Editor: Now that the Enola Gay exhibit has been 
     mounted at the Smithsonian, confrontation continues. I write 
     as an ambivalent observer in that my outfit, like so many, 
     was scheduled for the invasion of Japan in August 1945; but 
     after the first flush of relief at being spared, again like 
     so many, I became an opponent of nuclear bombs.
       There is not likely to be a last word for years. If there 
     were one comment to make at this time, it might be that given 
     by Golo Mann, the German historian, in a 1959 interview in 
     Switzerland.
       Dr. Mann, who had just published a distinguished history of 
     the Thirty Years' War, was asked why, familiar as he was with 
     more recent German history, he did not write about World War 
     II.
       Said he, ``There are no refugees from the Thirty Years' 
     War.''
       While millions of Japanese and Americans, combatants, and 
     not, survive and remember World War II, we might as well put 
     history on the shelf and publish nothing until 2045. At that 
     centenary, when all historians will never have been there, 
     they can fight a bloodless academic war without the intrusive 
     oversight of those of us who were.
       Milton R. Stern, Sarasota, Fla., July 10, 1995.
                  What France Risks With Nuclear Tests

       To the Editor: I commend you for calling on the French 
     President, Jacques Chirac, to show courage and statesmanship 
     by canceling France's proposed nuclear tests in the South 
     Pacific (editorial, July 5). His announcement has caused 
     outrage in Australia and other South Pacific countries and is 
     provoking a response from organizations around the world from 
     Greenpeace to the European Parliament.
       But France's behavior should be of concern to us all, not 
     only because of what is happening in the Pacific, but because 
     of the threat to nuclear non-proliferation and the 
     comprehensive test ban treaty.
       With the end of the cold war, security priorities have 
     changed. The threat is now from primitive nuclear weapons 
     developed by states beyond the international community's 
     scrutiny. Widespread development would likely see such 
     weapons used in a regional conflict or in state-backed 
     terrorism. Large stocks of sophisticated nuclear weapons and 
     old theories of deterrence are no answer.
       The indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty 
     last month is one very important way the international 
     community can protect itself against this new threat. A 
     comprehensive test ban treaty preventing upgrading or 
     developing of new nuclear weapons is another one.
       Although the French said they will sign a comprehensive 
     test ban next year, their resumption of testing undermines 
     this commitment. As part of the nonproliferation negotiations 
     two months ago France agreed to exercise ``utmost restraint'' 
     on testing before a test could be signed. Announcing a 
     resumption of testing so soon after such a commitment is seen 
     by many nonnuclear states as highly provocative and will 
     harden attitudes.
       Don Russell, Ambassador of Australia, Washington, July 13, 
     1995.


                           overkill response

       To the Editor: The French Navy's raid on the Greenpeace 
     ship Rainbow Warrior II (news article, July 10) is a fitting 
     prelude to France's coming nuclear tests in the South 
     Pacific.
       Paris has shown disdain for protests against setting off 
     thermonuclear explosions in a part of the world often 
     described as a paradise on earth. How in character that the 
     French respond to the presence of a rickety protest ship with 
     tear gas and helmeted commandos.
       But, of course, this is an improvement over simply blowing 
     the ship up as the French did a decade ago, when the Rainbow 
     Warrior I was setting off on a similar protest journey.
       David Hayden, Wilton, Conn., July 10, 1995.
       

                          ____________________