[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H904-H911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FRENCH NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, it's me again. At times I feel like 
I'm out there in the wilderness talking to the birds and the trees--as 
I have imagined several times that I'm standing on a beautiful sandy 
beach along any one of those South Pacific islands, taking a long deep 
breath of that warm salt air, as I observe one of the great wonders of 
nature--the powerful waves of the ocean pounding the shore.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe I have counted at least 20 times I've taken an 
important matter before my colleagues and to the American people--the 
matter of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific and specifically 
in French Polynesia.
  Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, I introduced House Concurrent 
Resolution 80, that has numerous cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisle--including, Mr. Gilman from New York, Mr. Hamilton from Indiana, 
Mr. Leach from Iowa, Mr. Bereuter from Nebraska, Mr. Berman from 
California, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, Mr. Lantos from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher from California, Mr. Ackerman from New York, Mr. Kim from 
California, Mr. Underwood from the Territory of Guam, Mrs. Mink from 
Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie also from Hawaii, Mr. Markey from 
Massachusetts, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon, and Mr. Mineta from California.
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 80 expresses the sense of 
the Congress of the United States to recognize the concerns of the 
peoples of Oceania and to call upon France to stop nuclear testing in 
the South Pacific.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues the substantive 
issues and concerns raised in this resolution, which delineates the 
environmental risks that France's testing has created for the 28 
million men, women and children who live throughout the Pacific region, 
which is comprised of 22 sovereign nations and territories. The 
resolution further calls upon the Government of France, namely 
President Chirac and his administration, to cease all nuclear testing 
in the South Pacific.
  House Concurrent Resolution 80 holds that:
  The Government of France has been conducting nuclear tests over 
10,000 miles from Paris on the South Pacific atolls of Moruroa and 
Fangataufa in French Polynesia;
  That since 1966 France has detonated at least 187 nuclear explosions 
above, on, and under these coral atolls in French Polynesia, including 
more than 140 underground nuclear tests;
  That there is considerable concern among the 28,000,000 people of the 
22 countries and territories of Oceania regarding the adverse 
environmental effects in the region as a result of these nuclear tests;
  That the island nations of the South Pacific forum have staunchly 
opposed France's nuclear testing in the region, applauded France's 
adherence to a global nuclear testing moratorium since 1992, and 
strongly deplore and condemn any decision to resume France's nuclear 
testing in the South Pacific;
  That despite France's claim that its nuclear testing program is 
absolutely safe, there is scientific evidence to suggest both that 
radioactive leakage has already occurred at the testing site and that 
additional, more serious leakage might occur in the next 10 to 100 
years;
  That there is also concern in the region that the coral atoll, 
Moruroa, has been subjected to premature and accelerated aging as a 
result of the testing program, risking the structural integrity of the 
atoll and increasing the possibility of its disintegration;
  That the leaders of France's insular territory, French Polynesia, 
have stated opposition to resumed nuclear testing, joining fellow 
Pacific Island governments, and it is inherently unfair that they 
should be used as a test site for France's nuclear explosions;
  Therefore, the Congress of the United States should recognize the 
concerns of the 28,000,000 people from nations and territories of 
Oceania and call upon the Government of France to cease all nuclear 
testing at the Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls.
  Mr. Speaker, after voice votes of both the House International 
Relations Subcommittee on the Asia-Pacific and the full Committee on 
International Relations--the committees unanimously approved the 
concurrent resolution and forwarded it for floor action. But for some 
unknown reason, Mr. Speaker, the concurrent resolution is being 
shuffled somewhere between offices and the floor of the House, and for 
that unknown reason, this important matter has conveniently been put on 
hold indefinitely. As a bipartisan measure that has been described as 
moderate and well balanced, it is shameful that the Republican 
leadership has chosen deliberately not to bring House Concurrent 
Resolution 80 to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to share with our colleagues some 
basic statistical data concerning nuclear testing not only in our 
country but other countries as well. I honestly believe there is a need 
for our policymakers and members of the nuclear club--the United 
States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and the Peoples Republic of 
China--to thoroughly re-examine the so-called merits--and the dark 
side--of having nuclear warheads as a deterrent against enemy 
aggression.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the 
U.S. nuclear weapons program from 1940 to 1995 in constant U.S. 
dollars--is estimated to have cost America $4 trillion. Let me repeat, 
Mr. Speaker--$4 trillion. A $4 trillion stack of 1 dollar bills would 
reach the Moon, encircle it, and start part way back. Four trillion 
dollar bills could paper over every State east of the Mississippi, with 
enough left over to blanket Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and 
most of Iowa.
  And, Mr. Speaker, the $4 trillion figure does not even include 
additional 

