[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1046-H1051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
    BOYCOTT FRENCH PRESIDENT CHIRAC'S JOINT ADDRESS BEFORE CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to premise my remarks 
this afternoon on a very serious issue, in my humble opinion, for my 
colleagues and certainly for the American public to be better informed 
about this very serious issue.
  First of all, I hold no personal grudge or animosity toward the 
President of France, President Chirac, who will be visiting us today 
and is scheduled to address a joint session of the Congress tomorrow.
  Second, I also hold no personal animosity toward the good people and 
the citizens of France. But, Mr. Speaker, it is out of fundamental 
principle that I take this special order on behalf of some 200,000 
French citizens living in French Polynesia who all oppose President 
Chirac's ambitious plan to explode now six nuclear explosions in the 
South Pacific. I take this special order also in behalf of some 28 
million men, women, and children who live in the Pacific region, whose 
lives depend on a good safe environment, especially the marine 
environment.
  I take this special order on behalf of some 167 nations of the world 
who officially protested to President Chirac not to explode these 
nuclear bombs. Note also, Mr. Speaker, that 10 of the 15 member-
countries of the European Union also protested against France for 
conducting nuclear explosions in the Pacific. Some have suggested, Mr. 
Speaker, earlier that the issue now is moot since 5 days ago France and 
Mr. Chirac has decided to end its nuclear testing program.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 29, 3 short days before he is to 
arrive in Washington, and I presume he is now in Washington, President 
Chirac of France announced in a formal news release the end of his 
nuclear testing program in the South Pacific. Though he makes a pretty 
speech, just in time to come to Washington posing as a fervent advocate 
of nuclear disarmament and warm ties with America, I want to point out 
to my colleagues and to the American people, Mr. Speaker, the height of 
hypocrisy of Mr. Chirac's conduct and remarks.
  Mr. Chirac began his news release with these words, and I quote:

       Dear compatriots, I announce to you today the final end to 
     French nuclear tests. Thanks to the final series that has 
     just taken place, France will have a durable, reliable and 
     modern defense.


[[Page H1047]]

  Point No. 1, Mr. Speaker. France already has the fourth largest Navy 
in the world. France also has the world's third largest arsenal of 
nuclear weapons. Before it even began its final series of nuclear 
tests, France had already exploded over 200 nuclear bombs in land, air, 
and water far from the home of enlightenment. In particular, Mr. 
Speaker, France had already exploded 178 nuclear bombs in the South 
Pacific.
  Were those 200-plus nuclear bomb explosions not enough to ensure a 
durable, reliable, and modern defense, Mr. Speaker? If those 200 were 
not enough, why should we now believe that the 6 additional nuclear 
bombs France has just conducted in the South Pacific will be enough to 
stay its appetite in the future for an even more modern defense?
  Point No. 2, Mr. Speaker. The, quote, final series of French nuclear 
tests were not even necessary. They were not even necessary. The United 
States freely offered France the technology it sought to ensure its so-
called nuclear weapons reliability.
  Why did France not accept the United States offer, I ask, Mr. 
Speaker? Because of a combination of two basic things, in my opinion: 
No. 1, French national pride, and I must give them that sense of 
credit; and, No. 2, there is French suspicion that the United States 
was withholding the state-of-the-art technology.
  Mr. Speaker, Chirac wants to be perceived as promoting nuclear 
disarmament and expects to have warm ties now with America.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the height of hypocrisy. One who defiantly 
violates a world moratorium and resumes unnecessary nuclear testing 
cannot and must not be regarded as a promoter of nuclear disarmament. 
And one who is suspicious of assistance from the U.S. offers cannot be 
regarded as promoting warm ties with America.
  Mr. Speaker, President Chirac continued his speech by saying, and I 
quote, ``The security of our country and our children is assured.''
  In turn, Mr. Speaker, I say at what price and whose children is 
President Chirac referring to? The sixth nuclear bomb explosion that 
France just exploded last Saturday, since violating the world's 
moratorium on nuclear testing, was over six times more powerful than 
the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima 50 years ago. That atom bomb, Mr. 
Speaker, incidentally vaporized and killed some 150,000 men, women, and 
children in the city of Hiroshima, and later claimed another 50,000 who 
died as a result of nuclear contamination and related illnesses.

