[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 50 (Thursday, April 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2953-S2955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              ARMS CONTROL

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee spoke on the floor of the Senate on the 
subject of arms control. He is a distinguished Member of the Senate, 
someone for whom I have high regard, but someone with whom I have 
strong disagreement on this subject. I will speak this morning about 
the presentation he made yesterday and its relationship to a range of 
other issues we face.
  The front page of the Washington Post this morning has a headline: 
``Helms Vows to Obstruct Arms Pacts, Any New Clinton Accord With Russia 
Ruled Out.'' It is a story about the presentation made yesterday by the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in which he stated that any 
arms control agreement negotiated by this administration is going to be 
dead on arrival in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With all due 
respect to the Washington Post, that is not news. The Foreign Relations 
Committee has been a morgue for arms control for a long time. In fact, 
this Congress has been a morgue for arms control. Everything dealing 
with arms control has been dead on arrival in this Congress and in that 
committee for several years.
  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference is now being 
held in New York. At that conference the world is looking to this 
country for leadership in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
and stopping the spread the missiles, submarines, and bombers with 
which those nuclear weapons are delivered. Regrettably, this country 
has abandoned its leadership on the arms control issue.
  I will include in the Record several editorials: one is the April 26 
edition of the Chicago Tribune entitled ``Russia Takes Arms Control 
Lead.'' It discusses the Russian Duma's approval of Start II and the 
approval of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban treaty by the Russians. 
Another is from the April 26 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled, 
``Will the United States Lead or Follow on the Issue of Arms Control.'' 
Another is from the April 27 Dallas Morning News with the title ``Arms 
Control, the Senate Needs to Stop Playing with Nuclear Fire.'' And the 
last is this morning's column in the Washington Post by Mary McGrory 
entitled ``Nuclear Family Values.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent these four editorials be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the statement made yesterday by the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was a statement that says, 
we don't know what you might negotiate. It has not yet been negotiated; 
a proposal does not yet exist. But whatever it is and whatever it might 
be, we intend to kill it. It will be dead in my committee.
  That is not what this country ought to be doing with the subject of 
arms control. As we meet in the Senate discussing a range of things, 
and especially discussing, more recently, the case of Elian Gonzalez, 
which seems to have co-opted so much attention in this country, other 
countries around the world aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. The 
spread of nuclear weapons is a very serious matter. Will more and more 
countries have access to nuclear bombs and the means by which to 
deliver those nuclear weapons, or will this country provide leadership 
in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons?
  Arms control agreements have worked. Those in this Congress who have 
stopped arms control agreements and who have said any future agreements 
will be dead in our committee or in this Congress are wrong. It is the 
wrong policy for this country. Our country should instead be saying we 
embrace thoughtful, reasonable, arms control agreements that make this 
a safer world.
  This picture shows some of what the Senate and the Congress have done 
in the past on arms control agreements and why they work. This is a 
picture of a missile silo. This used to hold an SS-19, a Soviet and 
then Russian missile. The missile in this silo had several warheads 
aimed at the United States of America. The threat from those warheads 
doesn't exist anymore. The missile is gone. The silo was filled in. The 
ground is plowed over and there are now sunflowers on top. Is that 
progress? You bet your life it is progress.