[[Page H905]]
nuclear weapons-related costs America expends on aerial refueling 
tankers, aircraft and ships; nor the costs for dismantlement of 
outmoded missiles, bombs and submarines. And, Mr. Speaker, the $4 
trillion does not even include the estimated cost of $350 billion 
needed to deal with impending nuclear waste management problems.
  Mr. Speaker, our nuclear weapons-related expenditure for last year 
alone was approximately $33.157 billion.
  Of this, the Department of Defense expended over $21 billion. DOD's 
costs included the maintenance, operations and modernization of nuclear 
weapons, ballistic missile defense, satellite systems, ground-airborne 
command posts, and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 
for dismantlement of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union.
  The Department of Energy expenditure to conduct stockpile research 
and testing of nuclear weapons--including nuclear materials 
stabilization, nuclear waste management, the naval nuclear propulsion 
program, technology transfer, intelligence and safety/security issues, 
verification and implementation of treaties--cost the Department of 
Energy almost $12 billion.
  Other agencies spent approximately $185 million on programs related 
to nuclear weapons.
  So, Mr. Speaker, just for the past year alone, our expenditure for 
nuclear weapons-related costs totalled over $33 billion.
  A question is raised, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the American 
taxpayers got their money's worth for our nuclear program. Here are 
some interesting figures for my colleagues to consider: The cost for 
not testing any nuclear bomb this year--$410 million; the total number 
of U.S.-built nuclear warheads and bombs from 1945 to the present--
70,000; the total number of nuclear missiles the United States built 
from 1951 to the present--67,500; the total land area occupied by the 
Departments of Defense and Energy to carry out our nuclear weapons 
program--approximately 12,800 square miles--which is comparable to the 
combined area covered by the States of Maryland, Delaware and the 
District of Columbia; the total number of nuclear bombs we exploded in 
the State of Nevada--935.
  The total number of nuclear bombs the United States exploded in the 
Marshall Islands--now the Republic of the Marshall Islands--106. One of 
these explosions, Mr. Speaker, was the world's first hydrogen bomb 
test--known as the Bravo Shot. This was a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb 
explosion that was 1,000 times more powerful than the atom bomb that we 
dropped on the city of Hiroshima, which incidently killed and vaporized 
some 150,000 men, women, and children. Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, after 
our nuclear testing program in the Marshalls, there are still, to this 
day, up to 26 islands that remain contaminated as a result of our 
nuclear tests.
  Let me also add, Mr. Speaker, that we either lost or never received 
11 nuclear bombs through our testing program. We have also built, Mr. 
Speaker, about 75 special facilities for the President and our national 
leaders to utilize in the event of a nuclear war. Today, over 250 
million pages of documents remain secret that the Department of Energy 
has not yet declassified.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm no pacifist. As a Vietnam veteran, I have fought for 
America. I firmly believe that our country must always be second to 
none as far as our national security is concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, without boasting or arrogance on my part, I take great 
comfort in knowing that the United States stands not only as the 
preeminent leader of the free world but as the most powerful nation on 
this planet.
  Which brings me to the question before us--and to the 187 recognized 
sovereign nations of the world. There are nations that test, possess, 
and can even deliver and explode nuclear bombs if necessary in times of 
national crisis. Then there are nations that because of threats and 
perceived danger to their national security from bordering countries 
with nuclear bombs--want to develop their own nuclear weapons systems. 
Regional examples among such nations are the problems between Pakistan, 
India and China; between North Korea and South Korea; and between 
Israel and Iran.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the world's nations simply 
want nothing to do with nuclear bombs, nuclear missiles, nuclear 
everything. These nations consider nuclear weapons as weapons of 
genocide, that should be outlawed altogether by international law and 
standards of conduct.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I commend President Clinton and his administration 
for taking a strong stand against nuclear testing and support of a 
genuine zero-yield comprehensive test ban treaty. The Clinton 
administration, and in particular the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency, should also be commended for their leadership in gaining the 
indefinite extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
  Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago a moratorium on testing was called for by 
the nuclear nations of the world. With the exception of China, all the 
nuclear powers, including the United States, Great Britain, Russia and 
France, complied and did not detonate nuclear bombs.

  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, last year in June with a newly elected 
President in France, one of the first policy decisions made by 
President Chirac was to destroy the moratorium and announce that France 
would explode eight more nuclear bombs in the South Pacific in French 
Polynesia. Chirac maintains it is in the highest national interest of 
France to expand its nuclear arsenal with a new generation of nuclear 
weapons--a neutron warhead. Mr. Speaker, where are these weapons to be 
pointed--Russia, a nation striving toward democracy? Or are their 
nuclear missiles pointed at Germany, whose humiliating invasion of 
France in World War II gave birth to France's desperate need today for 
a nuclear security blanket?
  Mr. Speaker, the cold war is over. Our Nation's taxpayers paid well 
over $5 trillion to overcome the global threat of Marxist communism. 
Thank God, Mr. Speaker, that nuclear weapons of mass destruction were 
never utilized--and certainly credit should be given to our country and 
our NATO allies, and to the former Soviet Union and members of the 
Warsaw Pact, for taking every precautionary measure to ensure the 
planet wasn't blown up into tiny pieces.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm sure my colleagues are aware but perhaps many 
Americans are not aware of the fact that without even considering the 
deadliness of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal, our Nation 
alone, Mr. Speaker, has enough nuclear bombs to blow this planet up 17 
times over.
  Mr. Speaker, if a nuclear war occurs, there is no such thing as a 
win-win result nor even a win-lose result. I submit, Mr. Speaker, the 
next nuclear holocaust will be a definite lose-lose result. There will 
be no winners--period. Everyone, everywhere, comes out a loser, as we 
will all ultimately suffer the harm and violence committed against the 
Earth's ecosystem.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also greatly troubled by man's difficulty in 
harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Although the 
electricity generated by nuclear power is a great benefit to humanity, 
at the same time we are faced with the very serious crisis of how to 
dispose of nuclear waste materials. Even now, Mr. Speaker, there is a 
serious debate in Congress as to which State or States in the United 
States are going to have the dubious honor of playing host to storage 
centers of nuclear waste, now and for the future. Unfortunately, some 
of our national leaders are looking at Nevada as the designated storage 
site for dangerous and hazardous nuclear waste materials--but is it 
fair to the citizens of Nevada that their State should bear such a 
burden?
  And it should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that it will cost our 
country over $350 billion to clean up and safely store such nuclear 
waste, when and if ever, our National Government decides where nuclear 
waste materials are to be stored.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, is that we're still greatly struggling with 
the peaceful application and harnessing of nuclear energy. Given that 
we haven't even been able to control and manage the peaceful use of 
nuclear power, Mr. Speaker, I find it most disturbing that our Nation 
and other nations look at nuclear weapons as a means of providing 
security and protection against aggression. Literally, Mr. Speaker, 
nuclear bombs are weapons of genocide and mass destruction. 

[[Page H906]]