  Mr. Speaker, in response to France's latest nuclear explosion in 
Fangataufa Atoll, the mayor of Hiroshima, Japan, said these words, and 
I quote:

       I feel renewed anger. Nuclear tests aimed at developing and 
     maintaining nuclear technology will do nothing but increase 
     the risk of putting human beings on the brink of ruin.

  Mr. Speaker, I might now ask, what kind of security has France really 
secured for our children? France's nuclear test sites are leaking 
cancerous radioactive waste into the swirling waters of the Pacific 
Ocean which cover one-third of the world's surface. I submit, Mr. 
Speaker, that France has put not only its children but all of our 
children on the brink of ruin by exposing them to nuclear contamination 
through a resulting toxic food chain.
  Mr. Speaker, Chirac's reckless actions have also initiated the 
nuclear arms race all over again. Horrific environmental concerns 
aside, Chirac's decision to resume unnecessary nuclear testing in the 
South Pacific has opened a Pandora's box that holds chilling 
implications for nuclear and non-nuclear nations alike. Prime Minister 
Keating of Australia recently said, and I quote:

       The French government is to be strongly condemned for the 
     latest test at Fangataufa Atoll and for conducting it during 
     negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty which are 
     now entering the final stages in Geneva, Switzerland.

  What implications, Mr. Speaker, does Chirac's reckless decision to 
initiate the nuclear arms race all over again hold for the security of 
the world?
  Let me share, Mr. Speaker, the domino effect of Chirac's reckless 
decision last June. There is now a serious move by India to link the 
negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty in Geneva to its call 
for negotiations to start this year on removing all nuclear weapons in 
a specified time. The five nuclear superpowers are, of course, against 
this move, but joining India in this initiative, ironically, Mr. 
Speaker, is its archenemy Pakistan.

  Adding to this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, India refuses to sign the 
nuclear nonproliferation treaty on the basis that the nuclear nations 
are still maintaining their nuclear arsenals, which in effect makes the 
whole treaty meaingless and discriminatory. India's representative to 
the current and disarmament conference in Geneva made this observation, 
and I quote:

       We are of the view that to be meaningful, the treaty should 
     be securely anchored in a global disarmament context and be 
     linked through treaty language to the eliminating of all 
     nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework.

  In other words, Mr. Speaker, India is pushing for no loopholes in the 
nuclear nonproliferation treaty. As it currently stands, what 
assurances do non-nuclear nations have if nuclear nations retain their 
nuclear arsenals?
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, if France's resumption of nuclear tests in the 
South Pacific is a case in point, non-nuclear nations have next to 
nothing in assurances from the five-nation nuclear club, comprised of 
one that is willing to defy world moratoriums at will and four that are 
willing to act in complicity by looking the other way.
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, because of Chirac's reckless and selfish 
decision, India is now resisting Western pressure to forgo the nuclear 
option and is now initiating an ambitious ballistic missiles program. 
India is saying, ``If France can defy world moratoriums to assure a 
durable, reliable and modern defense, then so can we.''
  Just this week, India successfully launched a new ballistic missile, 
the improved Prithvi No. 2, that has a range exceeding 150 miles and a 
capability of being fitted with nuclear warheads. This means, Mr. 
Speaker, that India has a missile with nuclear capabilities that can 
reach the capital of Pakistan.

