[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10540-S10542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on October 6, 7, and 8, there will be a 
meeting in Vienna, Austria. It will be among countries that have 
ratified something called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. 
That treaty is embodied in this document I hold in my hand.
  Now, what is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? It is a 
treaty negotiated by a number of countries around the world; 152 
countries, in fact, have signed the treaty and 44 countries have 
ratified the treaty. It is a treaty designed to prohibit any further 
explosive testing of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, at any 
time, under any condition.
  This treaty ought to be an easy treaty for this country and this 
Senate to ratify. But we have not done so. At a time when India and 
Pakistan explode nuclear weapons literally under each other's chins--
these are two countries that don't like each other--at a time when we 
have evidence of more proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands 
of countries that want access to nuclear weapons with which to, in some 
cases, defend themselves, perhaps in other cases to terrorize the rest 
of the world, this country ought to be exhibiting leadership. It is our 
moral responsibility to provide leadership in the world on these 
issues. This country ought to provide leadership on the issue of the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
  We have not ratified this treaty. At the meeting in Vienna, countries 
that have ratified it will participate in discussing the implementation 
of this treaty, and this country will not be an active participant. 
Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Italy, Norway, Poland, and 
France will be but we will not. We are the largest nuclear superpower 
on Earth and we have not ratified this treaty.
  What about nuclear weapons and nuclear war? I was in the presence of 
a nuclear weapon recently at a military installation. If you stand a 
foot or two away from a nuclear weapon and look at it, it is a 
relatively small canister-looking device that, upon explosion, will 
devastate portions of our Earth.
  Going back nearly 40 years to an address by John F. Kennedy, he said 
something about nuclear weapons. In fact, he quoted Nikita Khrushchev:

       Since the beginning of history, war has been mankind's 
     constant companion. It has been the rule, not the exception. 
     Even a nation as young and as peace-loving as our own has 
     fought through eight wars. A war today or tomorrow, if it led 
     to nuclear war, would not be like any war in history. A full-
     scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes, with 
     the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300 
     million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as well as untold 
     numbers elsewhere. And the survivors, as Chairman Khrushchev 
     warned the Communist Chinese, ``the survivors would envy the 
     dead.'' For they would inherit a world so devastated by 
     explosions and poison and fire that today we cannot even 
     conceive of its horrors.

  This country and Russia have 30,000 nuclear weapons between them. 
Other countries want nuclear weapons, and they want them badly. To the 
extent that any other country cannot test nuclear weapons, no one will 
know whether they have a nuclear weapon that works. No one will have 
certainty that they have access to nuclear weaponry. That is why the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is so critical.
  Now, where is it? Well, it is here in the Senate. It has been here 
716 days, with not even 1 day of hearings. Not one. Virtually every 
other treaty sent to the Senate has been given a hearing and has been 
brought to the Senate floor and debated and voted upon. The issue of 
the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the stopping of explosive 
testing of nuclear weapons is not important enough to be brought to the 
Senate floor for a debate. It has been over 700 days. Not 1 day of 
hearings.

  In October, this country, which ought to be the moral leader on this 
issue, will not be present as a ratified member at the implementing 
meetings for this treaty. Shame on us. We have a responsibility to do 
this. There are big issues and small issues in this Congress. This is a 
big issue and cannot be avoided.
  Now, I am not here to cast aspersions on any Member of the Senate. 
But I waited here this morning to have the majority leader come to the 
floor--and he was not able to come to the floor--to describe the agenda 
this week. When

