[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14703-S14706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  THE CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS REVIEW CONFERENCE: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR U.S. 
                               LEADERSHIP

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week representatives of over 50 
governments began meeting in Vienna, Austria to discuss proposals to 
amend the Conventional Weapons Convention, which contains the first 
laws of war limitations on the use of landmines.
  Fifteen years ago, the United States played a leading role in 
negotiations on the Convention. However, despite lofty rhetoric at the 
time, the Convention is so riddled with loopholes and exceptions, as 
well as lacking any verification procedures, that the numbers of 
civilian casualties from landmines has soared. This is because the 
focus of the negotiations then was on reducing the dangers to military 
personnel, rather than on the problems landmines cause for civilians.
  Today, there are 80 to 110 million landmines in over 60 countries, 
each one waiting to explode from the pressure of a footstep.
  These hidden killers have turned vast areas of land, in countries 
struggling to rebuild after years of war, into death traps. According 
to the State Department every 22 minutes someone is maimed or killed by 
a landmine. That is 26,000 people each year, most of whom are innocent 
civilians.
  It would cost tens of billions of dollars to locate and remove the 
mines. It is an incredibly arduous, dangerous, and prohibitively 
expensive task. There is no way they will be cleared. The world's 
arsenals are overflowing with new mines that are only compounding the 
problem in every armed conflict today.
  Mr. President, the meetings in Vienna began yesterday with dramatic 
announcements by two of our NATO allies, France and Austria. The French 
Government announced that it would halt all production of antipersonnel 
landmines, and begin destroying their stockpiles of these weapons. The 
Austrian Government declared that its military would renounce their 
use, and destroy their stockpiles.
  Earlier this year, Belgium outlawed all production, use and exports 
of antipersonnel mines.
  I mention this because just a month ago, my amendment to impose a 1-
year moratorium on the use of these weapons passed the Senate 67 to 27.
  Yesterday's announcements by our NATO allies go even further, and the 
United States should seize this opportunity to support them. These NATO 
countries defy the Pentagon's assertion that modern militaries like 
ours require antipersonnel landmines. Landmines are a coward's weapon, 
that are overwhelmingly used against civilians. If the United States 
were to join France, Belgium and Austria it would give an enormous push 
toward the goal of ridding the world of these weapons.
  Mr. President, I am going to put my full statement in the Record, but 
I do want to say this. This conference in Vienna presents the United 
States with a tremendous opportunity, an opportunity that must not be 
missed.

  Fifteen years ago the Conventional Weapons Convention was signed with 
much fanfare, but it has turned out to be worth little more than the 
paper it was printed on. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of 
people dead or maimed by landmines, the very weapon that Convention was 
intended to control.
  We have seen the immense devastation landmines cause, and continue to 
cause, around the world. Each day, another 70 people are killed or 
horribly mutilated. The undeniable truth is that antipersonnel 
landmines cannot be controlled. They are too cheap to make, too easy to 
transport and conceal. They are the ``Saturday night specials'' of 
civil wars, and they have become one of the world's greatest scourges.
  Last September at the United Nations, President Clinton took a 
courageous step, when he called for the eventual elimination of 
antipersonnel mines. My amendment was a small step toward that goal.
  Its purpose was not unilateral disarmament, as some in the Pentagon 
would have one believe, but leadership. Leadership by the world's only 
superpower with a military arsenal that dwarfs that of any other 
nation, to stop the senseless slaughter of tens of thousands of 
innocent people. By setting an example, we can lead others to take 
similar action, just as our European allies announced steps yesterday 
that we should imitate.
  The amendment that won the bipartisan support of two thirds of the 
Senate should be a model for our negotiators in Vienna. I only wish 
these negotiations were being held in Cambodia, or Angola, where the 
one-legged victims of landmines can be seen on every street corner.
  I wish the negotiators could experience the constant fear of losing a 
leg, or an arm, or a child, simply from stepping in the wrong place. 
Instead of weeks of lofty speeches in air conditioned room quibbling 
over an elaborate set of unenforceable rules, I think we would see 
dramatic progress toward a ban on these weapons.
  Let us not repeat the mistake of a decade and a half ago. Let us 
finally recognize that there are some weapons that are so 
indiscriminate, so inhumane, and so impossible to control, that they 
should be banned altogether. Let us finally do what we say, and stop 
this when we have the chance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a New York Times article about the French Government's announcement.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