  But it is not just missile silos. Here is the dismantling of a 
Russian Delta class ballistic missile submarine. This used to be a 
submarine that would find its way stealthily through the waters with 
missiles and nuclear warheads aimed at American cities and targets. It 
is no longer a submarine. Here is a piece of copper wire that is ground 
up that used to be on that Russian submarine. Did we sink that 
submarine in hostile action? No. Through the Nunn-Lugar threat 
reduction program, the Pentagon actually dismantled that Russian 
submarine.
  More than that, we are sawing the wings off Russian bombers. Here is 
a picture of the Nunn-Lugar program cutting the wings off TU-95 heavy 
bombers. Why is the Pentagon cutting the wings off those bombers? 
Because we have had arms control agreements with Russia that have 
called for the reduction of bombers, missiles, nuclear warheads. Six 
thousand Russian nuclear warheads have been eliminated--6,000. That is 
the explosive equivalent of 175,000 nuclear bombs like those dropped on 
Hiroshima. Let me repeat that. Arms control agreements with Russia have 
eliminated the threat from nuclear weapons with destructive power 
equivalent to 175,000 bombs the size of the nuclear bomb dropped on 
Hiroshima.
  We have people in the Congress who say: We don't like arms control. 
We want to build new things. We want to build new missiles. We want to 
build new missile defense systems. We want to build and we want to 
spend money building. What they do is light the fuse of a new arms 
race.
  Without some new effort in arms control to reduce the threat of 
nuclear weapons, we will see a new arms race--expensive, dangerous, and 
one that will hold the world hostage for some time to come. Our job 
ought to be to find ways to reduce the nuclear threat, not expand it; 
to find ways to create arms control agreements that work.
  Again, I have deep respect for all of my colleagues, even those with 
whom I have serious disagreements. I certainly have serious 
disagreements in this circumstance. But I don't understand an 
announcement that says, whatever the President might negotiate in arms 
control, even though it is not yet negotiated, even though we don't 
know the specifics, whatever it might be with respect to arms control, 
we pledge to you that it is dead. That is not leadership. That is 
destructive to good public policy. If we can negotiate with the 
Russians and others sensible, thoughtful arms control agreements that 
advance this country's interests, enhance world safety and security, 
then we ought to be willing to embrace it, not shun it.
  I regret very much the announcement that there will be no hearings on 
any negotiations on arms control. We are quick to hold hearings on the 
Elian Gonzalez case. We have people doing cartwheels around the Chamber 
saying: Let's hold hearings; let's investigate. We can hold hearings on 
the Elian Gonzalez case, but somehow there will be no movement, no 
hearings, no discussion on the issue of arms control if, God forbid, we 
should be able to achieve some sort of breakthrough in an arms control 
agreement with the Russians or others.
  In conclusion, it is our responsibility, it falls on our shoulders in 
the United

[[Page S2954]]

States to be a world leader on these issues. It is our responsibility 
to lead. We are the remaining nuclear and economic superpower in the 
world. It is our responsibility to lead, not towards another arms race 
but towards more arms control and towards stopping the spread of 
nuclear weapons.
  Let's not have more countries joining the nuclear club. Let's not 
have more proliferation of the technology of missiles and submarines 
and nuclear weapons spread around the world. To those who say we are 
threatened by North Korea being able to send a missile with a warhead 
to threaten the Aleutian Islands, I say this: Almost anyone who thinks 
through this understands there are a myriad of threats our country 
faces. The least likely is a threat by an intercontinental ballistic 
missile from a rogue nation. It is far more likely that a truck bomb, 
far more likely that a suitcase bomb, far more likely that a deadly 
biological or chemical agent would be used to threaten or hold hostage 
this country. It is far more likely that a cruise missile would be 
used. It is, in my judgment, the least likely option that a rogue 
nation would have access to and acquire an intercontinental ballistic 
missile and use that as a threat against this country.
  Having said that, I think we will now have a struggle between those 
who desperately want to build a national missile defense system at any 
cost in taxpayers' money, at any cost in arms control, at any cost, as 
contrasted with those of us who believe it is still our responsibility 
to make this a safer world by understanding that arms control has 
worked and has reduced the number of nuclear weapons. But we are not 
nearly finished. We must move to START III, we must preserve the ABM 
Treaty, and we must have new, aggressive, bold and energetic leadership 
in the U.S. to say it is our job to stop the spread of nuclear weapons 
to make this a safer world.
  That burden falls upon this country and, regrettably, this Congress 
has not been willing to assume that responsibility. It is, in fact, all 
too often marching in exactly the opposite direction. We need to put it 
back on track and say it is our job, and we willingly and gladly accept 
that responsibility to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to negotiate 
good arms control agreements that don't threaten our security, but 
enhance it by reducing the threat of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 26, 2000]