  What bothers me greatly, Mr. Speaker, is that France--supposedly a 
shining example of Western values, Western virtues, and Western 
civilization, where there is a very high premium placed upon the value 
of human lives, human rights and human dignity--their Government simply 
went ahead 5 months ago and started exploding nuclear bombs half-a-
world away from Paris, despite the protests and objections of millions 
of people from around the world.
  France exploded these nuclear bombs in the middle of the Pacific 
Ocean, with no real interest or concern for the marine environment; no 
real concern over the ciguatera fish poisoning created; no real concern 
for the pleadings of the nations that are part of the Pacific Ocean; no 
real concern for the tremendous amount of nuclear contamination from 
their testing that will eventually have to be addressed in the near 
future; and, no real concern for the health and welfare of some 200,000 
French citizens who live in French Polynesia where the nuclear tests 
have taken place.
  Mr. Speaker, the post-cold-war era presents a rare and unique 
opportunity to lessen our reliance on nuclear weapons for global 
security and stability. With the progress achieved on the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations, 
the world stands at a historic point in time as we move toward nuclear 
disarmament.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me to tell President Chirac 
that what he is doing is not only shameful on behalf of the Government 
of France, but certainly outrageous, as far as I am concerned, as far 
as those people who live in the Pacific.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to my two 
distinguished Members and colleagues from the great State of Hawaii who 
have volunteered to share with me their concerns about what the French 
Government has been doing to these areas in the South Pacific. I gladly 
yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I must commend my colleague for his 
great leadership in calling attention, time and time again, to this 
Chamber of this egregious conduct on the part of the French Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this particular special order is especially timely 
because we are told by the majority leadership that next week we are 
hosting the President of the French Government, Mr. Chirac himself, in 
this very hall in a joint session with the House and the Senate. I find 
it almost intolerable that such an invitation would have been extended 
on our behalf, in view of the huge protest that has been lodged against 
the French Government and President Chirac personally for his complete 
refusal to acknowledge the substantive basis upon which 170 nations 
have filed their protest and their objections to these tests that have 
been going on in French Polynesia.
  I think that this is an example of his almost total refusal to 
understand the enormity of the human rights questions which this whole 
testing series exemplifies.
  The French Government dismisses our objections on the basis that we 
have absolutely no evidence that any untoward damage could occur or any 
possible problems with respect to radiation contamination in the area.
  All we have to do is to look at the record of what has happened to 
all of these Pacific islands where such tests have occurred in the past 
to know that it is not mere speculation that radioactive results could 
occur in this area and that the likelihood of irreparable contamination 
to the French Polynesian Islands is undoubtedly going to occur.
  The gentleman, I am sure, has seen this article that appeared in a 
very timely way in the Washington Post, which the headline reads, 
``France Acknowledges Radioactive Leakage in South Pacific Nuclear 
Tests,'' and goes on to point out that quantities of iodine 131 has 
seeped into the lagoon in the test sites and dismiss it again by saying 
it is insignificant. The significance is that there is this fallout in 
terms of the test.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend in the well.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for pointing 
out that article that appeared in the Washington Post about the leakage 
of iodine 131 into the sea. I want to share with my colleagues and with 
the public a little artistic demonstration of what this atoll really 
looks like from the air, if we were to look down directly. We can see 
that those areas of the atoll, this atoll sits right on top of what is 
known as a volcanic formation, as we see here.
  Some of our friends may think that this is how Polynesians decorate 
their Christmas trees with these funny red dots. I wanted to share with 
my good friend that these red dots represent 185 nuclear explosions 
that have already taken place in this atoll, and the French Government 
kept denying, ``No, no, no problem. It is impossible for leakage.''
  Mr. Speaker, 185 nuclear bombs have already been exploded in this 
atoll, and the French Government has the gall to tell the public and 
the American people and our top scientists that it is perfectly safe to 
continue this program. This is outrageous.
  This is how it looks right now in this atoll. It is like a fractured 
cheese full of holes, and this is exactly what the Government has been 
doing, and they keep insisting by saying, ``It is perfectly safe. No 
problem over there.''
  It just happens to be that this is right in the middle of the Pacific 
Ocean. That is my definite problem. I welcome my good friend, the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercromie], for his comments.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, one would think, would one not, that if 
it were perfectly safe, that they could conduct this test in the bay at 
Marseille in France? If the tests are perfectly safe, why do they not 
conduct them in the channel off the French coast? If the tests are 
perfectly safe, why do not they conduct them in the Mediterranean Sea 
off the French coast?
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for making that 
observation. This has always been the question raised by everyone 
around the world. If it is so safe, why not test it in France? I will 
tell my colleagues the reason why: The French people will not allow it, 
and all the peoples in Europe will not permit France to do such a 
thing. They had to pick on the most innocent people living on this 
planet.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is it not then the case, would you agree, that if it 
was, in fact, safe and it could be done in France or it could be done 
in the seas in the waters surrounding France, and it has not been done 
and has been done in the South Pacific, that this is an indication of 
the continued colonial atmosphere, an example of the colonial mentality 
that the French still maintain toward the Polynesian people, most 
specifically those who live in the South Pacific?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend for making that observation. 
I want to share with my colleagues and the American people, they may be 
Polynesians, they may be Tahitians, but, by God, these are human 
beings.
  It is so often said that France is the home of enlightenment, France 
is the home of all these beautiful observations about what human life 
is. This is the worst example of French democracy, if they call it a 
democracy. It is really sad, a really sad commentary that our national 
leaders have seen fit to allow this man to address this Congress, while 
the world's condemnation sits on the head of this man, whether it be in 
Europe or in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

                              {time}  2030

  What in the world are we doing? I cannot believe this.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
hypocrisy of all of this is that the French Government has for some 
time now put itself on record declaring that it would abide by a test 
ban treaty. It declared a moratorium. It specified their commitment to 
the concept of no tests by any of these nuclear powers and, in doing 
so, encouraged all of these other nations to join in this tremendously, 
highly moral commitment that we are not ever going to have any more of 
these nuclear tests anywhere in the world.

[[Page H907]]

  When they came out in June with their announcement that, 
notwithstanding the moratorium that they had declared, that they were 
going to proceed with these tests, to me that was a violation of the 
confidence and trust that the peoples of this area had placed in their 
earlier pronouncements. That to me was a devastating reversal of their 
government's policies. I agree with you that coming to this Chamber 
next week is a very very disappointing event.
  I regret that our leadership has extended such an invitation. I hope 
that our Members will understand the depth of our feelings about this 
issue and not grace this Chamber when the President appears at the 
joint session.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What is really funny about this, there was an 
article that appeared in the New York Times yesterday. The French are 
masters at doing this kind of thing. They leak some things here. They 
leak some things there and tell you what, they have already explained 
what Chirac is going to tell us next week.
  Let me share with my colleagues and with my good friend from Hawaii 
what Chirac is going to be telling on this pulpit next Thursday. This 
is what he is going to say: The U.S. Government should not go into 
bankruptcy or default because it will seriously impact France's economy 
as well as other countries of Europe and the world for that matter. 
That is a real good line of instruction to our Republican friends.
  Second, Chirac is going to lecture the Congress and our President and 
the American people that our country is not paying enough to the crisis 
in Bosnia. Would you believe that? This is the kind of thing that we 
are going to get from this man. It is OK because this is what the 
French officials are already telling the world. This is unbelievable.
  Another thing, Chirac is also going to tell the Congress and our 
President that our country is not paying enough foreign aid to Third 
World nations. May I remind President Chirac where the United States 
has been for the past 50 years in providing security against aggression 
in Europe and when de Gaulle at the time pulled out of NATO and 
demanded of U.S. forces to leave France within 60 days, and what was 
our response to that? Does that also include the 10,000 soldiers who 
lie buried in the soils of France, freeing them from Nazi aggression in 
World War II? This is the kind of thing that we are faced with.
  All I can submit to my good friends here is that this is the kind of 
thing that we are going to be hearing from him.
  Another point, Chirac is going to say: Well, you are not contributing 
enough to the Bosnia crisis. But at the same time France expects to be 
the leading eminent role model and leader of Europe to provide the 
remedy that is needed for the Bosnia crisis. I think we can agree 
somewhat to the reason why there has been an impasse all these months, 
because they could not agree even among the European countries. So the 
United States had to be there to show real leadership how to remedy 
this crisis in Bosnia.
  Another thing, Chirac is also going to give us a lecture that we are 
not a world class leader; we are not living up to our responsibilities 
as a world leader among nations. Could you believe this? Could you 
believe this? Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. This is unbelievable. This is 
what the French Government officials have already leaked in the press 
and to the media. This is what we are going to be hearing next week. Do 
you know what is really funny about this whole thing? He will not say 
anything about the French nuclear testing program. Is that not sad? Is 
that not totally indefensible?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I think it is astounding that, if this report is 
accurate, the French President would dare to come here to instruct us 
on what should be our national posture on all of these critical issues 
on the pretense that the French Government serves as any kind of role 
model for the rest of the world in its conduct, when it denigrates the 
will and the passions and the emotions of the people of the Pacific 
region by flaunting these tests notwithstanding the fact that 170 
countries all across the world have filed their protests.
  I hope that our colleagues will pay attention to our protest and our 
deeply felt feelings about this.
  As the chair of the Congressional Pacific Asian Caucus, I hope that 
they will follow our leadership and not grace this Chamber to allow the 
president of this government to come and lecture to us about how we 
should conduct our affairs when he has violated the fundamental 
principle of peoples across this country and the world; and that is to 
live in peace, not to be disturbed, not to be harmed and injured in 
this way in perpetuity.
  I thank the gentleman again in the well for causing us to raise our 
voices on this, to increase our understanding and to make our 
conscience speak for us on this very, very important measure. I thank 
the gentleman.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, carrying Mrs. Mink's point a bit further, is it not interesting, 
is it not instructive that the French think that they can move ahead 
with this testing and at the same time condemn the activities or the 
presumed activities with respect to testing or the utilization of 
atomic or hydrogen weapons by Iran or Iraq or Pakistan or the People's 
Republic of China.

