[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.
____________________