                     Russia Takes Arms Control Lead

       In just one week's time, Russia has broken a legislative 
     logjam that had stymied for years any action on reducing its 
     formidable nuclear arsenal and forestalling the further 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons.
       With passage of START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban 
     Treaty, the Russian Duma has handed president-elect Vladimir 
     Putin major victories and created, for the United States, 
     something of a dilemma.
       Russia can claim to be a leader in arms control and point 
     its finger reproachfully at the U.S. Russia can say America 
     is now the laggard. Russia can say America is seeking to 
     destabilize the bedrock agreement of mutual deterrence during 
     the Cold War--the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
       The U.S. is seeking changes in that treaty to permit it to 
     develop a missile defense intended to protect the nation 
     against attacks from rogue nations such as North Korea and 
     Iraq. The technology is unproven and the cost estimates 
     already skyrocketing, but there is support in both parties 
     for a missile defense of some kind.
       This is an unwelcome change in global public relations. 
     Until last October, the U.S. could rightly argue it was doing 
     all it could to lead the movement to control the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, and that 
     Russia was the obstinate player. The U.S. Senate in 1996 
     ratified the START II treaty--calling for the nuclear 
     arsenals of the U.S. and Russia to be cut roughly in half. 
     The test ban treaty had not been ratified by the U.S.--but it 
     hadn't been ratified by Russia either.
       Last October, though, the U.S. Senate rejected the test ban 
     treaty. Now Russia has agreed to it. That puts Russia in the 
     company of Britain and France--also among the five early 
     nuclear powers--which have signed and ratified the CTBT. And 
     it lumps the U.S. with the only other early nuclear power 
     that has not--China.
       Though it might argue as such, this is not exactly a case 
     of Russia acting out of nobility. Russia has significant 
     economic as well as strategic reasons for moving on these 
     long-stalled arms treaties. It cannot afford to maintain its 
     existing nuclear arsenal, and any reduction in warheads helps 
     free up scarce resources for other military needs.
       As well, the CTBT vote places no immediate demands on 
     Russia. Though the treaty has been signed by more than 150 
     nations and ratified by 52, its ban on test explosions would 
     take effect only after each of the 44 nations deemed to have 
     some nuclear capability ratifies it.
       Regardless of motives, Russia has taken the lead and put 
     the U.S. on the defensive--and that's not a comfortable 
     position for this nation.
                                  ____


          [From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Apr. 26, 2000]

                       Will U.S. Lead, or Follow?

       During the Cold War, the United States was the world 
     champion of nuclear arms control, and the Soviet Union was 
     the unwilling partner that had to be dragged along. In the 
     post-Cold War era, the tables have not been exactly turned; 
     but the furniture has been rearranged, putting the U.S. in 
     the unbecoming role of Dr. No.
       Last week, the lower house of parliament in Russia approved 
     the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As its name suggests, the 
     treaty bans the testing of nuclear weapons and thereby 
     constrains their development. Just the week before, the 
     Russian parliament approved another major accord: the second 
     Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which nearly halves the 
     nuclear arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia.
       Putting themselves firmly on record in support of the arms-
     control process, the Russian lawmakers conditioned their 
     approval of these treaties on continued U.S. adherence to the 
     Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which prohibits 
     national anti-missile defense systems.
       Compare these impressive and unambiguous Kremlin decisions 
     with the dismal U.S. record in recent years. The Senate beat 
     the Russians to the punch on START II, ratifying that treaty 
     in 1996. Since then, U.S. leadership on arms control has all 
     but died.
       In October, the Senate refused to ratify the test ban 
     treaty, partly because the Clinton administration never 
     bothered to campaign for it. Meantime, the administration--
     pushed by Repubicans--is considering whether to deploy a 
     limited missile shield that would violate the ABM treaty.
       The White House is trying to persuade the Russians to amend 
     that treaty to allow for a missile defense, but the Russians 
     are having none of it. Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the 
     presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has said the 
     U.S. should withdraw from the treaty if the Russians refuse 
     to revise it.
       Thus, the U.S. threatens to dismantle an arms control 
     structure that has taken years to build, while Russia 
     bolsters it. This role reversal would be justified were arms 
     treaties obsolete. But they aren't. If nuclear war has been 
     averted over the last half-century, it is partly because of 
     these agreements.
       It's time for the U.S. to make a U-turn. The administration 
     should start lobbying Congress and the country in behalf of 
     the test ban so that it can be ratified by the Senate next 
     year. And, rather than weaken or withdraw from the ABM 
     treaty, the U.S. should see that it is strengthened.
                                  ____