  Is it not clear that by France, ostensibly one of our allies, despite 
the fact that it has never cooperated with us in the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, as a member of the Committee on National Security, 
I can say that one of our great difficulties with respect to European 
security is never being able to know where France will be. Will they be 
behind us? Will they be beside us? If they are behind us, what do they 
have in mind for us? What do they have in mind for Europe?
  We find ourselves in the position of attempting to establish a 
standard with respect to testing, asking other countries to follow our 
lead in ending the testing of atomic and hydrogen weapons as an act of 
common humanity on behalf of all the nations on the planet.
  And when France moves ahead with this kind of testing, how do we have 
the moral authority then to be able to say to Iran, to Iraq, to India, 
to Pakistan, to China, where do we get the moral authority then to be 
able to say, no, you should cease this kind of activity?
  It very quickly becomes an argument in which the Western Powers, 
those who are conceived of as the Western Powers by history, the 
imperialist colonial powers, are allowed to do as they will with 
respect to atomic or hydrogen testing and somehow, then, those 
countries which have been viewed as unindustrialized or Third World or 
whatever kind of set of adjectives are put upon them, those countries 
are disenabled from being able to do the same thing that France now 
carries on.
  France undermines everything that we have tried to do since atomic 
testing and hydrogen testing took place, since all of us, from 
President Kennedy on, on a bipartisan basis in this country, came to 
the conclusion that this was against the interests of humanity. This 
goes beyond individual political machinations or individual political 
posturing. This goes to the very heart of what constitutes a 
responsible nation in the present-day world acting in a manner in 
concordance with those actions that promote peace. We are not in a 
position, then, to complain to other countries about possible testing 
that they may be doing if we are unable to discipline ours sufficiently 
to be able to say to France, we will not countenance this.
  Now, it is one thing, perhaps, for the President to say, look, there 
are wider considerations. It may even be that the State Department 
wants to say there are wider considerations. That may be so. An 
argument may be made. I think it can be refuted and should be refuted. 
But I do not pretend to have some corner on the market of political 
wisdom in that respect. It perhaps should be debated.
  But, to have the Speaker's chair occupied, the podium of the House of 
Representatives occupied by the President of France under these 
circumstances is beyond my comprehension. It is a privilege of the 
House, a privilege of the House to stand on the podium where the 
Speaker resides and to speak to the House assembled.
  We are forced into the position of saying that we must boycott this 
speech, this address to the House of Representatives, and we request 
our 