                [From the New York Times Sept. 27, 1995

      Paris to Scrap Some Land Mines In Face of Growing Sentiment

       Vienna, Sept. 26.--France announced today that it would 
     stop production and export of all antipersonnel mines and 
     begin to destroy its stocks.
       Xavier Emmanuelli, the French secretary of state for 
     emergency humanitarian actions, said at a conference in 
     Vienna that France was determined to carry on its struggle 
     against mines, which caused a ``humanitarian catastrophe.''
       ``To further this end, France has decided to adopt a 
     moratorium on the production of all types of antipersonnel 
     mines,'' Mr. Emmanuelli told delegates. ``We shall also halt 
     the production of these weapons.''
       Furthermore, he added, ``France will as of now begin to 
     reduce its stocks of antipersonnel mines by destroying 
     them.''
       The Vienna conference is reviewing a 1980 convention on 
     weapons that are deemed to be indiscriminate or excessively 
     injurious. It will also be discussing laser weapons that 
     blind people exposed to them.
       The United Nations Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-
     Ghali, called for a total ban on land mines, which he said 
     killed or maimed thousands of civilians each year.
       He acknowledged that the conference was unlikely to outlaw 
     land mines completely but urged participating countries to at 
     least establish an export moratorium.
       In a videotaped message, the United Nations chief said 
     1,600 people would be killed or wounded in mine blasts around 
     the world during the time the conference was being held. It 
     ends Oct. 13.
       Mr. Boutros-Ghali said several countries had already heeded 
     a call by the General Assembly to establish an export 
     moratorium and he urged the conference to back an export ban 
     to states that had not yet ratified the 1980 convention.
       France's move, which does not cover antitank mines, is 
     likely to increase pressure on countries that are still 
     exporting mines.

[[Page S 14704]]

