[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24126-24129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               THE COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I attended an event in the White 
House at which 31 nobel laureates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, four previous chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
Secretary of Defense, and the President, among many others, supported 
the ratification by the Senate of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 
Treaty.
  The point was made in those presentations that this treaty is not 
about politics. It is not about political parties. It is about the 
issue of the proliferation or spread of nuclear weapons and whether the 
United States of America should ratify a treaty signed by the President 
and sent to the Senate over 700 days ago that calls for a ban on all 
further testing of nuclear weapons all around the world.
  For some months, I have been coming to the floor of the Senate 
suggesting that after nearly 2 years we ought to be debating the 
question of whether this country should ratify the Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
  I have exhibited charts that have shown the Senate what has happened 
with respect to other treaties that have been sent to the Senate by 
various Presidents, how long it has taken for them to be considered, 
the conditions under which they were considered, and I have made the 
point that this treaty alone has languished for over 2 years without 
hearings and without discussion. Why? Because there are some in the 
Senate who oppose it and don't want it to be debated or voted upon.
  There are small issues and big issues in the course of events in the 
Senate. We spent many hours over a period of days debating whether to 
change the name of Washington's National Airport. What a debate that 
was--whether to change the name of Washington National Airport. That 
was a small issue. It was proposed that former President Reagan's name 
be put on that airport. Some agreed, some disagreed. We had a vote, 
after a debate over a number of days. The naming of an airport, in my 
judgment, is a small issue.
  An example of a big issue is whether we are going to do something as 
a country to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Now a big issue comes 
to the floor of the Senate in the form of a request for ratification of 
a treaty called the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is not a new 
idea, not a new issue. It started with President Dwight Eisenhower 
believing we ought to exhibit the leadership to see if we could stop 
all the testing of nuclear weapons around the rest of the world. It has 
taken over 40 years. Actually, 7 years ago this country took unilateral 
action and said: We are going to stop testing. We, the United States, 
will no longer

[[Page 24127]]