[[Page H908]]
colleagues to think deeply upon this subject. We do not pretend for a 
moment to be better than someone else or to have greater insight. We 
are not trying to speak from some morally superior position. Quite the 
contrary. We are here making an appeal, we are making a pleading, if 
you will, we are mounting an argument that we hope is persuasive to 
those who have given so much. I think this is what my good friend from 
Samoa referred to when we talked about World War II.
  I hope you will not resent the fact that I think we can go back a 
little further, World War I. Who was it that left the shores of the 
United States to go and rescue France in World War I? Who went to 
rescue France in World War II? And it is a sad chapter, one that still 
has not been resolved in our own country, who then, with the best of 
intentions, tried to go into Vietnam in the wake of the disaster that 
the French created there in Indochina? It was the United States, for 
good or for ill. We have no apologies that we need to make to the 
French about taking a position with respect to testing in the Pacific.
  Some could say to us, yes, of course, the gentleman from Samoa, the 
people from Hawaii, they live in the Pacific, I suppose we could be 
seen almost as a special interest in that regard.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me add to my friend, yes, we did conduct in the 
Pacific, but something did happen afterward. There was world outrage 
what our country was doing in testing in the Marshall Islands for one 
obvious reason. Do you know what happened? We found strontium 90 in 
dairy products. The clouds had shifted and it affected all over the 
different regions of the world. So we had good reason for having to 
stop because there was a real serious hazard in conducting atmospheric 
tests at the time.
  In fact, it was at the time that the Soviet Union and our country 
made a band not to conduct any more atmospheric tests. We told France, 
please do not do this because we know the aftereffects. Do you know 
what happened? No way. They exploded 12 nuclear atomic explosions in 
the atmosphere.
  Let me tell you of the problems that caused, that situation when the 
French Government went ahead and did it, totally disregarded the 
warnings from our own Government. Yes, we paid the price and we are 
still trying to compensate for the lives of those men, women, and 
children on the islands of Rongelap and Utirik to this day because 
those people were directly subjected to nuclear contamination and 
forever their lives will never be the same because they are now 
subjected to leukemia and all forms of cancer.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on what the 
gentleman said by indicating and admitting for the Record, Mr. Speaker, 
I want to say that my interest is personal. I freely admit to it. I 
think we can make a case on the merits politically, scientifically, 
regionally, if you will. I think we can make a case on the morality of 
it in the social-political sense, but I must confess to you, Mr. 
Speaker, and do so quite freely, that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink] and myself are among the few people that have actually seen the 
results of a hydrogen bomb test, because we saw the results of the 
Johnson Island test that was made by our country. That is where I made 
by first resolve.
  This is not an issue that I came to this evening, Mr. Speaker, 
because I have been recently converted. I saw with my own eyes what 
happened when we exploded a relatively minor hydrogen device 900 miles 
away from Hawaii, and the sky lit up. It was and remains the most 
awesome physical sight, the most--I have chills, Mr. Speaker. As I 
speak with you right now, my body is suffused with a chill, because it 
is etched in my mind's eye and will be for the rest of my life what 
that test looked like.
  I resolved at that point, coming down the hill from the Manoa Valley 
down Punahou street to the bottom of the hill where I have spent the 
last three decades of my life, I resolved at that moment that I would 
devote whatever political energy I could bring in whatever form was 
made available to me as a free citizen of the United States to see to 
it that I would speak out and speak on the issue of atomic and hydrogen 
testing with the idea of ending it, ending it for everybody and for all 
time, because it is antihuman. It is antihumanity.
  It is not just a matter of political sovereignty, it is not just a 
matter of one set of forces against another. It is not a matter for 
abstract intellectual discussion in a textbook or a military briefing 
on a map on the wall with little cards and drawings moving around, or 
scales of warfare and what are acceptable casualties and what are not. 
It is the most elemental circumstances of physics being made manifest 
in the most destructive way, not constructive, not the sense of 
humanity that we would like to exemplify as a species, where we see the 
love of God in one another, but we see the destruction of the species 
and the planet and what we are capable of.
  Mr. Speaker, we are capable of great things as a species. We are 
capable of great humanity, we are capable of being worthy of the spark 
of life that is in us, as best we can understand it, but we are also 
capable as a species of committing great evil and great harm, and we 
will be judged. We will be judged one day, if only by ourselves, as to 
whether or not we have exemplified what is best in us, not what is 
worst in us.
  These tests are an abomination in the sight of any God that is worthy 
of the name, and any species, anyone who has a desire to manifest his 
or her humanity to the best of his or her ability I think and I hope 
would stand with us next week and at least make this gesture, and it is 
nothing more than that, I understand that, but make this gesture that 
justifies our existence as human beings by saying that we will not 
stand here in this place of honor and privilege, because I hope that 
all of my colleagues would agree that this is a place of honor and 
privilege. We have been elected here by free men and women in a free 
society. This is a gift that has been given to us to be on this floor 
and to speak.
  I would hope that we would honor that gift that has been given us and 
live up to the faith that has been put into us, that has been given to 
us by the voters of our respective districts, and say that we will not 
be on this floor when that speech is given, because the privilege of 
the floor should not be given under such circumstances.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my friend for his observations. Mr. 
Speaker, we are also joined here in our special order by my good 
friend, and by profession, an outstanding physician from his home State 
of Washington. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott].
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from American Samoa, for bringing this issue to the floor. I 
was sitting in my office listening and watching it on television, and I 
decided that I ought to come over here, because it seems as I was 
listening as though this was something that was just an issue of 
Pacific Islanders, of people out in the middle of the Pacific, or that 
it was just an issue of people who live in Hawaii, which is a little 
closer.
  This is an issue that affects all Americans, affects everyone in this 
country, and for us, and I agree, I think we ought to boycott, not come 
to the speech by the French premier, because I personally do not think 
he should have been invited. I think he deserves the response of the 
Congress to someone who has done something that is offensive not only 
to Pacific Islanders, but the whole United States and the whole world 
community. The insistence by France of doing these tests is simply 
unacceptable.
  My view comes, as does that of my colleague from Hawaii, from a 
personal experience. I am a physician and I work at a hospital in 
Seattle that has, for a long time, dealt with the folks, the people who 
were affected by the atomic bomb in Japan. These people have been 
followed for the last some 40 years now since that bomb was dropped, 
more than 40 years, and they have been followed as they have 
increasingly gotten cancers of all sorts, leukemias, a variety of 
deadly diseases, and we have followed that. We know what atomic warfare 
does.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would say to my friend, I have made this 
observation earlier. It is bad enough that we 

[[Page H909]]
cannot even harness and control the situation that we have in 
harnessing energy from the nuclear power in providing electricity and 
for other good things, the positive things that it does, but we do not 
know what to do with the storage. We have a very serious crisis now in 
our country and other countries as well that use nuclear power for 
electricity.
  It is bad enough that we cannot even solve that problem, but it is OK 
to come up with as many nuclear bombs as you can among these nations 
that can produce them and go and shoot one another, and just simply 
annihilate this whole planet. Not only is it the height of hypocrisy, 
but contradictions that even I cannot comprehend.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The State of 
Washington has a facility that has been involved in this, and nuclear 
waste storage is the biggest threat to our economy. That kind of thing 
sitting there and rusting, silos and so forth, has been a threat for a 
long time.
  The people of the State of Washington passed an initiative, ``Don't 
waste Washington.'' We don't want anymore nuclear waste. Nobody wants 
nuclear waste. It is accumulating all over the place. To create bombs 
means you make more nuclear waste. There is no question about it. So 
even the process is making a problem for those people. Even if there is 
no war, there still is the question of how do we deal with the long-
term storage of the waste.