[[Page S10541]]

he comes to the floor, I intend to come to the floor and ask him when 
he intends to bring this treaty to the floor. If he and others decide 
it will not come to the floor, I intend to plant myself on the floor 
like a potted plant and object. I intend to object to other routine 
business of the Senate until this country decides to accept the moral 
leadership that is its obligation and bring this treaty to the floor 
for a debate and a vote.
  In a world as difficult as this world is, when countries such as 
India and Pakistan are detonating nuclear weapons, it is inexcusable, 
when so many other countries are trying to gain access to nuclear 
weapons for themselves, that this Senate, for over 2 years, has not 
been willing or able to allow a debate on a treaty as important as is 
this treaty. The banning of nuclear explosive testing all around the 
world at any time, anyplace, anywhere is critically important for our 
future, for our children, and for their children.
  Now, my colleagues know--at least I hope some know--that I am fairly 
easy to work with. I enjoy the Senate. I enjoy working with my 
colleagues. I think some of the best men and women I have had the 
privilege of working with in my life are here on both sides of the 
aisle. I have great respect for this body. But this body, in some ways, 
is very frustrating as well because often one or two people can hold up 
something very important. In this circumstance, I must ask the majority 
leader--and I will today when given the opportunity when he is on the 
floor--when will we have the opportunity to debate this Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty.
  That meeting in October should not proceed without this country 
providing a leadership role. The only way that can happen is for us to 
have ratified the treaty. China and Russia have not ratified the 
treaty; that is true. They are waiting on this country. India and 
Pakistan are now talking about detonating more nuclear weapons; that is 
true. They are asking others to implore one or the other to ratify this 
treaty. Both countries are waiting for this country's leadership. What 
kind of credibility does this country have to go to India and Pakistan 
and say to them, ``You must ratify this treaty,'' and when they turn to 
us to say, ``Have you?'' we would say no? Somehow, the Senate could 
not, in 700 days, even hold 1 day of hearings on the Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
  We have to do better than that. I am sorry if I am going to cause 
some problems around here with the schedule. But frankly, as I said, 
there are big issues and there are small issues. This is a big issue. 
And I am flat tired of seeing small issues around this Chamber every 
day in every way, when the big issues are bottled up in some committee 
and the key is held by one or two people. Then we are told: If you do 
not like it, tough luck; you don't run this place. It is true, I don't 
run this place, but those who do should know this is going to be a 
tough place to run if you do not decide to bring this issue to the 
floor of the Senate and give us the opportunity to debate a 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This will not be an easy road 
ahead for the Senate if you decide that this country shall not exercise 
the moral leadership that is our responsibility on these matters.
  If I might with the remaining minute or so mention an editorial in 
the Washington Post from yesterday, I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Why a Test Ban Treaty?

