[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.
____________________