             [From the Dallas Morning News, Apr. 27, 2000]

                              Arms Control


             senate needs to stop playing with nuclear fire

       Good news! Russia's parliament ratified the START II 
     nuclear arms-reduction treaty this month. The U.S. Senate 
     ratified it in 1996.
       Therefore, the treaty, which would reduce the deployed 
     warheads in each country's arsenal to no more than 3,500 from 
     6,000, may at last take effect, right?
       Wrong.
       The treaty won't take effect until the U.S. Senate ratifies 
     protocols to the treaty that the countries signed in 1997. 
     The protocols extend the arms-reduction deadline to 2007 from 
     2003 and formally designate Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and 
     Ukraine as successors to the 1972 U.S.-Soviet anti-ballistic 
     missile treaty.
       One would think that the Senate would leap at the chance to 
     ratify the protocols for the sake of achieving verifiable 
     reductions in Russia's nuclear arsenal. But the body isn't 
     interested. Its Republican majority adamantly wants to build 
     a defense against missile attacks by rogue states, which is 
     illegal under the U.S.-Soviet anti-ballistic treaty.
       No problem. President Clinton is trying to negotiate 
     amendments to the anti-ballistic missile treaty that would 
     permit the United States to build a limited national missile 
     defense. It's a worthwhile project. Once he convinces the 
     Russians to agree, the Senate will ratify the amendments and 
     the protocols so that START II could be implemented, right?
       Wrong again.
       The Republicans want a granddaddy missile defense. They 
     want, in effect, ``Star Wars.'' Twenty-five of them, 
     including Texas' Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison and 
     Majority Leader Trent Lott, wrote Mr. Clinton on April 18 
     that his proposed limited defense was too limited.
       It takes only 34 senators to defeat a treaty. So even if 
     Mr. Clinton succeeds in amending the anti-ballistic missile 
     treaty, the Senate would probably defeat it and the 
     protocols, which means no START II. If the United States 
     should proceed to build an ample missile defense more to the 
     Republicans' liking, Russia might carry out its threat to 
     abrogate the entire range of bilateral arms-reduction 
     treaties with the United States, which would spell the end of 
     arms control as we know it.

[[Page S2955]]

       The United States is beginning to look as if it isn't 
     interested in arms control. The Senate last year rejected a 
     good treaty that would have permanently banned nuclear tests. 
     The lower house of Russia's parliament approved the same 
     treaty on April 21. Now, the Senate is holding START II 
     hostage to amendments to an anti-ballistic missile treaty 
     that it probably would not ratify.
       Meanwhile, U.S. negotiators keep telling their Russian 
     counterparts that the limited missile defense would defend 
     against rogue states, while hawkish senators hold out for a 
     full-blown system whose principle object would be to defend 
     against Russia.
       To its credit, the administration is talking with Russia 
     about a START III treaty, which would reduce the number of 
     deployed warheads to no more than 2,500. But those talks are 
     hampered by the stalemates over START II and missile 
     defenses.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 27, 2000]

                         Nuclear Family Values

                           (By Mary McGrory)