                              {time}  1545

  Is it surprising that Pakistan now wants to utilize M-11 ballistic 
missiles from China? These M-11 missiles are also capable of carrying 
nuclear warheads, and can hit key cities throughout India.
  But the chain reaction Chirac has created does not stop there, Mr. 
Speaker. India and China have just signed a contract for India to 
purchase uranium from China. Now, China, in an expression of its own 
security concerns, is developing warm relations with Russia. China's 
position is that it cannot depend on Western powers for its security, 
as renewed apprehension grows between Russia and the NATO powers. 
Meanwhile, China and Russia may still conduct nuclear tests and have 
not unconditionally accepted a genuine zero-yield comprehensive test 
ban treaty. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has been fueled in part by 
France's defiant violation of the international testing moratorium, 
which has contributed to a global atmosphere of distrust and paranoia 
where nations are reluctant to give up their nuclear options.
  Australian Prime Minister Keating sums it up this way: ``Such 
irresponsible actions send the worst possible signal to nations that 
aspire to possess nuclear weapons, and damages efforts to advance 
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. The French Government is to 
be strongly condemned.''
  Despite world condemnation, Mr. Speaker, Chirac arrogantly continued 
his speech of eurocentric rationale by marginalizing Asia-Pacific 
concerns. President Chirac states: ``I know the decision I took last 
June may have caused worries and emotions.'' Mr. Speaker, can you 
believe this? Chirac thinks his decision only caused ``worries and 
emotions.'' Is he still denying the environmental effects of his 
unnecessary nuclear bomb explosions in waters conveniently located 
halfway around the world from Paris? Is he still claiming that his 
nuclear bomb explosions have no ecological consequences?
  Is he unaware that he has initiated a nuclear arms race all over 
again? Or does he just take nuclear proliferation lightly, suggesting 
that it should cause nothing more than a few worries and emotions? What 
kind of world leader could be so barbaric in his interpretations, Mr. 
Speaker?
  President Chirac continues by claiming that, ``While my resolve was 
not affected, I was not insensitive to those 

[[Page H1048]]
movements of public opinion.'' How sensitive, Mr. Speaker, was he? Was 
he sensitive enough to stop nuclear explosions? Was he sensitive enough 
to consider the 28 million people living in the Pacific region whose 
lives will be affected for decades to come as a result of the nuclear 
nightmare Chirac's unaffected resolve created for them?
  As Prime Minister Bolger of New Zealand has noted, and I quote, 
``Despite all suggestions from France that this is a totally safe and 
benign operation, there is no such thing as a safe nuclear test. They 
all create massive damage. It is just a matter of how much, when, and 
what leakage there is.''
  Even Philippines President Ramos also has this to say, Mr. Speaker, 
and I quote once again: ``I condemn in the strongest terms the latest 
tests by France. This latest test is a continued defiance of the 
international communities' appeals to France.''
  Mr. Speaker, I might also note, this latest test comes shortly after 
all 10 Southeast Asian countries signed a treaty providing for a 
nuclear-free zone in that part of the world.
  While President Chirac may claim sensitivity, the latest in French 
nuclear testings are an affront, a slap in the face to Asia-Pacific 
countries. Since when is a slap in the face, Mr. Speaker, considered to 
be an expression of sensitivity?
  Promoting his propaganda to the hilt, Mr. Speaker, Chirac continues 
his response to the world's condemnation of French nuclear testing. 
These ``movements,'' as Chirac likes to describe, ``testified to the 
growing importance the world's inhabitants attach to collective 
security and safeguarding the environment. I share these concerns.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the world's No. 1 nuclear 
proliferator, the man responsible for initiating the nuclear arms race 
all over again, would now try to convince us that he shares our 
concerns for collective security and safeguarding of the environment. 
If this were the case, why did he not just accept the technology the 
United States offered?