test nuclear weapons. So we took the lead, and we decided 7 years ago 
we would not any longer test nuclear weapons.
  The treaty that is now before the Senate, that was negotiated with 
many other countries around the world in the last 5 years and sent to 
the Senate over 2 years ago, is a treaty that answers the question: 
Will other countries do what we have done? Will we be able to persuade 
other countries to decide not to test nuclear weapons?
  Why is that important? Because no country that has nuclear weapons 
can acquire more advanced weaponry without testing. And no country that 
does not now have nuclear weapons can acquire nuclear weapons with any 
assurance they have nuclear weapons that work without testing. Prohibit 
testing, stop the testing of nuclear weapons, and you take a step in 
the direction of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons around this 
world.
  We have some 30,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of Russia and the 
United States. We have other countries that possess nuclear weapons. We 
have still other countries that want to possess nuclear weapons. We 
have a world that is a dangerous world with respect to the potential 
spread of nuclear weapons. The question is, what shall we do about 
that? What kind of behavior, what kind of response in this country, is 
appropriate to deal with that question?
  Some say the response is to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 
I believe that. I believe that very strongly. Others say this treaty 
will weaken our country, that this treaty is not good for our country, 
this treaty will sacrifice our security. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. Nothing. Some say that--not all--have never supported any 
arms control agreements, never liked them. I understand that, despite 
the fact those people have been wrong.
  Arms control agreements have worked. Actually, agreements that we 
have reached through the ratification of treaties have resulted in the 
reduction of nuclear warheads, the reduction of delivery vehicles. Some 
arms control treaties have worked. However, there are some who have not 
supported any of those treaties. I guess they are content to believe it 
is their job to oppose treaties. There are others who have supported 
previous treaties who somehow believe this treaty is inappropriate. 
Perhaps they read a newspaper article last week that said there are new 
appraisals or new assessments by the CIA that suggest it would be 
difficult for us to monitor low-level nuclear tests. That article was 
wrong. The article in the newspaper that said the CIA has a new 
assessment or a new report is wrong. The CIA has no new assessment. The 
CIA has no new reports. I have talked to the Director of the CIA. No 
such report and no such assessment exists.
  Do we have difficulty detecting low-level nuclear explosions, very 
low-level nuclear explosions? The answer is yes. But then, the answer 
is also: Yes; so what? Will the ability to detect those kinds of small 
explosions--explosions which, by the way, don't give anyone any 
enhanced capability in nuclear power or nuclear weaponry--will we be 
able to better detect those and better monitor those if we pass this 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? The answer to that is an unqualified 
yes.
  I have a chart to demonstrate what I mean. This chart shows the 
current monitoring network by which we attempt to monitor where nuclear 
tests may have occurred in the world. This bottom chart shows current 
monitoring. The top chart shows monitoring that will occur after we 
have a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in place. Is there anyone who can 
argue that having this enhanced monitoring in place will not enhance 
our capability of detecting nuclear weapons tests? Of course it will. 
That is why every senior military officer in this country who has been 
involved in this--from the Joint Chiefs to the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs to the other senior officers--have said passage of the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is good for this country and will not 
jeopardize this country's security. They know and we know it will 
enhance this country's ability to detect nuclear tests anywhere around 
the world.
  It baffles me that on an issue this big and this important, we have 
people who seem to not want to understand and debate the facts. I 
mentioned I have been on the floor for some months pushing for 
consideration of this treaty. Probably partly as a result of that, 
probably partly as a result of a letter that all 45 Members of the 
Democratic caucus sent to the majority leader saying we think the 
Senate ought to consider this treaty, we ought to have hearings, about 
a week ago the majority leader abruptly decided, all right, we will 
consider this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; we will consider it by 
having a vote in a matter of 10 days or so.
  We had held no hearings. This has not been a thoughtful process of 
consideration. We have not held comprehensive hearings; we have sparked 
no national debate. We will just go to a vote--as far as I am 
concerned, that is not a very responsible thing to do, but I won't 
object to that--go to a vote if that is what you want to do.
  It is very interesting how those in this Chamber treat the light 
seriously and treat the serious lightly. If ever there was a case of 
treating serious issues lightly, it is this. We have a treaty dealing 
with the banning of nuclear testing in this world, negotiated and 
signed by 145 countries, languishing here for 2 years, and now in 10 
days let's have a vote--and, by the way, we don't intend on having 
significant hearings.
  The Senator from Virginia indicated he will have hearings. I applaud 
him for that. He is a thoughtful Senator, in my judgment; I respect him 
deeply. He disagrees with me on this issue. I have deep respect for 
him. I think it is appropriate there are hearings being held this week. 
I think they probably thought--some thought--you can't call this up for 
a vote without at least showing you will have some hearings. I am told 
the requests to have people testify at the hearings who support the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was not met with great success. Who 
knows; we will see the record of that, I suppose, toward the end of the 
week.
  Let me show what our allies have done with respect to this treaty. We 
spent a lot of time on the floor of the Senate talking about NATO. We 
have been involved with NATO, in Kosovo and elsewhere. In fact, the 
Senate voted to expand NATO. NATO is an important security alliance. 
What have our NATO allies done with respect to this Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty? Most of them have already ratified it. Two of the NATO 
nuclear powers have ratified the treaty, England and France. NATO 
itself endorsed the treaty at the April 1999 conference. The United 
States has yet to ratify it. Some would say: Neither have China and 
Russia. Of course they are not NATO members. Neither have China nor 
Russia. That is true, they have not. They will, in my judgment, when 
this country ratifies it. They did when this country ratified the 
chemical weapons treaty.
  My point is this: I think this country has a responsibility to 
provide leadership, moral leadership, on an issue this important. Are 
there questions that can be raised about this treaty? Yes. And every 
single one of them can be answered easily and decisively, every one. 
There is not a question that has been raised that casts a shred of 
doubt on what the outcome ought to be on the vote in this Senate on 
this treaty. If you believe this country has a responsibility to 
provide leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the 
threat of nuclear war, then this Senate ought to ratify this treaty.
  Perhaps it would be useful to quote President Kennedy who succeeded 
President Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, 40 years ago, said:

       One of greatest regrets of any administration of any time 
     would be the failure to achieve a nuclear test ban treaty.

  President Kennedy, following President Eisenhower's lead, said the 
following:

       A comprehensive test ban would place the nuclear powers in 
     a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest 
     hazards man faces. It would increase our security. It

[[Page 24128]]

     would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is 
     sufficiently important to require steady pursuit, yielding 
     neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the 
     temptation to give up our insistence on responsible 
     safeguards.

  President Johnson said:

       We shall demonstrate that, despite all his problems, 
     quarrels and distractions, man still retains a capacity to 
     design his fate rather than be engulfed by it. Failure to 
     complete our work will be interpreted by our children and 
     grandchildren as a betrayal of conscience in a world that 
     needs all of its resources and talents to serve life, not 
     death.