       The fate of mankind vs. the fate of one 6-year-old Cuban 
     boy? It is not a contest in the U.S. Senate. Elian wins going 
     away.
       Russia's new president, Vladimir Putin, can't get anyone's 
     attention on Capitol Hill, even though his first moves in 
     office could have beneficial effects on the whole world and 
     are at least as noteworthy as Janet Reno's pre-dawn raid on 
     Elian Gonzalez's Miami home.
       Putin passed two treaties through the Russian parliament 
     with wide majorities, indicating at a minimum that he had a 
     grip on the legislature and some idea of a new image for 
     Russia: START II reduces the number of nuclear weapons, and 
     the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate rejected 
     last year, bans all tests.
       But is anyone hailing a new day in arms control? Is anyone 
     rejoicing? No. Putin has done very well. But his name is not 
     Gonzalez.
       On the Senate floor, Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee, who is just as much a dictator 
     as Castro, from whom many Republicans want to save Elian, 
     announced that there would be no hearings on this wicked 
     nonsense from Putin. But there will be emergency hearings on 
     Elian, beginning next week.
       When Putin on April 15 put it to Bill Clinton that he could 
     have a choice between fewer nuclear weapons and a national 
     missile defense system, the reaction of Republican senators 
     was outrage. Led by their majority leader, Trent Lott, they 
     dashed off a letter to the president, warning him that it was 
     all a plot to foil a version of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars.
       The national missile defense system doesn't work and it 
     costs $60 billion going in. But hang the tests and hang the 
     expense, the Republicans want to start pouring concrete. Not 
     that they are talking about it, mind you. They are busing 
     planning to air for the country all the recriminations and 
     second-guessing since a petrified Elian was hauled out of a 
     closet by a helmeted, goggled creature with bared teeth and 
     an automatic weapon.
       The Republicans love that picture almost as much as they 
     love Star Wars, and they are not going to let it go. They 
     quizzed Attorney General Reno for almost two hours Tuesday 
     morning. In the afternoon, Leader Lott, fairly vibrating with 
     anticipation, explained that the public had a right to know 
     just what state the peace negotiations had been at the time 
     of the dawn raid. Janet Reno's answers had not been 
     satisfactory.
       All day in the halls, Senate Elian-celebrities were giving 
     interviews. There was Republican Sen. Connie Mack of Florida, 
     who had been stood up by Elian's great-uncle Lazaro Gonzalez, 
     Lazaro's operatic daughter Marisleysis, and Donato Dalrymple, 
     one of Elian's rescuers. There was Florida's other senator, 
     Bob Graham (D), who also had a grievance. He kept telling 
     anyone who would listen that the president of the United 
     States, sitting in the Oval Office, had given his personal 
     word that no snatch would be undertaken at night. You can 
     almost hear Bill Clinton triumphantly responding, ``It was 5 
     o'clock in the morning.''
       Perhaps the most put out was Republican Sen. Robert C. 
     Smith of New Hampshire, who had taken Lazaro's troupe to the 
     Capitol when they landed after their dramatic dash in hot 
     pursuit of their little boarder. They have been turned away 
     at the gate of Andrews Air Force Base, twice. ``Wait until 
     defense appropriations time,'' growled veteran Republican 
     lobbyist Tom Korologos.
       Republicans have been warned by their pollsters that the 
     public, by a wide margin, has thought all along that Elian 
     should be sent home to his father. The public hated the 
     picture of the child at gunpoint but they loved pictures 
     taken at Andrews--pictures that showed a beaming Elian 
     leaning on his father's shoulder and playing with his baby 
     stepbrother.
       What legislation would come out of hearings is hard to 
     imagine. There's little hope of wisdom, either. Maybe 
     Marisleysis Gonzalez should be asked about her enviable 
     health plan. She's been in and out of the hospital eight 
     times in the past month, suffering from the vapors visited on 
     a surrogate mom. And somebody might want to inquire of the 
     attorney general if she had considered dispensing with the 
     helmet and the goggles that made the Immigration and 
     Naturalization gunman such a sinister figure. Wasn't a 
     machine gun sufficiently intimidating? Did she make it clear 
     to the crew that the child is not a drug lord? While all this 
     melodrama was swirling around, the Senate in its chamber was 
     tampering again with the Constitution--an amendment for 
     victims' rights. The Constitution should not be messed with. 
     Another document better left alone is the Anti-Ballistic 
     Missile Treaty.
       We need that handsome woman who threw the blanket over 
     Elian on Saturday morning and rushed him off the scene. She 
     should do the same for the Senate until it gets a grip on its 
     priorities.
                                  ____

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that under the time 
reserved for Senator Durbin I may speak for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________