  Why conduct unnecessary nuclear testing? Why reopen the nuclear arms 
race? Why create the paranoia? Why pit nuclear nations against 
nonnuclear nations? Why pit Western powers against non-Western powers? 
Why, on the one hand, claim that there are no ecological consequences 
of nuclear testings, but on the other hand, choose to conduct these 
nuclear tests far from the borders of France?
  Whose environment is Chirac really interested in safeguarding, Mr. 
Speaker? And whose security is he really concerned about?
  In a very patronizing way, Mr. Speaker, Chirac also said, and I 
quote, ``I know that nuclear energy can be frightening, but in a world 
that is still dangerous, our weapon is a deterrent--that means a weapon 
that can serve peace. Today I have the feeling of having accomplished 
one of my most important duties by giving France, for decades to come, 
the capability for its independence and security.''
  I think that answers the question for us, Mr. Speaker, right there. 
It is French security and the French environment that Chirac is 
concerned about. To heck with everyone else's independence and 
security. France has its own rules. France does its own thing. If it 
wants to violate world moratoriums, it will. France, after all, comes 
first.
  Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I thought peace meant working together to 
create an equitable environment for all citizens of the world, not just 
French ones.
  While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I might question Chirac's use 
of the word ``Independence.'' Does ``Independence'' in Chirac's 
vocabulary include freedom for the native people of French Polynesia 
who have felt the brunt of French colonial reign since the islands of 
French Polynesia were what Westerners would call ``colonized'' by 
France, after some 500 French soldiers with guns and cannons subdued 
the Tahitian chiefs and their warriors in the 1840's. Or is 
independence just a concept, like security, that Chirac applies only to 
the people of France?
  Mr. Speaker, Chirac continued his dramatic monologue by saying, and I 
quote, ``a new chapter is opening. France will play an active and 
determined role in world disarmament and for a better European 
defense,'' end of quote. Mr. Speaker, do I hear Chirac correctly? Do I 
hear him trying to justify his latest nuclear testings by saying he did 
it all to stabilize relations in Europe?
  For him to suggest that the resumption of French nuclear testing was 
done to stabilize relations in Europe is ridiculous. When France first 
presented the idea of ``concerted deterrence'' and offered to extend 
its nuclear umbrella to its European partners, there were few takers, 
Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 10 of the 15 European Union 
countries voted with the United Nations, protesting the resumption of 
French nuclear testing.
  Why, Mr. Speaker, are the European Union members not more anxious to 
be shielded by the French nuclear umbrella? This is partly because the 
European Union nations are more comfortable with the protection the 
United States has provided them for the past 50 years, and partly, Mr. 
Speaker, because historically, France just cannot be trusted.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1940's France surrendered to Nazi Germany. In 
1966, at the height of the cold war, when nuclear missiles were pointed 
at every major country in Europe, France pulled out of the NATO 
alliance. Today France has still not officially joined NATO, and as we 
have clearly seen from September of 1995 to January of this year, 
France cannot even be trusted to honor a world moratorium it called for 
and agreed to only 3 short years ago. How can any nation, European or 
not, be assured of any French position?

  Mr. Speaker, Chirac says, and I quote, ``I will take intiatives in 
this direction in the coming weeks. As all of you, dear compatriots, I 
want peace--solid and durable peace. We all know that peace, like 
freedom, has to be built each day. That is the purpose of the decision 
I took and that will be the guideline for my action tomorrow.''
  Mr. Speaker, can we really put stock in Chirac's guideline for 
tomorrow? France's own urban minister said about Chirac's decision to 
explode six additional bombs in the South Pacific, and I quote, ``He 
did what he said he would do, and he did the right thing.''
  Mr. Speaker, something is rotten in Denmark when world leaders 
consider that they have done the right thing by violating world 
moratoriums that they agreed to. Chirac's aide said Chirac will earn 
international respect for sticking determinedly to a decision almost as 
unpopular domestically as it was internationally.
  Mr. Speaker, if the responses of world leaders from Australia, New 
Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, the Pacific nations and Europe is any 
indication of international sentiment, Chirac will be a long time in 
earning anybody's respect. Anyone with a social conscience, world 
leader or not, knows that the only interest Chirac considered in 
resuming nuclear testing was the higher interests of French military 
industrial lobbyists and their profitable $2.5 billion nuclear program.
  Mr. Speaker, now Chirac wants to come to Washington and make a case 
for peace and act as a spokesperson for the world's poor. But, Mr. 
Speaker, did you know that France is now the top weapons exporter and 
weapons supplier in the world? Mr. Speaker, is it with irony or with 
hypocrisy that President Chirac will promote peace and act as a 
spokesman for the world's poor when France is the biggest exporter of 
weapons to developing nations?
  Mr. Speaker, while Chirac may script his story for Eurocentric 
audiences, the people of the Pacific who feel the brunt of colonial 
reign have their own story to tell. It is a travesty that tomorrow 
their voices will be made mute in this Chamber by one who so arrogantly 
and so openly marginalizes not only their concerns, but the concerns of 
the world community as well.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an act devoid of all social conscience that has 
afforded Mr. Chirac the opportunity of delivering his downright 
deceptive message from a Chamber that symbolically represents the 
highest of democratic values.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together and 
support the privileged resolution, H.R. 350, introduced by the 
Honorable Patsy Mink of Hawaii, the distinguished gentleman 