  When Nikita Khrushchev, in discussions and dialog with President 
Kennedy, described nuclear war as ``a circumstance in which the living 
would envy the dead,'' that was almost 40 years ago, long, long ago, 
before we had arsenals of 30,000 nuclear weapons, some in airplanes, 
some on submarines, some on missiles, some in storage facilities, with 
many countries around the world wanting to achieve the opportunity to 
possess nuclear weapons.
  We have very few opportunities to do work as important as will be 
done if the Senate ratifies this treaty. My expectation is that when we 
debate this treaty in the coming couple of days--the schedule is for a 
debate Friday and a debate the following Tuesday--at the culmination of 
14 hours, we would discuss the advisability of the Senate ratifying 
this treaty. There will be a lot of discussion by those who believe it 
is ill advised and by those who believe it is imperative the Senate 
ratify this treaty.
  Let me make a couple of other comments that might describe some of 
this debate. The debate will not be about the American people's 
interests. According to surveys, 82 percent of the American people 
support a comprehensive nuclear test ban--82 percent of the American 
people. The debate, in my judgment, will not be about espionage by the 
Chinese. Some have said the Chinese espionage allegations at National 
Laboratories actually weaken the case for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test 
Ban Treaty. In fact the Cox report, which was published earlier this 
year, pointed out that if China were a signatory to and were to adhere 
to the CTBT, its ability to modernize its nuclear arsenal would be 
significantly curtailed.
  Let me put up the chart of the monitoring stations. After we ratify 
the treaty, let me ask if anyone in this Chamber could make the 
argument that we have less capability to monitor than we do now? No one 
can make that case. We will have more capability. And no one can make 
the case there is some new assessment or new report by the CIA that 
poses a danger, saying we can't detect tests of nuclear explosions. 
That is not accurate either. Despite the story in the newspaper, the 
CIA says there is no new assessment. The CIA says there is no new 
report.
  Can we detect low-level explosions that have no consequence in the 
development of advanced weapons or the acquisition of nuclear weapons? 
The answer is no; we cannot detect those low-level explosions. And the 
response is, so what? So what? We could not 4 years ago; we cannot now. 
Have our abilities to detect been enhanced in the last few years? The 
answer is yes. But we will hear those charges nonetheless. I think it 
is important for people to understand the charges are without merit.
  Today at the White House, 31 Nobel laureates were in attendance. 
These are those honored physicists and chemists who have won the 
highest awards, who have powerful intellects, the scientists who 
understand and evaluate these issues. One of those scientists who spoke 
today is Dr. Charles Townes. He is the man who invented radar during 
the Second World War for our airplanes, and the laser--a towering 
intellect. He spoke with passion about the need for this country to 
ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
  These scientists almost uniformly indicate they have no questions 
about our ability to detect explosions of consequence. They have no 
questions about our ability to require compliance with this treaty and 
detect cheating. In the front row of that meeting at the White House 
today were the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, the former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; General Shelton, the current Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs; Gen. David Jones, a former Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs; Admiral Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--all of them 
were there to support this treaty.
  Why? Because it weakens this country? No; of course that's absurd. It 
does not weaken this country. They were there because they know it 
strengthens this country. They know, from a security standpoint and 
from a military standpoint, the ratification of this treaty strengthens 
this country.
  I know I have heard about briefings that are held which suggest that 
there is information that is not available to the American people that 
suggests something different. It is not the case. It is just not the 
case. I am sorry. I respect those who disagree with me. They are 
welcome to come to the floor of the Senate, and will, and they will 
debate. I am sure they will be persuasive, in their own way. But I am 
telling you in my judgment, there is nothing, there is nothing that 
would persuade the last four Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
including Gen. Colin Powell, to support the ratification of this test 
ban treaty if they felt this treaty would injure this country.
  Does anyone in this Chamber believe that Gen. Colin Powell is 
advocating ratification of a treaty that will weaken this country? If 
so, come and tell us that. Or perhaps we will have people come and say 
Gen. Colin Powell doesn't understand. Or, if he understands, he is 
misinformed. I don't think so. Not General Powell, not General 
Shalikashvili, not General Jones, not Admiral Crowe, and not General 
Shelton. All of them come to the same conclusion: This treaty will 
strengthen our country. The ratification of this treaty will strengthen 
the security of this country. The ratification of this treaty will 
allow us to better monitor whether anyone cheats on a treaty that is 
designed to ban nuclear testing.
  Again, there is room for disagreement, but in my judgment there is 
not room for the Senate to say to the world: We quit testing in 1992 
unilaterally, and our position is we quit testing, but anyone else out 
there, our message is: You go ahead; we do not want to impose the same 
limitation on you; we have quit testing nuclear weapons, but we do not 
want to impose the limitation on you.
  We have two countries that have nuclear capability: India and 
Pakistan. They do not like each other much, and they are neighbors. 
They share a contentious border. Earlier this year, they each exploded 
a nuclear weapon literally under each other's chin. That should provide 
a sober warning to the rest of this world that we need to stop nuclear 
testing and need a ban on nuclear testing, especially to the Senate, a 
senate in a country that possesses the best capability of leadership in 
the entire world on this issue. The proliferation of nuclear weapons 
and the willingness to use them, the willingness to test them, is a 
very serious issue. It is a big issue, and this Senate has a 
responsibility to address it.
  It would be unthinkable for me to see this Senate proceed in the 
manner it now appears to be proceeding, and that is to take an issue 
this important and to blithely say: All right, it's been here 2 years; 
we have not cared much about it, and a week from Tuesday, we will bring 
it up and kill it because we do not believe in arms control; if you 
don't like that, that's tough luck.
  That is not a responsible way to legislate. I did not object to 
bringing it up on Tuesday. There was a unanimous consent request. I did 
not object to it. If that is the only way to get a vote, as far as I am 
concerned, so be it. But it is not a responsible way to legislate. All 
of us know better than that. We know better on issues this important 
that the way to legislate is to take a treaty that has been signed by 
154 countries, and have a series of hearings. We should have men and 
women across this country weigh in on this issue, have a robust, 
aggressive, thoughtful, interesting, exciting debate, and then the 
Senate should vote. That is not what has happened here. We know that.
  Two years have passed, and this treaty has been in prison. This 
treaty has