  The thing that is so, to me--if you look at the people who were in 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and look at what happened to them, an recognize 
that if we ever--anybody should be thinking of testing such a weapon 
simply has never looked at these people and looked at what the effects 
of it are. My belief is that for us to allow somebody to come here and 
speak as though it did not make any difference--
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As if nothing happened.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. As if nothing happened, and simply to say Well, it is 
OK to us, because it is done way out there in the middle of the 
Pacific, and somehow that will not affect us. The gentleman is 
absolutely correct, when that stuff goes up in the air or when it is in 
the water, it gets into the fish.
  We have fishing fleets out of my district, the whole Pacific fleet 
from the State of Washington goes out of my district. They go out and 
catch fish everywhere. What kind of fish do they catch? What 
concentration of these elements is in the liver of those fish or in the 
roe or whatever? And we are feeding it to people.
  When it comes in the air--we measured Strontium 90 in milk in 
Wisconsin when I was in medical school. That simply is a threat to our 
people, that we should be saying to them How dare you do that when you 
threaten us?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of the things I want to add to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Washington, is sometimes our own people here in 
America do not realize we are also a Pacific nation. Our country may be 
situated a little closer to Europe and the Atlantic, but the fact of 
the matter is that 33 million Americans live in the State of 
California, which happens to be a Pacific Coast State, and my good 
friend, the gentleman from Washington, has in Washington State, 4\1/2\ 
million people.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Almost 5\1/2\ million.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the gentleman from Oregon, 3 million, and 
another 1.3 million live in Hawaii, and 150,000 in the territories of 
Guam and the Mariana Islands, and these are American citizens. These 
are not aliens. These are not people, as if we just put aside and just 
assume that nothing is going to happen to us. I am very fearful of 
this.
  I want to say this to my good friends, the gentleman from Hawaii and 
the gentleman from Washington. This atoll, it has been estimated, is 
the equivalent of several Chernobyls, right now, inside this atoll, 
where the French Government has exploded 181 nuclear bombs, and they 
are telling the world that--each one of these red dots, I would say to 
my good friend, represents a nuclear detonation that the French 
Government has put in this atoll for the past 30 years, and they are 
saying it is OK. Jacques Cousteau in 1987 was permitted to do a study 
of the situation there as far as the marine ecology was concerned. He 
came out and made an observation, there were leakages. There were 
fissures.
  Another problem with Jacques Cousteau's mission was he never went 
down further south, lower and in greater depth of exactly what is down 
there. In other words, nobody knows what is happening down there.
  Another observation, 60 percent of the people of France did not want 
President Chirac to resume nuclear testing. This is another thing that 
really bogs my mind, when the very people that he represents did not 
want him to do this, he went right ahead and blew them up. Five nuclear 
bombs have already been exploded. Leakages are already evidenced as a 
result of these explosions. The French scientists and the Government of 
France have the gall to tell the public and throughout the world that 
it is still okay, we can still continue to do this.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, has indicated the 
scientific basis and the human context, as a physician. My good friend, 
the gentleman from American Samoa, has made it clear that the United 
States, too, is a Pacific Nation; that this is not some isolated event 
in a faroff place.
  I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that very much 
needs the bipartisan attention of the House. I would hope that the 
Speaker would reconsider the question of whether or not Mr. Chirac 
should be allowed to speak, because I maintain that far from being a 
scientific test, that the information that could have been gained from 
the testing, ostensibly gained from the testing, we would have been 
happy to share. The United States of America would have been happy to 
share.
  I can say as a member of the Committee on National Security, without 
violating any sense of clearances or restricted data or anything of the 
kind, classified data, the information to be gained here is common 
knowledge to those who will take the time to find out what was required 
or what kind of knowledge was sought with respect to the effects of 
this kind of testing, if that was indeed the rationale for it.

  I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this was a political statement by the 
French. They were doing this for political reasons, and precisely 
because, and I will not dispute anyone with whether or not this was a 
good political idea or a bad political idea. It was done for reasons 
that seemed good enough at the time to the French Government, and as a 
result, and whatever statement they wanted to make, they were willing 
to take the chance of opprobrium from the rest of the world if they 
went ahead with these tests in order to make their political statement.
  I maintain, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that the leadership of the 
House would take this into account with respect to my request for 
reconsideration of whether this speech moves forward, it is a political 
statement to have someone stand at the Speaker's desk, at the Speaker's 
chair and the podium, on the floor of the House of Representatives. 
That is a political statement. It says that you have the privilege of 
the floor, freely granted by the Members of this House. That I was a 
political statement.
  So if the French exploded these bombs for political reasons, are we 
not saying, then, if we give him the privilege of the floor, that we 
are, in effect, approving that; that he can do this with no political 
disadvantage, there is no political price to pay?
  All we ask, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps there is a protocol situation 
that the Speaker cannot now rescind, and perhaps not all of this was 
taken into consideration, but I ask this, then: If the privilege of the 
floor cannot be rescinded at this time, and I most seriously and 
parenthetically emphasize, reemphasize, reiterate, that I hope the 
Speaker and the leadership will reconsider the question of whether Mr. 
Chirac should be given the privilege of this House to speak from the 
Speaker's podium.

                              {time}  2100

  But in the event that that is not possible, I ask, because it is a 
political statement and will be a political statement to be on this 
floor, that people boycott this floor; that the cameras that will be in 
here to record this event 

[[Page H910]]
will record empty seats of duly-elected Members who are saying, out of 
respect for the House, out of respect for the people who have sent us 
here to the House, out of respect for this Chamber and this institution 
and what it means, that we will not participate, we will not be here in 
our seats, we will boycott this, respectfully so, because we have a 
higher duty, a higher calling, a higher political statement to make by 
virtue of our absence.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Hawaii and 
my good friend from the State of Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I can pretty much venture to raise my projections as to 
what we might expect next week when President Chirac supposedly is to 
address the House. I suppose one thing he is going to demand that all 
Americans should learn how to speak French, that perhaps French should 
be the spoken language here in America. I suspect also that our good 
friend from France is going to demand that nobody would be able to 
translate, because he is going to be speaking in French, he is not 
going to be speaking in English, even though he is very, very good at 
speaking the English language.
  All that aside, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
Washington, [Mr. McDermott] and certainly my good friend from Hawaii, 
[Mr. Abercrombie] and the gentlewoman from Hawaii, [Mrs. Mink] who was 
here earlier for participating in this dialogue to express our real 
serious concern about the presence of President Chirac and the fact 
that it has the outrageous condemnation of so many countries throughout 
the world and millions of people throughout the world, having the 
arrogance to conduct these nuclear tests or these nuclear explosions in 
the Pacific for the past several months.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience, and I thank the members 
of the staff of the House for their patience in allowing me to address 
the House in this special order. Mr. Speaker, I include the following 
material for the Record.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 1996]

   As Nuclear Tests End, Pacific Outposts Fear Losing Aid From Paris

                            (By Thomas Kamm)

       Papeete, French Polynesia.--If French Polynesia has too 
     many beauty queens, blame it on geopolitics.
       The winner of the Miss Tahiti pageant went straight to Miss 
     World--bypassing the Miss France contest entirely. This was 
     fine with Miss world pageant officials, but not with Vaes 
     Devatine, a Tahitian who saw red, white and blue. She set up 
     a rival contest to send a representative to compete in 
     France.
       ``We are a French territory, and it's aberrant not to go 
     through national channels,'' says Ms. Devatine, who runs a 
     public-relations firm. ``It's a strategic and political 
     mistake.''
       From the seemingly trivial to the geopolitical, self-
     governing French Polynesia has a case of split personality. 
     While the islands want to retain their cultural identity, 
     they don't want to lose the benefits of their link with 
     France. ``We're constantly playing a balancing act,'' says 
     Alex du Prei, the editor of Tahiti Pacifique. ``The truth is, 
     we want it both ways.''