[[Page H1049]]
from Guam, Robert Underwood, the Honorable Patricia Schroeder from 
Colorado, and myself, which requests the Speaker to withdraw the 
invitation to President Chirac to address a joint session of Congress. 
If the invitation is not revoked, then I urge my colleagues not to 
attend the joint session of Congress.
  To attend the session is to act in complicity, to validate France's 
position that it is okay to violate world moratoriums, to resume 
nuclear testings that poison the Pacific, to initiate a nuclear arms 
race all over again, to place humanity on the brink of destruction.
  As a member of both the Pacific island community and the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and as one who has sailed to the nuclear testing 
site of Mururoa and been arrested at the hands of French commandos in 
waters of French Polynesia, as one who has considered the kind of world 
that I want my children to live in--Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, 
I cannot in good conscience be a party to such hypocrisy.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding. I appreciate very much, and I want to recognize 
the leadership you have taken, I say to the gentleman from American 
Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], on this particular issue. The kind of 
research and the kind of energy that you have devoted to this has been 
remarkable. The fact that you are standing up on behalf of the peoples 
of the South Pacific is commendable, and I want to stress to those that 
are hearing this that the representation of the Pacific point of view 
in this institution as well as other institutions is limited because of 
the size of the islands that we represent. And I rise to urge, along 
with you and the other Members that you have mentioned, to urge my 
colleagues in this House to boycott the President Chirac address to a 
joint session of Congress tomorrow in protest of his decision to test 
nuclear weapons in the South Pacific.
  I do not think people understand the kind of offense that these 
series of nuclear tests present for people in the Pacific who have been 
historically dealt with as if we are some kind of nuclear playground 
for world powers throughout the world.

                              {time}  1600

  A number of tests, over 200 nuclear tests have been conducted in the 
Pacific, and not in French Polynesia alone. It is this, despite the 
fact that apparently we all felt secure, that people acknowledged that 
this was an affront to the small peoples of the world. That a great 
power like France would insist and continue on this task, is not only 
an affront to the sensibilities of the world community, but, indeed, in 
particular to the lives, the peaceful lives, of the people in the 
Pacific.
  Defying international criticism, France carried out six nuclear tests 
over the past 4 months to verify a new warhead and to perfect 
simulation technology that will be used to monitor the reliability of 
its nuclear weapons. As you have so eloquently pointed out, despite 
diplomatic objections, economic boycotts, world public opinion, and 
even French public opinion and letters from Members of this body, all 
were ignored summarily and arrogantly by President Chirac.
  France maintained throughout this test that its underground blasts 
inflicted no damage on the fragile ecology of Mururoa Atoll, and last 
week we learned otherwise through an article in the Washington Post, 
something that we had suspected and you have pointed out over the past 
few months.
  After years of denial, France has finally acknowledged that 
radioactive materials have indeed leaked into the lagoon near the 
Mururoa test site. The director of France's nuclear tests went so far 
as to state that radioactive material was usually ``vented'' into the 
lagoon when scientists drilled down into the rock to obtain samples 
after every blast. However, since the French do not allow any 
independent verification, it is impossible to assess the extent of 
damage during this testing period.
  These latest accounts raise further questions about President 
Chirac's credibility. According to a confidential French Defense 
Ministry report, France has been aware, at least since 1979, that 
Mururoa's underwater foundation is cracked in several places. The 
report described underwater avalanches that followed the three tests as 
proof that the growing number of tests posed serious environmental risk 
to Mururoa Atoll, and, of course, we do not know how this will end up 
in the entire Pacific Basin, particularly for your area, which is much 
closer than my own.
  Regardless of the environmental consequences, President Chirac 
arrogantly continued his testing program. Clearly he was not bothered 
by environmental contamination to the world's largest ocean and its 
ecosystem, perhaps as you have pointed out because he does not live 
there, and it begs the question as to whether President Chirac would 
have been more concerned about the environmental impact of his tests if 
they were conducted in France proper.