       The United States banned mine exports three years ago.
       Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden backed Mr. Boutros-
     Ghali's call for a total ban.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, landmines have been around since at least 
the American Civil War, when live artillery shells were concealed 
beneath the surface of roads, in houses, even in water wells. They 
would explode when a person inadvertently came into contact with them, 
whether a soldier or an innocent child. The result was an arm or leg 
blown off, or worse. At the time, General Sherman, who is not 
remembered as a great humanitarian, called them a ``violation of 
civilized warfare.'' Yet despite Sherman's condemnation, landmines have 
been used ever since, in steadily increasing numbers.
  My own knowledge about landmines dates to 1988, when I met a young 
boy in a field hospital on the Honduras-Nicaragua border. He had lost a 
leg from a mine that had been left on a jungle path near his home. It 
was because of that boy that I started a fund to get artificial limbs 
to landmine victims around the world. The war victims fund has been 
used in over a dozen countries, including Vietnam.
  That boy is one of countless people whose lives have been irreparably 
harmed by landmines. We have all seen the photographs of children with 
their legs blown off at the knee; their mothers with an arm or a leg 
missing; hospital wards filled with rows of amputees. They tell the 
gruesome story, yet those people, who face a lifetime of hardship, are 
the lucky ones because they survived. There are many thousands of 
people like them, and as many others who died from loss of blood before 
reaching a hospital.
  Civilians are not the only victims of landmines. Landmines have 
become a cheap, popular weapon in developing countries where American 
troops are likely to be sent in the future, either in combat or on 
peacekeeping missions. A $2 plastic antipersonnel mine, hidden under a 
layer of sand or dust and practically impossible to detect with a metal 
detector, can blow the leg off the best trained, best equipped American 
soldier as easily as a defenseless child. If American and NATO troops 
are sent to former Yugoslavia to rescue U.N. peacekeepers, they will 
face as many as 2 million mines in Bosnia alone.
  The social and economic costs of landmines are staggering. The United 
Nation estimates that it will cost several tens of billions of dollars 
just to remove the existing mines. In each of the past 2 years, about 
100,000 mines were cleared at an average cost of several hundred 
dollars per mine, while an estimated 2 to 2.5 million new mines are 
laid. The United States has spent millions of dollars to develop better 
technology for locating and removing landmines, but the most effective 
method is still a hand-held probe and metal detector. Kuwait, one of 
the few mine-infested countries rich enough to get rid of the mines 
left over from the Gulf war, spent over $800 million to clear the 
millions of Iraqi and American mines and 84 deminers died in the 
process. We are clearly losing the battle.
  The cost of caring for the victims is also immense. The medical care, 
artificial limbs and lost income for a quarter million amputees over a 
lifetime is figured at about $750 million, and another 70 people are 
maimed or killed by mines each day.
  Three years ago almost no one was paying attention to this global 
crisis. The Conventional Weapons Convention had become a distant 
memory, in part because it had been such a failure. Then, in 1992, the 
U.S. Senate passed my amendment for a moratorium on the export of 
antipersonnel landmines. That amendment had one goal--to challenge 
other countries to join with us to stop the spread of these hidden 
killers.
  Since then, and spurred on by a global campaign of 350 
nongovernmental organizations in at least 30 countries, public pressure 
against the proliferation and use of antipersonnel mines has grown 
steadily. To date, 28 countries have halted all or most of their 
exports of these weapons.
  Then last September, in an historic speech to the U.N. General 
Assembly, President Clinton announced the goal of the eventual 
elimination of antipersonnel mines. On December 15, the U.N. General 