                           price tag of power

       The same may be true for France. its far-flung outposts are 
     vital to its sense of grandeur--and to its claim of being a 
     global power. But grandeur comes at an annual cost of about 
     50 billion francs ($10 billion). And so, under pressure to 
     cut its budget deficit to meet the criteria for a common 
     European currency, France may be forced to address a long-
     held taboo: Does it still need its overseas empire?
       This issue already is brewing in French Polynesia. When 
     President Jacques Chirac, breaking a three-year moratorium, 
     resumed nuclear tests in this tropical paradise more than 
     10,000 miles from Paris last September. Tahiti exploded in a 
     day of riots. On Tuesday, the French government acknowledged 
     that its nuclear tests had caused leaks of radioactive 
     materials in the South Pacific. While it insisted the levels 
     were too small to pose a threat to the region, the admission 
     is likely to spark renewed protests.
       Still, now that France has pledged to end all nuclear tests 
     beginning next month, many Tahitians are wondering how they 
     will survive without the windfall that came with being what 
     pro-independence militant Nelson Ortas calls ``a dumping 
     ground for the bomb.'' After all, French money accounts for 
     almost 70% of its annual resources.
       While France has vowed to maintain current aid levels until 
     2006, some question what its long-term interest will be in 
     French Polynesia once the tests end. ``The problem isn't the 
     nuclear tests,'' says Nelson Levy, chief executive of Tahiti 
     Tourisme, the tourism promotion board. ``The real question 
     is, how do we cope afterward?''


                       last great colonial power

       With Britain handing over Hong Kong to China in 1997 and 
     Portugal set to do the same with Macao in 1999,this network 
     of overseas outposts--known in France as DOM-TOM, short for 
     departments et territoires d'Outre Mer--is far bigger than 
     those of the U.S., Britain or the Netherlands, and seems to 
     some like an anachronism. ``France is the last great colonial 
     power,'' says Paul Neaoutyine, a leader of New Caledonia's 
     independence movement. While many French citizens disagree, 
     it could become increasingly difficult to justify subsidizing 
     what they call ``the confetti of empire'' at a time when 
     France is still smarting from widespread strikes over 
     proposed cuts in entitlement programs.
       But no French outposts want to break their link with the 
     mother country. When New Caledonia, the nickel-rich South 
     Pacific island that was racked by pro-independence violence 
     last decade, holds a referendum on the issue in 1998, it is 
     likely to vote to stay French. In Mayotte, an island off 
     Africa's southeastern coast, moves are afoot to strengthen 
     links with France by turning the territory into a full-
     fledged department, with all the rights accorded to French 
     citizens.
       It's easy to understand why. For if this is colonialism, it 
     is colonialism in reverse. ``They've invented a totally new 
     form: not colonialism by exploitation, but an empire of 
     handouts,'' says F. Roy Willis, a history professor at the 
     University of California at Davis who is writing a book on 
     overseas France.
       France's ties to its outposts also are riddled with 
     contradictions. The minimum wage in overseas France--in both 
     the public and private sectors--was lower than in the 
     mainland until this month; meanwhile, civil servants in some 
     territories, including local hires, are paid nearly twice 
     what they would earn in France. French Polynesians pay 
     virtually no income tax, but they also don't have access to 
     France's social safety net. And even though French officials 
     insist that overseas territories are as French as Paris, 
     trade with them is accounted for as foreign trade. 
     ``Double-speak is omnipresent,'' says Jean-Luc Mathieu, 
     the author of several books on overseas France.
       Nowhere are the distortions and ambiguities of France's 
     influence more visible than in French Polynesia, this 
     collection of 130 islands and turquoise lagoons that cover an 
     expanse as big as Europe and that explorers likened to the 
     Garden of Eden.
       When Gaston Flosse, president of the self-governing 
     territory of 200,000 people, returned last October from the 
     United Nations General Assembly in New York, he called a news 
     conference to express his pride at having twice represented 
     France when President Chirac stepped out. But that same day, 
     French Polynesia's representatives at a South Pacific 
     Commission conference refused to enter the assembly hall 
     because the French flag was higher than French Polynesia's 
     banner on the table.
       French Polynesia has its own flag, its own currency--the 
     Pacific franc, pegged to the French franc--its own anthem and 
     its own government and institutions. Yet its livelihood is 
     owed to France: It boasts a gross domestic product per capita 
     eight times higher than that of many neighboring Pacific 
     Islands. ``It's the most extreme case of an artificial 
     economy,'' says Paul Ronciere, France's high commissioner in 
     French Polynesia.


                        a second colonial shock

       Annexed by France in 1843 after a sly colonial governor 
     negotiated control of the islands with a drunken Polynesian 
     king in return for a small stipend, French Polynesia long 
     remained the languid, untouched paradise immortalized by the 
     painter Paul Gauguin. But in 1963, after Algeria gained its 
     independence, Gen. Charles de Gaulle moved France's nuclear-
     test site from the Sahara to Mururoa Atoll, 750 miles 
     southeast of Tahiti.
       French contractors, businesses and public servants swelled 
     the local population; over one-third of France's navy was 
     stationed here. Islanders flocked to Papeete to find jobs in 
     construction and services, disrupting the subsistence 
     economy. Imports from France ballooned.
       But this boom was short-lived, lasting only through the 
     1970s, and it bequeathed the highly distorted economy that 
     exists today. ``Expatriate'' civil servants were paid nearly 
     twice their normal pay--and the wages of local hires were 
     aligned on this scale. To keep up with the bloated, high-
     paying public sector, private industry is in effect protected 
     through high tariffs on imports, making it difficult to 
     produce competitively.
       Thus, French Polynesia finds itself priced out of the world 
     market and hooked on the $1.2 billion that France pumps in 
     each year to keep the economy going. France has pledged to 
     keep this up for another 10 years while an economic 
     reconversion plan is worked out, but outlays beyond 2006 are 
     in doubt, and weaning Tahitians from this artificial standard 
     of living will be difficult.


                             trouble ahead

       Some Polynesians think last September's riots are a sign of 
     trouble ahead. The protests were led by unemployed 
     youths, most of who were among the native Maohi people who 
     make up 67% of the population.
       Many of those youths live in Faaa, a ramshackle suburb of 
     Papeete that is French Polynesia's biggest city, with a 
     population of 35,000. If Tahiti is a paradise, it doesn't 
     show here.
     