  Last October France agreed to sign the protocols to the South Pacific 
Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. These protocols specifically prohibit nuclear 
testing within the South Pacific. Unfortunately, France refused to live 
by its own commitment. Agreeing to signing a treaty, but begging off on 
obeying it until it completes its own nuclear testing is the height of 
arrogance. Apparently France thought that by acceding to the protocols 
it would exonerate their past tests and their future tests for future 
nuclear blasts.
  When I heard, and I am sure you felt the same way, when I heard that 
France conducted yet another test last Saturday, I knew that they would 
subsequently announce it as their last test in what is obviously, 
obviously, a cynical ploy to neutralize whatever objections people may 
raise to the French nuclear testing program as President Chirac, who is 
already in this country, comes to the United States.
  I would point out what we need to understand is that this is the 
height of cynicism. This is a political ploy, pure and simple. The 
Congress should not and needs not be duped by President Chirac's double 
talk. With the latest acknowledgement of environmental contamination, 
President Chirac has lost all credibility. With the timing of nuclear 
tests to coincide with his visit here in the United States, he has lost 
any shred of credibility on this issue.
  By the Members of this institution attending his address to the joint 
session of Congress tomorrow, Members of Congress will be giving 
President Chirac an audience that he simply does not deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and the distinguished gentleman from 
American Samoa, and other members of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus, in protesting this address, in bringing attention to 
this serious problem. If he had perhaps admitted the duplicity of what 
they had been carrying out all along, perhaps we would be in a more 
forgiving mood, but he has not done so. By far, this is the most 
arrogant behavior by any world leader in the Pacific that I have borne 
witness to in the past 20 years.
  I thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks and for the time 
yielded to me. I also want to point out and support the comments that 
point out that France's very behavior on this, begging off, making a 
commitment but begging off, timing the tests, the whole nature of it 
simply threatens the whole nuclear nonproliferation treaty process.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think one thing that I want to add, and also for 
our colleagues to know, this is not a Pacific issue. I think this is 
something that we need to kind of widen our perspectives and think just 
because you and I are from this region of the world that this makes it 
somewhat un-American.
  The fact of the matter is, the United States is a Pacific Nation. The 
fact is that we conducted 160 nuclear bomb explosions in the Marshall 
Islands in the late fifities and early sixties. I might also add that 
we had to stop doing these tests because what happened was they found 
strontium 90, a by-product of nuclear contamination, in dairy products 
in the State of Wisconsin and other States. What happens, all of a 
sudden, everybody says, ``Oh, it is a hazard to our health to conduct 
these nuclear tests.'' Despite our efforts to tell France, do not do 
this, they went right ahead and conducted these tests.

  I might also note to the good gentleman's comments about the nuclear 
tests that were conducted in 1979. They drilled a hole or shaft in this 
atoll, which was supposed to be 2,600 feet, 