Assembly passed a resolution calling for further steps toward this 
goal.
  This is the first time since the banning of chemical weapons that the 
nations of the world have singled out a type of weapon for total 
elimination. It reflects a growing consensus that antipersonnel 
landmines are so cheap, so easy to mass produce, so easy to conceal and 
transport and sow by the thousands, that they cannot be controlled. 
They have become slow motion weapons of mass destruction, and it is 
civilians who suffer.
  In March of this year, Belgium, a member of NATO, became the first 
country to unilaterally implement the U.N. goal, by prohibiting the 
production, export, and use of antipersonnel mines. In June, the 
Norwegian Parliament did the same thing, and half a dozen other 
countries have declared support for a global ban on these weapons. The 
European Parliament and the Organization of African Unity have also 
adopted resolutions supporting a complete ban.
  U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, U.N. High Commissioner for 
Refugees Sadako Ogata, Pope John Paul II, former President Jimmy 
Carter, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, and American Red Cross 
President Elizabeth Dole are among the world leaders who have called 
for an end to the use of antipersonnel mines.
  Yet, despite this progress, the use of landmines continues unabated. 
In the past year alone, an estimated 5 to 10 million new mines were 
produced and millions have been used in Chechnya, Bosnia, Cambodia, 
along the Peruvian-Ecuador border, and in virtually every other armed 
conflict in the world today.
  President Clinton's announcement of the goal to seek the eventual 
elimination of antipersonnel mines was a crucial milestone, because it 
defined the ultimate solution to the problem. The administration has 
also participated actively in the meetings to prepare for the Vienna 
review conference, where it has shown leadership on several important 
issues such as the convention's scope and verification. It has also 
been the leading contributor to landmine clearance programs in 
countries contaminated with mines.
  On the other hand, the administration has emphasized eventual rather 
than elimination. It has proposed a strategy, developed by the 
Pentagon, which aims to promote the export and use of self-destruct 
mines which are designed to blow themselves up after a finite period of 
time. The theory is that by increasing the availability of these safe 
mines, the reliance on long-life mines, which often remain active years 
after a conflict ends, will decrease. However, there is no requirement 
that governments actually reduce their stockpiles of long-life mines, 
and no limit on the number of self-destruct mines than can be used.
  In an ideal world this approach might make sense, but the reality is 
otherwise. It ignores the intrinsic problem with landmines--no matter 
how modern the technology, as long as they are active they cannot 
distinguish between civilians and soldiers. It also ignores the fact 
that these mines can be scattered over wide areas by the thousands, or 
tens of thousands, and even if the failure rate is 2 or 3 percent they 
pose a perpetual life-threatening danger to whole societies. Moreover, 
there are tens of millions of long-life mines in inventories around the 
world. There is little incentive for governments to destroy these 
stockpiles simply to pay to replace them with more expensive short-life 
mines. Finally, if we treat some mines as acceptable it will be 
difficult if not impossible to build international support for the goal 
of banning them altogether. The inevitable result will be many more 
needless civilian deaths.
  My amendment, which passed the Senate on August 4, offers an 
alternative approach. But whether the opportunity of the Vienna 
conference will be seized is the question, and I am not optimistic. 
Despite notable progress on some issues, the four meetings to prepare 
for the conference were disappointing since there was little support 
for a complete ban on antipersonnel mines. Instead, it seems clear 
that, at best, we can expect an increasingly elaborate set of rules and 
procedures which are exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to 
monitor and enforce.

