[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24083-24084]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the President invited a number of 
Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to the White House last night 
for dinner, including the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who is 
now presiding. I had expressed a view publicly before the dinner began 
that I thought the vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty should be 
deferred; it should not be held on Tuesday. I have stated that position 
because it is plain that there are not enough votes in the Senate to 
pass the treaty. I favor the treaty. I said so publicly some time ago. 
I think it is also not timely to take up the treaty on the existing 
schedule because of the complexity of the issue.
  Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee held 5 hours of hearings. I 
attended part of them. The subject matter is very complicated. It is my 
judgment that Senators are not really prepared to vote on the matter 
and that the vote may take on partisan overtones, political overtones, 
party partisan overtones, which I think would be very undesirable.
  It has been reported publicly that all 45 Democrats are in favor of 
the treaty; that there are only a very few Republicans who are in favor 
of the treaty, and that many Senators on both sides have really not had 
an opportunity to study the treaty in depth to have positions which 
might lead some to disagree with the party position.
  It is my thinking that it would be calamitous--a very strong word, 
but I think that is the right word--if the Senate were to reject the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. At the present time around the world, 
many eyebrows are raised because the Senate has not ratified the 
treaty. But if the Senate were to reject the treaty, then it would be 
highly publicized worldwide. It would be an open excuse for countries 
such as India and Pakistan to continue nuclear testing, which I think 
is very undesirable, destabilizing that area of the world, and give an 
excuse for rogue nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and other rogue 
nations to test, and it would be very undesirable.
  It is a complicated issue because our distinguished majority leader 
has scheduled the vote under a unanimous consent agreement with the 
minority leader after very substantial pressures have been building up 
with many floor statements demanding a vote.
  The majority leader gave them what they asked for, and it was agreed 
to. It is not an easy matter to have that unanimous consent agreement 
vitiated. Any Senator can object to the vote. We will go ahead and 
schedule it. The administration has expressed the view it does not want 
to make a commitment to have no vote during the year 2000. The leader 
has propounded a substitute unanimous consent agreement, as I 
understand it--I wasn't on the floor at the time--which would vitiate 
the unanimous consent agreement on the condition that no vote be held 
in the year 2000.
  The administration takes the position if they were to agree to that, 
or go along with it, that it would look as if they were backing off the 
treaty and it would be complicated for other world leaders as to how 
the administration would explain that kind of a position when we were 
pressing other nations to

[[Page 24084]]

stop nuclear testing and to end proliferation.
  It may be the matter is really for the Senate without the 
administration. We set our own schedule. Perhaps a group of Senators 
representing both Democrats and Republicans could take the 
responsibility to oppose a vote during the year 2000.
  Another idea which occurred to me this morning was to have a vote in 
the year 2000 but have it after the election so the treaty does not 
become embroiled in Presidential politics. One of the key Democrats 
expressed the view that he would oppose considering the treaty in the 
year 2000 because it would become embroiled in Presidential politics 
and surely lose.
  If a debate were to be scheduled by mid-November and then a vote held 
in November that could accommodate the interests of not having it 
involved in a Presidential campaign and still give President Clinton an 
opportunity to have the treaty decided upon during his tenure as 
President with him being in the position to advocate.
  I make these comments because I think with the schedule for debate on 
Friday and then again on Tuesday and a scheduled vote on Tuesday that 
time is of the essence--in this case very much the essence, not unlike 
that expression which has arisen in real estate transactions--that 
there are very serious international implications.
  I know many Senators will be following up on the dinner meeting of 
last night by communicating with our distinguished majority leader and 
by communicating with people on both sides to see if we can accommodate 
all of the competing interests.
  We are facing one of the most important votes of our era. It will set 
back arms control and nonproliferation very substantially if this 
treaty goes down. If after study and deliberation and an adequate time 
for debate the treaty is rejected, so be it. That is constitutional 
process. But to have it go down with the kinds of pressures to schedule 
it, and a schedule which has been entered into knowingly with leaders 
on both sides having unanimous consent agreements all the time, and any 
suggestion that there is any inappropriate conduct on anybody's part is 
totally unfounded. That is the way we operate. But, as I view it, it is 
an unwise course for the reasons I have stated.

                          ____________________