[[Page H1050]]
where the bomb was to explode. The thing went down halfway and got 
stuck. Guess what? They went right ahead and exploded that bomb, which 
caused not only a tidal wave, but tons of fish and all forms of marine 
life totally contaminated in the explosion they conducted in 1979. That 
is just one incident.
  Another point I think my good friend and colleague should know, I 
think some 12,000 Tahitians, French Polynesians, were exposed directly 
to nuclear contamination. No records are kept, everything is held in 
secrecy. I say the issue is not moot. The issue is that our good friend 
from France, President Chirac, has got to come clean. He has got to 
tell the world that that Mururoa Atoll, which some scientists estimate 
is the equivalent of five Chernobyls, 181 nuclear bombs exploded in 
that one atoll alone, can you imagine what happens if that atoll starts 
to leak, starts to break apart? What is going to happen to the marine 
environment in the Pacific?
  Oh, perhaps our good citizens from the State of California, maybe 
from the State of Washington or Oregon, might have something to say 
about nuclear contamination in the Pacific; of course, our good friends 
from the State of Hawaii.
  I think it is outrageous. It is an outrage that we are going to allow 
this man to tell us what democracy is about, to tell us that France is 
a true democracy of the world, when just the opposite, exploding six 
nuclear bombs that are going to affect the health of these people that 
live in that part of the world. I think it is an insult to the people 
that live in the world, and I would surely hope that our colleagues 
will help us in this boycott.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would like to add that unlike the experience that 
the United States had in the Marshalls in the fifties, there is ample 
evidence that this is risky. This is something that is occurring some 
40 years after the testing in the Marshall Islands, and perhaps we 
could excuse some of the earlier testing because we were unsure about 
the consequences. But in this particular instance we are very sure of 
the consequences, but France proceeded without any respect, without any 
attention to the kinds of outrage which were expressed in the Pacific.

  I would like to commend again the gentleman from American Samoa for 
his diligent work on this issue and his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend from Guam.

               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 31, 1996]

                India's Stand Could Stop Test-Ban Treaty

                         (By Brahma Chellaney)

       New Delhi.--After the halt to French nuclear testing in the 
     South Pacific this week, India may stand as the biggest 
     obstacle to American hopes for the completion of the 
     Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year.
       France, having conducted six nuclear tests the past five 
     months, now favors an early conclusion to the CTB talks in 
     Geneva. President Clinton listed the treaty as a priority in 
     his State of the Union address.
       China said yesterday it will continue testing until the 
     implementation of the treaty, an outcome that is far from 
     certain.
       The CTB negotiations stand in jeopardy of being derailed by 
     Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's decision, 
     announced in Geneva last week, to insist that the declared 
     nuclear powers first agree to a timetable for total nuclear 
     disarmament.
       Analysts say there can be no credible treaty without the 
     participation of India, which exploded a nuclear device in 
     1974. Pakistan, also on the verge of developing nuclear 
     weapons, would not sign if India did not, and a number of 
     other developing countries could be expected to follow suit.
       Despite intense Western diplomatic pressure, India also 
     plans to seek clauses in the treaty to bar the nuclear powers 
     from updating their arsenals through laboratory testing, a 
     move that would sharply raise the political and technical 
     costs of the treaty.
       ``To be meaningful, the treaty should be securely anchored 
     in the global disarmament context and be linked through 
     treaty language to the elimination of all nuclear weapons in 
     a time-bound framework,'' the Rao government said.
       It said it would insert specific language into the treaty's 
     draft text to prevent it from becoming ``another flawed 
     instrument aimed at curbing horizontal proliferation.''
       China's announcement that it will continue testing was 
     another blow to nonproliferation efforts. Beijing, which is 
     expected to carry out two or three nuclear tests this year, 
     supports a comprehensive test ban but says it will abide by a 
     pact only when it takes effect in international law.
       ``The position of the Chinese government on nuclear testing 
     is clear-cut and remains unchanged,'' a Foreign Ministry 
     spokesman said. ``China has conducted a very limited number 
     of nuclear tests, and things will continue to be that way''.
       Mr. Clinton has made the conclusion of a test-ban treaty a 
     priority, renewing his call for a completion of the 
     negotiations in his State of the Union address last week.
       ``We must end the race to create new nuclear weapons by 
     signing a truly comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty--this 
     year,'' he said.
       Mr. Clinton also has written to Mr. Rao seeking support for 
     the treaty, but Indian officials said the prime minister has 
     not replied to the letter.
       The treaty negotiations are entering a critical phase in 
     Geneva, where this year's session opened Jan. 22.
       After a year of talks, there remain some 1,200 unsettled 
     political and technical differences, including all the key 
     provisions. With a number of countries working to influence 
     the 104-page draft text, the final form of the treaty is very 
     much in question.
       The conference functions on the basis of consensus, 
     bestowing effective veto power on each of its 37 members.
       Although India could block Washington's plans by itself, it 
     is building support among other non-aligned countries. It got 
     a major boost last year when the U.N. General Assembly voted 
     106-39 to adopt a Burma-sponsored resolution calling for 
     parallel negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament.
       Mr. Rao, who is under growing domestic pressure to test and 
     modernize his country's nuclear option, has argued that the 
     permanent extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
     last May left India with no other way to pursue its goal of 
     total nuclear disarmament.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 31, 1996]