[[Page S 14705]]

  Although probable, such an outcome is not inevitable. To begin with, 
there is a proposal for consideration at the review conference to 
prohibit the use, development, manufacture, stockpiling, or transfer of 
antipersonnel landmines. The administration should support this 
proposal, especially considering this week's announcements by the 
French and Austrian Governments, coming on the heels of the Belgian 
Government's. It is fully consistent with the President's goal, and 
with my amendment. Even a halt to production, as our NATO allies have 
done, would be a major step beyond where we are.
  Unfortunately, the Pentagon continues to insist that it needs 
antipersonnel landmines until viable and humane alternatives are 
developed, and is therefore certain to reject such an approach despite 
the administration's own rhetoric. Although the Pentagon is spending 
millions of dollars to develop more advanced mines, there is little 
evidence that it is seriously engaged in developing alternatives. 
Instead, the administration will probably support proposed hortatory 
language that the restrictions and prohibitions in this protocol shall 
facilitate the ultimate goal of a complete ban on the production, 
stockpiling, use, and trade of antipersonnel landmines. Although 
constructive, this language would have no operative effect and could 
easily be construed to be consistent with the administration's safe 
mine approach.
  Even if governments fail to adopt the complete ban on antipersonnel 
mines which I and many others would prefer, the conference can produce 
important progress toward that goal and the United States should seek 
the strongest possible limits on antipersonnel landmines.
  The convention, like other laws of war agreements, contains limits on 
use, as opposed to production, stockpiles, and transfers. My amendment, 
which also limits use, offers a useful model, and the administration 
should incorporate elements of it into the U.S. negotiating position. 
Rather than encourage the widespread use of self-destruct mines, my 
amendment seeks to severely limit the use of all antipersonnel mines, 
and thus move unambiguously toward a complete ban. But it falls 
significantly short of a ban, since it permits their use along 
international borders and in demilitarized zones which is a paramount 
concern of countries with hostile neighbors. It exempts antitank mines. 
It exempts command detonated munitions which are effective for 
protecting a perimeter and are not indiscriminate. And, it does not 
take effect for 3 years.
  Although my amendment differs substantially from the administration's 
current policy, it has the distinct benefit of being simpler to 
implement and far easier to verify. And while overcoming the 
considerable resistance to such a significant change in international 
practice would depend on the amount of public pressure that could be 
amassed to convince governments to agree, it has the added advantage 
that it might actually work.
  While I believe the above recommendations are reasonable and 
necessary under the circumstances, I fully recognize that, at best, 
they are likely to receive only passing consideration. However, short 
of that, there are several other areas of discussion where strong U.S. 
leadership could determine whether the review conference achieves 
meaningful results.
  I am encouraged that there is near agreement on expanding the scope 
of the convention beyond international conflicts. This is crucial, 
since the widespread use of landmines in recent years has been in civil 
wars. The administration has strongly supported this modification, and 
it should advocate for final agreement on application of the convention 
in all circumstances, so there is no ambiguity about its universal 
application.
  There is a proposal that any antipersonnel mine that is not placed in 
a marked and guarded minefield must contain a self-destructing device. 
However, self-destruct mines are often disbursed by aircraft and 
artillery in huge numbers over wide areas making it extremely difficult 
to accurately map their location. Instead, all mines, including self-
destruct mines which as noted above are as indiscriminate as other 
mines, should be required to be located in marked and monitored 
minefields to ensure the exclusion of civilians. In addition, given the 
large number of self-destruct mines that failed to self-destruct in the 
Persian Gulf war, it is essential that the United States advocate 
strongly that such mines also contain a self-deactivating device, such 
as a battery which loses power after a finite time.
  A proposal tabled by Russia would establish an exception to the self-
destruct and marked and monitored minefield requirements in situations 
where direct enemy military action makes it impossible to comply. Such 
an exception would virtually negate the effect of these requirements, 
and the administration should strongly oppose it.
  The time period within which a self-destruct mine must self-destruct 
or self-deactivate remains a subject of discussion. There are proposals 
ranging from 2 to 365 days. Indeed, at least one government has 
reportedly proposed that there be no time limit. Most U.S. mines are 
designed to self-destruct within 24 to 48 hours, and to self-deactivate 
within 60 days. The administration should advocate strongly for this 
short time period.
  One of the most frequent criticisms of the Conventional Weapons 
Convention is its lack of verification and compliance procedures. The 
administration has proposed factfinding and compliance procedures 
which, while not nearly as intrusive as the verification and compliance 
procedures in the Chemical Weapons Convention, could significantly 
enhance the effectiveness of the Conventional Weapons Convention. In 
contrast, a proposal advocated by several nonaligned governments would 
provide for only transparency requirements, whereby governments would 
have to disclose certain information about their use of mines. This 
would be woefully inadequate. If the review conference is to have any 
hope of producing meaningful results the convention must include 
effective verification procedures and at least the possibility of 
sanctions for nonratification and noncompliance.
  It is encouraging that there appears to be agreement that 
antipersonnel mines must be detectable with common electronic metal 
detecting equipment. To avoid confusion and foreseeable problems, there 
needs to be a requirement of a specific amount of metal to ensure easy 
detection. This requirement should be extended to cover antitank mines 
as well. This is very important for the safety of deminers.
  The administration has proposed to prohibit antihandling devices on 
anti-tank landmines, as well as on antipersonnel mines. Unfortunately, 
this has not received support from other countries. The administration 
should continue to advocate for such a prohibition, since an antitank 
mine with an anti-handling device is an antipersonnel mine. This could 
also could help reduce the danger to deminers.
  Finally, given the U.N. General Assembly's adoption of the goal of 
eventually eliminating antipersonnel mines, the utter failure of the 
convention, and the fact that the results of the Vienna conference are 
likely to be quite modest, the administration should seek frequent 
reviews of the convention. Rather than every 10 years, there should be 
some form of annual technical review, and a formal review at least 
every 5 years. In addition to identifying problems, frequent reviews 
could help bring additional States on board.
  Like any weapon, landmines have a military use. But it needs to be 
weighed against the immense, long-term human and economic damage they 
cause. Solving the landmine crisis will take years, possibly 
generations. The Vienna conference is a beginning. Our aim should be to 
build an international consensus that like chemical and biological 
weapons, antipersonnel mines are so indiscriminate and inhumane that 
they do not belong on this Earth. They are not weapons we depend on for 
our national security. They are most often used against the 
defenseless.
  Ultimately, it is a moral issue, as has been so eloquently stated by 
South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He has spoken about the 20 
million landmines in Africa that have already destroyed so many 
innocent lives:

