[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12468-S12469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are several issues that have been 
debated on the floor this morning, and it is typical of the Senate, 
which considers myriad issues, to consider some that are quite 
contrasting. To move from nuclear proliferation to help for soybean 
growers is about as much a contrast as you could ask for. But it 
reflects the workload that we face in the Senate, and it reflects the 
diversity of issues with which we have to deal.
  I will speak very briefly to the issue of the nuclear 
nonproliferation treaty. This nuclear test ban treaty, which may be 
considered for a vote this afternoon, could be one of the most 
significant votes ever cast by many Members of the Senate. It appears 
the vote will be overwhelmingly in favor of the treaty on the 
Democratic side of the aisle, with a handful of Republican Senators 
joining us--not enough to enact this treaty into law and to ratify it 
so that it becomes virtually a law governing the United States. If that 
occurs, if we defeat this treaty this afternoon--as it appears we are 
headed to do--it could be one of the single most irresponsible acts 
ever by the Senate.
  Let me give specifics. It was only a few hours ago, in Pakistan, that 
a military coup took place and replaced the administration of Mr. 
Sharif. Mr. Sharif had been elected. He was a man with whom we had 
dealt. He was a person who at least came out of the democratic process. 
But he was toppled. We have not had that experience in the United 
States, and I pray we never will. But the military leaders decided they 
had had enough of Mr. Sharif. They weren't going to wait for an 
election. They decided to take over. It appears from the press reports 
that the source of their anger was the fact that Mr. Sharif had not 
aggressively pursued the war against India, nor had he escalated the 
nuclear testing that took place just a few months ago.

[[Page S12469]]

  You may remember, on the Fourth of July, the President of the United 
States of America stayed in the White House for a special meeting--a 
rare meeting on a very important national holiday with Mr. Sharif of 
Pakistan, where he laid down the rule to him that we didn't want to see 
the Pakistani army engaged in the militia tactics against the Indians 
in an escalated fight over their territory in Kashmir. He produced, I 
am told, satellite imagery that verified that the Pakistanis were 
involved, and he told Mr. Sharif to stop right then and there. If this 
escalated, two nascent nuclear powers could see this develop into a 
conflagration that could consume greater parts of Asia. The President 
was persuasive. Sharif went home and the tension seemed to decline--
until yesterday when the military took over.
  Why does that have any significance with our vote on a nuclear test 
ban treaty? How on God's Earth can the United States of America argue 
to India and Pakistan to stop this madness of testing nuclear weapons 
and escalating the struggle when we reject a treaty that would end 
nuclear testing once and for all? It is really talking out of both 
sides of your mouth.
  This nuclear test ban treaty had been supported originally by 
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, Democratic and Republican 
Presidents, over the years. It was President George Bush who 
unilaterally said we will stop nuclear testing in the United States. He 
did not believe that it compromised our national defense, and he 
certainly was a Republican.

  If you listen to the arguments of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, you would think this is just a cut and dried partisan issue, 
with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other. The polling 
tells us that 82 percent of the American people want us to pass this 
test ban treaty. They understand full well that if more and more 
nations around the world acquire nuclear weapons, it doesn't make the 
United States any safer; it makes the world more dangerous. Leaders in 
some of these countries, who should not be entrusted with a cap gun, 
will end up with a nuclear weapon, and we will have to worry whether 
they have the delivery capability.
  Why is a nuclear test an important part of it? You can't take this 
nuclear concept from a tiny little model on a bench and move it up to a 
bomb that can destroy millions of people without testing it. If you 
stop the testing, you stop the progress of these countries. Some say 
there will be rogue nations that will ignore that, that they don't care 
if you sign a treaty in the United States; they are going to go ahead 
and build their weapons.
  I don't think any of us would suggest that we can guarantee a 
nuclear-free world or a nuclear-controlled world by a treaty. But ask 
yourself a basic question: Are we a safer world if we have a nuclear 
test ban treaty that puts sensing devices in 350 different locations so 
we can detect these tests that occur? Are we a safer world if we have a 
regime in place where one nation can challenge another and say, ``I 
think you have just engaged in the development of a nuclear weapon you 
are about to test, and under the terms of the treaty I have a right to 
send in an international inspection team to answer the question once 
and for all.''
  Why, of course, we are a safer world if those two things occur. They 
will not occur if the Republicans beat down this treaty today, as they 
have promised they will. An old friend of mine--now passed away--from 
the city of Chicago, said, ``When it comes to politics, there is always 
a good reason and a real reason.''
  The so-called good reason for opposing the treaty has to do with this 
belief that it doesn't cover every nation and every possible test.
  The real reason, frankly, that a lot of them are nervous about going 
against this treaty is the fear that in a week or a month or a few 
months we will have another member of the nuclear club; in a week or a 
month or a few months we will have more testing between India and 
Pakistan; in a few weeks we may see what is happening in Pakistan 
disintegrating further and then having to worry about whether there 
will be nuclear weapons used in the process of their confrontation with 
India.
  Those who vote to defeat the treaty will wear that collar, and they 
will know full well that they missed the signal opportunity for the 
United States to have the moral leadership to say our policy of no 
nuclear testing should be the world policy; it makes us safer. It makes 
the world safer.
  Sadly, we have spent virtually no time in having committee hearings 
necessary for a treaty of this complexity, and a very limited time for 
floor debate. It is a rush to judgment. I am afraid the judgment has 
already been made. But ultimately the judgment will be made in November 
of the year 2000 when the American voters have their voice in this 
process. Our debates on the floor will be long forgotten. But the 
voters will have the final voice as to which was the moral, responsible 
course of action to enact a treaty supported by Presidents Eisenhower 
and Kennedy, and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a treaty 
that really gives us an opportunity for a safer world, or to turn our 
backs on it.
  I sincerely hope that enough Republicans on that side of the aisle 
will muster the political courage to join us. The right thing to do is 
to pass this treaty.

                          ____________________