           Chirac Visit Signals Recognition of U.S. Dominance

                          (By Andrew Borowiec)

       Paris.--Western strategy in the post-communist era and 
     France's closer links with the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization will dominate French President Jacques Chirac's 
     visit to the United States.
       Mr. Chirac is to arrive in Washington today. After a stop 
     in Chicago, he returns to France on Friday.
       It is more than a routine call on Washington by the 
     conservative French head of state. It signals France's 
     concern about the shape of Europe's new geopolitical map and 
     acknowledges the United States as a power with 
     responsibilities in Europe.
       For the time being, there is no question of complete French 
     reintegration into NATO's military structure, from which the 
     late Charles de Gaulle withdrew 30 years ago, officials say.
       But the cautious process already has started, with France 
     joining two key NATO military committees in December. Earlier 
     this month, U.S. reconnaissance planes arrived at the French 
     air base of Istres, with a backup unit of about 100 
     personnel.
       Members of the ruling centrist-conservative coalition have 
     called on Mr. Chirac to explain his intentions, or more 
     specifically the contrast between consistent calls for closer 
     European unity with its own defense and France's 
     unquestionable. tendency to regard Washington as the key 
     military power in the world.
       According to an analysis by the Center of Strategic Studies 
     in Paris, by seeking closer links with Washington, ``France 
     has chosen strategic considerations over political and 
     ideological ones.''
       Officials close to Mr. Chirac stressed that the events in 
     Bosnia ``showed a political will by the United States rather 
     than by Europe. Hence, the French government concluded that 
     the United States is the only world power to be considered.''
       With few specific indications, it is not clear what shape 
     Mr. Chirac's discussions in Washington will take. Some 
     officials speak of a historic change that might emerge from 
     the visit.
       It has been made obvious that, after the initial applause 
     for French-German military cooperation and the creation of 
     the Eurocorps, the French are becoming more and more 
     skeptical and believe that NATO, albeit under U.S. influence, 
     is the best answer to future European security.
       News from the presidential Elysee Palace frequently has 
     been cryptic.
       France exploded the sixth and last nuclear devise of the 
     current tests Saturday, thus ending the experiments. But the 
     controversy over testing the devices is not over.
       Mr. Chirac told his nation the tests were essential to make 
     the French independent nuclear force credible.
       Mr. Chirac is scheduled to address a joint session of 
     Congress tomorrow. But a handful of Democratic members, 
     opposed to nuclear testing, are calling for members to 
     boycott the session.
       French officials acknowledge that it was reluctant U.S. 
     involvement in the former Yugoslavia that brought the fragile 
     peace to Bosnia and that ``we can't do much without 
     Americans.''
       Presidential palace sources also say that Mr. Chirac wants 
     to build a more solid relationship with President Clinton 
     because he believes strongly in the chances of Mr. Clinton's 
     reelection in November.
       Above all, some members of the governing establishment fear 
     that the expansion of the 15-member European Union precludes 

[[Page H1051]]
     chances of a unified and credible European defense.
       NATO, often described here as a U.S. proxy in Europe, has 
     once more emerged as the most viable formula for joint 
     military action on a continent made more unstable by the 
     Soviet Union's disintegration.

                          ____________________