[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24102-24103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the Senate proceeds toward its still-
scheduled debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I am confident 
that the record will show most former senior U.S. government officials 
remain strongly opposed to Senate ratification of the CTBT.
  The Senate--and the American people--will hear from many 
distinguished officials in the coming days, as they speak out against 
the CTBT. Of course, the Clinton Administration will try to counter 
that other well-known people support the CTBT, but those who support 
ratification of this proposed total nuclear test ban are a distinct 
minority.
  In looking over the record, however, I found that many of the very 
people the Clinton Administration claims now support such a permanent 
and total nuclear test ban treaty in fact explicitly rejected it when 
they served in the U.S. Senate and in uniform.
  They argued at that time (a) that such a test ban was unverifiable, 
and (b) that the U.S. needs to preserve the ability to conduct nuclear 
tests if the American people are to be assured of the safety and 
reliability of our nuclear weapons.
  Make no mistake: These are all great Americans, whom I admire and 
respect, who served their country with distinction. In calling 
attention to their statements of the past for the record today, I 
certainly imply no disrespect.
  To the contrary, I hope the record will reflect their judgements at 
that time because I believe that those judgements on a zero-yield test 
ban were right back then--and those judgements are still right today.
  For example, as a U.S. Senator, our distinguished former colleague, 
Bill Cohen of Maine, was a leading light on defense issues in the U.S. 
Senate. Indeed, he vigorously objected to the termination of nuclear 
testing when he

[[Page 24103]]

served here as a U.S. Senator. He objected, he said, because the 
termination of nuclear testing would undermine efforts to make U.S. 
weapons safer.
  Throughout the months of August and September 1992, Senator Cohen 
vigorously fought efforts by Senators Mitchell, Exon, and Hatfield to 
kill the United States nuclear test program.
  Here is a sample of Senator Cohen's 1992 views as expressed on the 
Senate floor on September 18 of that year seven years ago:

       We have made, in fact, remarkable progress in negotiating 
     substantial reductions in nuclear arsenals. While we have 
     made substantial reductions, we are not yet on the verge of 
     eliminating nuclear weapons from our inventories. We are 
     going to have to live with nuclear weapons for some time to 
     come, so we have to ask ourselves the question: Exactly what 
     kinds of nuclear weapons do we want to have during that time?

  Senator Bill Cohen declared further seven years ago:

       . . . [W]hat remains relevant is the fact that many of 
     these nuclear weapons which we intend to keep in our 
     stockpile for the indefinite future are dangerously unsafe. 
     Equally relevant is the fact that we can make these weapons 
     much safer if limited testing is allowed to be conducted. So, 
     when crafting our policy regarding nuclear testing, this 
     should be our principal objective: To make the weapons we 
     retain safe.
       . . . The amendment that was adopted last week . . . does 
     not meet this test . . . [because] it would not permit the 
     Department of Energy to conduct the necessary testing to make 
     our weapons safe.

  Similarly, Vice President Al Gore likewise adamantly opposed a 
``zero-yield'' test ban--i.e., one that would ban all nuclear tests--as 
a United States Senator, on the grounds that such a ban was 
unverifiable.
  Indeed, on May 12, 1988, Senator Gore objected to an amendment 
(offered to the 1989 defense bill) because it called for a test ban 
treaty and restricted all nuclear tests above 1 kiloton.
  A 1 kiloton limit ban, Senator Gore said at that time, was 
unverifiable. At Senator Gore's insistence, the proposed amendment was 
modified to raise the limit for nuclear testing from a 1 kiloton limit 
to a 5 kiloton limit.
  For the Record, here's what Senator Gore's position as taken on the 
Senate floor in 1988:

       Mr. President, I want to express a lingering concern about 
     the threshold contained in the amendment.
       Without regard to the military usefulness of lack of 
     usefulness of a 1 kiloton versus the 5 kiloton test, purely 
     with regard to verification, I am concerned that a 1 kiloton 
     test really pushes verification to the limit, even with 
     extensive cooperative measures. . . . I express the desire 
     that this threshold be changed from 1 to 5.

  If Senator Gore argued on the Senate floor that a 1 kiloton test ban 
was unverifiable, surely the zero-yield--ban--i.e. a ban on all nuclear 
tests would be equally unverifiable.
  President Clinton has argued that several former Chairmen of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly back his call for a Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty banning any and all nuclear tests.
  It's interesting that their statements, when they were still in 
uniform, however, raise doubts about Administration's claims that they 
vigorously support the CTBT. Consider, for example, what General Colin 
Powell, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said on December 1, 
1992:

       With respect to a comprehensive test ban, that has always 
     been a fundamental policy goal of ours, but as long as we 
     have nuclear weapons, we have a responsibility for making 
     sure that our stockpile remains safe. And to keep that 
     stockpile safe, we have to conduct a limited number of 
     nuclear tests to make sure that we know what a nuclear weapon 
     will actually do and how it is aging and to find out a lot of 
     other physical characteristics with respect to nuclear 
     phenomenon. . . . As long as we have nuclear weapons, I think 
     as good stewards of them, we have to conduct testing.

  General Powell previously had made much the same declaration during a 
Senate hearing on September 20, 1991:

       We need nuclear testing to ensure the safety, surety of our 
     nuclear stockpile. As long as one has nuclear weapons, you 
     have to know what it is they will do, and so I would 
     recommend nuclear testing.

  What General Powell said was as true back then as it is today.
  Similarly, Admiral William Crowe also opposed the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty while he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 5, 1986, 
he stated:

       [A comprehensive test ban] would introduce elements of 
     uncertainty that would be dangerous for all concerned.

  He further declared:

       I frankly do not understand why Congress would want to 
     suspend testing on one of the most critical and sophisticated 
     elements of our nuclear deterrent--namely the warhead.

  General David Jones likewise stated, during his confirmation hearing 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

       I would have difficulty recommending a zero test ban for an 
     extended period.

  Among the General's reasons for opposition were, according to a May 
29, 1978 press account, that the CTBT

     is not verifiable, and that U.S. stockpile reliability could 
     not be assured.

  Numerous press accounts from 1994 and 1995 indicated that General 
John Shalikashvili maintained strong reservations regarding a zero 
yield test ban, and made clear that he favored maintenance of the 
ability to conduct low-yield testing under any negotiated treaty.
  Indeed, these comments by these former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs--
while in uniform--strongly echo the current views of other former 
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, such as Admiral Tom Moorer and General 
John Vessey, Jr., both of whom today strongly oppose the CTBT.
  Again, I must emphasize that all of these men are distinguished 
Americans whom I greatly respect and admire.
  Indeed, my point today is simply to show that the arguments of 
Senators Cohen and Gore, and Chairmen Powell, Crowe, Jones and 
Shalikashvili were right then--and they are still right today:
  Nuclear testing is vital to maintaining the safety of our nuclear 
weapons and the reliability of our nuclear deterrent.
  A ``zero-yield''--i.e., a total and complete--nuclear test ban is 
unverifiable.
  A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that bars any and all nuclear testing 
is dangerous for the American people, and I am confident that the 
United States Senate will not ratify such a dangerous treaty.

                          ____________________