       Antipersonnel landmines are not just a crime perpetrated 
     against people, they are a sin. Why has the world been so 
     silent about 

[[Page S 14706]]
     these obscenities? It is because most of the victims of landmines are 
     neither heard nor seen.

  Mr President, I want to also speak briefly about another issue that 
will be debated in Vienna, blinding laser weapons.
  In recent years, military forces have come to rely on lasers for 
range finding, target designation and other modern technology. These 
technologies have helped to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of 
U.S. weapons, and are widely accepted as legitimate uses in warfare. 
However, as the technology has advanced, various governments have begun 
to move from these non-weapon laser systems to the development of 
tactical laser weapons that are either intended or have the potential 
to destroy eyesight. Such laser weapons now exist in prototype form, 
and some are small enough to be mounted on a rifle.
  A recent report identified 10 different U.S. laser weapon systems, 5 
of which have apparently been fielded in prototype form. The Pentagon 
has acknowledged that two of the systems were deployed, but not used, 
in the Gulf war, and that one system was deployed, but not used, in 
Somalia. Other governments that have been mentioned in the press as 
developing blinding laser weapons include China, Russia, other former 
Soviet republics, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Israel. China 
attempted to market its ZM-87, a portable laser weapon system, at an 
arms exhibition this spring. Its promotional literature openly states 
that one of the weapon's main purposes is to injure eyesight.
  Alarmed by the obvious potential for widespread abuse by terrorists, 
rogue states, insurgent groups and common criminals if antipersonnel 
laser weapons are developed and allowed to proliferate, several years 
ago the international committee of the Red Cross initiated a campaign 
against battlefield laser weapons. This led to a Swedish proposal to 
add a protocol to the convention to prohibit the use of laser weapons 
for the purpose of causing permanent blindness as a method of warfare. 
Over 20 governments including many of our closest allies, as well as 
the European Parliament and the Organization of African Unity, have 
expressed support for such a protocol.
  The possibility of hundreds or thousands of American servicemen and 
women returning from combat to face the rest of their lives without 
eyesight is sufficiently horrifying that I sought the Pentagon's 
opinion on the Swedish proposal. Although the Pentagon concedes that 
there is no military requirement for weapons that are used to destroy 
eyesight, I found the Pentagon strongly opposed to the Swedish proposal 
for several somewhat contradictory reasons:
  I was told that a prohibition is unnecessary since there is no plan 
to develop blinding weapons. At the same time, I was told that they are 
easy to develop and indeed already exist.
  I was told that there is no point in investing in such weapons since 
they are ineffective in inclement weather and thus unlikely to receive 
widespread use.
  I was told that a prohibition would not prevent their development or 
use by civilians; that blinding is preferable to death; that a 
prohibition would be difficult to enforce because of the legitimate 
uses of lasers in warfare and, even worse, that it would deter 
legitimate uses; and that negotiation of such a protocol would divert 
attention from the more immediate and pressing issue of landmines.
  These arguments are unpersuasive. The Pentagon maintains that its 
laser weapons systems are intended not to blind, but to disrupt enemy 
optical and electro-optical battlefield surveillance systems. The 
Pentagon has also conceded, however, that in some circumstances the 
laser weapon performs its antisensor function by damaging the eyesight 
of the enemy user. A laser weapon beam directed at a simple optic such 
as a binocular or gunner's sight does not destroy the optical lens, but 
instead magnifies and shoots back into the human eye, causing damage 
and probable permanent blindness. The most advanced U.S. laser weapon 
system, the Laser Countermeasure System [LCMS], which is mounted on an 
M-16 rifle, reportedly fires a beam powerful enough to destroy a human 
retina from a distance of 3,000 feet.
  The fact that a prohibition would not directly apply to civilians is 
hardly a reason not to limit their use as a method of warfare, 
particularly since a prohibition would certainly inhibit their 
development and use by terrorists and common criminals. Blindness may 
be preferable to death, but blindness is permanent and weapons used to 
blind would be used in combination with, not instead of, other deadly 
weapons.
  As for the Pentagon's argument that a prohibition on blinding could 
deter legitimate uses of lasers, it should not be difficult to 
distinguish between the use of nonweapon lasers for target designation 
and range-finding versus tactical laser weapons that can blind. During 
the Gulf War, there were many thousands of uses of nonweapon lasers by 
the United States and other nations, and only one or two known 
instances of eye damage.
  In any event, this problem is certainly solvable, and is by no means 
unique to the laws of war. A prohibition should prohibit blinding as a 
method of warfare, as well as the development, production, transfer, 
and use of laser weapons the primary purpose or effect of which is to 
cause blindness.
  Some violations would be difficult or impossible to prove, but that 
is true with other laws of war violations such as the deliberate 
targeting of civilians. The burden of proof is on the person alleging 
the violation.
  As a strong proponent of limits on the use of landmines, I certainly 
do not want negotiations on laser weapons to divert attention from the 
landmine issue. However, given the brevity of the Swedish proposal, its 
support among other governments and the unique opportunity presented by 
the Vienna conference, this is too important an opportunity to miss. I 
have urged the administration to delay the development or production of 
any antipersonnel laser system until the issue has been fully 
considered in Vienna.
  Unfortunately, in June the Pentagon made an ill-advised decision to 
go forward with a limited production of 75 LCMS systems, while 
deferring a decision on full production of 2,500 units until early 
1996. While I am relieved that a decision on full production was 
delayed, even limited production will complicate the negotiations on a 
prohibition. The administration should reverse this decision and 
postpone any further research, development, or procurement of tactical 
laser weapon systems until after the Vienna conference.
  To its credit, the Pentagon recently announced that it has revised 
its policy on lasers, to prohibit the use of lasers specifically 
designed to cause permanent blindness. This is an important step, but 
it is not enough to prohibit only lasers designed to be used against 
personnel, since virtually any laser can be used to destroy eyesight if 
used for that purpose.
  It is not too late to act to prevent the widespread proliferation of 
these weapons. Like exploding bullets and other weapons that have been 
banned as excessively cruel, the administration should actively support 
an international prohibition on blinding as a method of warfare. U.S. 
leadership, even at this late date, would virtually assure agreement.
  Mr. President, again, the Vienna conference is a unique opportunity. 
On both landmines and laser weapons, U.S. leadership is urgently needed 
and vital to save lives and prevent the proliferation of these inhumane 
weapons.

                          ____________________