       The proposed nuclear test ban treaty has been around so 
     long--for 50 years--and has been so shrouded in political 
     foliage that many people have forgotten just what it entails. 
     The current debate about it centers on the Clinton 
     administration's differences with the Russians on the one 
     hand and with the Republicans on the other. But in fact the 
     appeal of the treaty is a good deal simpler and more powerful 
     than the debate indicates. This treaty would put an end to 
     underground nuclear tests everywhere; tests above ground 
     already are proscribed either by treaty or by political 
     calculation. Its merits shine through.
       Testing is the principal engine of nuclear proliferation. 
     Without tests, a would-be nuclear power cannot be sure enough 
     the thing would work to employ it as a reliable military and 
     political instrument. Leaving open the testing option means 
     leaving open the proliferation option--the very definition of 
     instability. The United states, which enjoys immense global 
     nuclear advantage, can only be the loser as additional 
     countries go nuclear or extend their nuclear reach. The 
     aspiring nuclear powers, whether they are anti-American rogue 
     states or friendly-to-America parties to regional disputes, 
     sow danger and uncertainty across a global landscape. No 
     nation possibly can gain more than we do from universal 
     acceptance of a test ban that helps close off others' 
     options.
       At the moment, the treaty is hung up in the Senate by 
     Republicans desiring to use it as a hostage for a national 
     missile defense of their particular design. This is curious. 
     The obstructionists pride themselves in believing American 
     power to be the core of American security. Why then do they 
     support a test ban holdup that multiplies the mischief and 
     menace of proliferators and directly erodes American power? 
     The idea has spread that Americans must choose between a test 
     ban treaty and a missile defense. The idea is false. These 
     are two aspects of a single American security program, the 
     one being a first resort to restrain others' nuclear 
     ambitions and the other a last resort to limit the damage if 
     all else fails. No reasonable person would want to cast one 
     of these away, least of all over details of missile program 
     design. Those in the Senate who are forcing an either-or 
     choice owe it to the country to explain why we cannot employ 
     them both.
       The old bugaboo of verification has arisen in the current 
     debate. There is no harm in conceding that verification of 
     low-yield tests might not be 100 percent. But the reasonable 
     measure of these things always has been whether the evasion 
     would make a difference. The answer has to be that cheating 
     so slight as to be undetectable by one or another American 
     intelligence means would not make much difference at all.
       The trump card of those who believe the United States 
     should maintain a testing option is that computer 
     calculations alone cannot provide the degree of certitude 
     about the reliability of weapons in the American stockpile 
     that would prudently allow us to forgo tests. This is a 
     matter of continuing contention among the specialists. But 
     what seems to us much less in contention is the proposition 
     that, given American technological prowess, the risk of 
     weapons rotting in the American stockpile has got to be a 
     good deal less than the risk that other countries will test 
     their way to nuclear status.
       The core question of proliferation remains what will induce 
     would-be proliferators to get off the nuclear track. 
     Certainly a ``mere'' signature on a piece of paper would not 
     stay the hand of a country driven by extreme nuclear fear or 
     ambition. Two things, however, could make a difference. One 
     is if the nuclear powers showed themselves ready to accept 
     some increasing part of the discipline they are calling on 
     non-nuclear others to accept, so that the treaty could not be 
     dismissed as punitive and discriminatory. The other is that 
     when you embrace the test ban and related restraints on 
     chemical and biological weapons, you are joining a global 
     order in which those who play by the agreed rules enjoy ever-
     widening benefits and privileges and those who do not are 
     left out and behind.
       President Clinton signed the test ban treaty, and achieving 
     Senate ratification is one of his prime foreign policy goals. 
     More important, ratification would make the world a safer 
     place for the United States. Much still has to be worked out 
     with the Republicans and the Russians, but that is detail 
     work. The larger gain is now within American reach.

  The editorial says the following:

       The core question of proliferation remains what will induce 
     would-be proliferators to get off the nuclear track. 
     Certainly a ``mere'' signature on a piece of paper would not 
     stay the hand of a country driven by extreme nuclear fear or 
     ambition. Two things, however, could make a difference. One 
     is if the nuclear powers showed themselves ready to accept 
     some increasing part of the discipline they are calling on 
     non-nuclear others to accept, so that the treaty could not be 
     dismissed as punitive and discriminatory. The other is that 
     when you embrace the test ban and related restraints on 
     chemical and biological weapons, you are joining a global 
     order in which those who play by the agreed rules enjoy ever-
     widening benefits and privileges and those who do not are 
     left out and behind.

  The point is that this country must demonstrate moral leadership on 
this issue and must do it now.
  Seventy to eighty percent of the American people support the 
ratification of this treaty. Most American people understand that this 
issue is about who is going to have access to nuclear weapons in the 
future. And, incidentally, on the issue of nonproliferation of nuclear 
weapons, which is about as important an issue as there is for us, this 
is a baby step. If we can't take the baby step of ratifying this 
treaty, what on Earth will be the result of tougher, more difficult 
things we are called upon to do?
  This isn't Republican or Democrat. It is a responsibility for all 
Members of the Senate to say it is outrageous that after 700 days, a 
treaty that has been signed and sent to the Senate has not been 
ratified or had one day of hearings. We have an obligation and a 
responsibility. We, in my judgment, have

[[Page S10542]]

a right to expect this be brought to the floor for a debate and a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

                          ____________________