[[Page H911]]

       On a seaside plot of land, Mereta Turau shares a wooden 
     shack without windows or electricity with his 10 grown-up 
     children--nine of whom are unemployed. A 62-year-old who 
     moved here from Raiatea Island to work in construction during 
     the boom years, he is now a fisherman resigned to his fate. 
     ``With or without independence, it will be the same hard life 
     for people like me,'' he says.
       But the young are more radical. ``The French run everything 
     here: the state, the airport, the port, economic life, 
     everything,'' says 31-year old Tefana Tavarii. ``And we have 
     nothing.'' Standing beside him, 24-year-old Camille Rooarii 
     agrees. ``To get a job here, you need a French diploma. But 
     I'm not French. I'm Maohi. The French are colonialists. We're 
     at home here, and we're treated like dogs.''
       Faaa's mayor is Oscar Temaru, a proindependence leader. At 
     city hall, a series of Polynesian-style huts, the French flag 
     and official portrait of Mr. Chirac are conspicuously absent. 
     The 51-year-old Mr. Temaru, a former customs officer, makes a 
     point of speaking English, not French.
       ``The French say Tahiti is France, but we can't accept 
     that,'' says the soft-spoken Mr. Temaru. ``Geographically and 
     historically, this is my country, not Chirac's. Paris is 
     almost 20,000 kilometers away, people are freezing there 
     while we're sweating in the heat.'' Mr. Temaru hopes for a 
     peaceful evolution toward independence, saying Tahiti has to 
     rethink its whole development model. ``If France says bye-
     bye, we'll tell our people we have to return to the land. We 
     don't want to go back to the Stone Age, but to reality.''
       But many view Mr. Temaru as an idealist. ``Independence 
     would plunge French Polynesia into misery,'' asserts Mr. 
     Flosse, the president. ``France doesn't impose its presence 
     on us. We're the ones who want France to stay.''
       A majority of French Polynesians agree. A poll last October 
     showed some 57% of Polynesians don't want independence, while 
     15% are in favor of independence within three years. Mr. 
     Temaru's party has only four of 41 legislative seats. But 
     even those who want to remain part of France say the country 
     has to break its economic dependence on the mother country, 
     and it should wisely use the 10-year grace period to start 
     building a local economic base.
       ``The departure of the nuclear-test center is both an 
     opportunity, because we'll be obliged to change systems 
     whether we want to or not, and a risk, because we're not 
     really prepared to change systems,'' says Jean-Claude Barral, 
     the principal of Faaa's only public high school. ``But it's 
     clear we can't continue living in the same system we've had 
     for 25 years without money falling from the sky.''
                                                                    ____


                [From the Star Bulletin, Jan. 19, 1996]

                          Nuclear Test Warning

       While protests have focused on the French nuclear weapons 
     tests in the South Pacific, India has been secretly preparing 
     to conduct its own nuclear explosion. The Clinton 
     administration has quietly warned New Delhi that if it goes 
     ahead Washington will cut off virtually all aid.
       The unpublicized message was delivered last month after 
     U.S. intelligence officials detect early signs that a nuclear 
     test was in preparation, the Los Angeles Times reported. 
     India was warned that such an exercise would prompt the 
     administration to invoke a 1994 law requiring the U.S. to cut 
     off all economic and military aid, credits, bank loans and 
     export licenses. The total would run into billions of 
     dollars. The law applies to all undeclared nuclear-weapons 
     nations.
       India conducted its only nuclear explosion in 1974 and has 
     denied plans to conduct a new test. A Clinton administration 
     official now says the U.S. accepts India's assurances, but 
     the warning would not have been issued without evidence.
       The Clinton's administration has had its problems in 
     relations with Japan and China. The nuclear test issue could 
     sour relations with another Asian giant.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Jan. 24, 1996]

    Possibility of Default Starts To Worry Europe, Especially France

                         (By Craig R. Whitney)

       Paris. January 23.--The possibility that the deficit-
     cutting impasse between Congress and Clinton Administration 
     could start causing the United States Government to default 
     on its debt next month has begun to sink in on European 
     leaders, and the French are anxious to avoid the turmoil that 
     could result.
       President Jacques, Chirac, who will visit Washington next 
     week, is prepared to warn in a speech to a joint session of 
     Congress that default would upset economies around the world 
     and deeply undermine the American global position, French 
     officials said today.
       Congressional Republicans have threatened to refuse to 
     raise the national debt limit unless the Clinton 
     Administration agrees to their agenda for cutting the Federal 
     deficit. If the Administration refuses to give in and fails 
     to find other ways of coming up with money, the Government 
     could start running out of money to pay obligations due on 
     March 1.
       At this point some European leaders are said to be 
     beginning to feel like onlookers at a political game whose 
     players appear little concerned about the chaos a default 
     would cause in international currency and bond markets.
       Some see a situation comparable to that in 1975, when 
     Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germany felt compelled to 
     warn President Gerald R. Ford that letting New York City go 
     bankrupt could send economic shock waves around the world, 
     which was still fragile from the effects of a sudden rise in 
     oil prices.
       Mr. Chirac told the Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, and 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich during his last visit to Washington in 
     the summer that the United States gave too little foreign aid 
     to developing countries, and French officials say that he 
     plans to deliver the same message to Congress in an address 
     planned for Feb. 1.
       ``We hope that Congress will be disposed to let the United 
     States lives up to its global responsibilities,'' one 
     official here said.
       Mr. Chirac will tell Congress, French officials say, that 
     Europe with about the same size economy as the United States, 
     gives three times as much to developing countries--$31 
     billion, compared with less than $9 billion last year from 
     the United States.
       ``Where is America and its traditional generosity, where is 
     its desire to help reshape the world?'' asked one French 
     policy maker.
       Mr. Chirac is also likely to use his visit to tell both 
     Congress and the Administration that France will insist on 
     reshaping the NATO alliance to reflect changes since the end 
     of cold war, according to officials in Brussels and Paris.
       Mr. Chirac has reintegrated France into some NATO military 
     structures that it left in 1966, but officials say he did so 
     to push for the creation of a stronger European defense arm 
     within the alliance. ``We need to be able to deal with crises 
     like Bosnia even if the United States doesn't want to become 
     involved,'' an official said.
       Mr. Chirac may also tell Washington that American plans to 
     contribute $600 million to the reconstruction of Bosnia over 
     the next three years are inadequate. European estimates of 
     the total cost run to $3.7 billion. ``Don't think that the 
     Europeans will be the only ones paying for Bosnian 
     reconstruction,'' Mr. Chirac said in a recent interview, 
     adding that the Europeans expected the United States to pay 
     about the same as they will--about one third.
       American officials have responded that the United States 
     committed 20,000 soldiers to the NATO peacekeeping force that 
     began moving into Bosnia last month, a larger contingent than 
     any of its allies.

                          ____________________