[[Page 24129]]

not seen the light of day. I know we had a Senator saying that is not 
true, there have been hearings. Senator Biden came to the floor to 
refute that. There have been no hearings. This week, there have been a 
couple of hearings. The Senator from Virginia just talked about 
hearings. He is a man for whom I have great respect. I only regret he 
is on the other side of this issue.
  Everyone in this Chamber knows better than to proceed with this issue 
in this manner. This has great consequences all around the world. This 
country has a responsibility all around the world. Everybody in this 
Chamber knows better. That is not the way you handle a treaty of this 
importance, by standing up and saying: If you want a treaty, then let's 
do it in 10 days, and if you don't like it, tough luck.
  If that is the only opportunity presented to the Senate to decide we 
are going to lead the world in arms control and say to the rest of the 
world we have quit testing nuclear weapons and we want you to as well, 
we are going to ratify the treaty, that is fine.
  If there are those who stand up and say: We do not support a ban on 
nuclear testing; in fact, we ought to test more; we do not want to send 
a signal to India and Pakistan not to test; we do not want to send a 
message to Russia and China to ratify the pact, they can say that. That 
is the democratic way. But they will not say it with my vote. It is the 
wrong direction for this country. It is not leadership. It is an 
abdication of leadership, in my judgment. I hope in the coming days we 
will find a way to see if we cannot have a more thoughtful approach to 
this country doing what it ought to do.
  I want to conclude with one additional chart that has some quotes 
which I think are important. This is the Joint Chiefs of Staff Annual 
Posture Statement 1999, responding to the question raised by those in 
the Senate who say the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will injure this 
country's preparedness and security. Nonsense. It says:

       In a very real sense, one of the best ways to protect our 
     troops and our interests is to promote arms control. . . . In 
     both the conventional and nuclear realms, arms control can 
     reduce the chances of conflict. . . . Our efforts to reduce 
     the numbers of nuclear weapons coincide with efforts to 
     control testing of nuclear weapons . . . and the Joint Chiefs 
     support ratification of this treaty.

  I want to hear in this debate from those who believe that the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, heading the military services in our country, have 
somehow concluded they want to support something that injures this 
country's defense. It is preposterous. The Joint Chiefs of Staff 
support this because they understand it will enhance this country's 
defense; it will make this country and this world more secure.
  Gen. Colin Powell, General Shalikashvili, Adm. William Crowe, and 
Gen. David Jones said the following:

       We support Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban 
     Treaty together with six safeguards under which the President 
     will be prepared to conduct necessary testing if the safety 
     and reliability of our nuclear deterrent could no longer be 
     verified.

  This treaty has safeguards. Gen. Colin Powell says he supports this 
treaty. It will not injure this country's security or preparedness. I 
do not think we have to go further on the floor of the Senate. We can 
have folks come over here and raise their fists, get red in the face, 
the veins in their necks can bulge, they can hyperventilate, and they 
can speak loudly about their vision of what this might or might not do 
with respect to this country's military preparedness. But when they are 
done, I will ask them to go visit with Colin Powell, I will ask them to 
visit with General Shelton or the Joint Chiefs of Staff and try to 
reconcile the position the military leaders in this country have taken 
with respect to this treaty to the allegations made without a good 
basis on the floor of the Senate about this treaty.
  We are given 14 hours, starting Friday and continuing Tuesday, to 
debate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If that is the procedure for 
debate that exists at the end of this week, then I will be here, and I 
intend to speak at some length, as will my colleagues, Senator Biden 
and many others, who feel strongly about this.
  I look forward to engaging in this debate. I know there are some who 
are concerned, upset, and nervous about heading toward a vote that 
looks as if we probably will lose. But I say this: At least we are on 
the right subject for a change. At least we are talking about the right 
issue for a change. If talking about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
takes goading the majority into saying to us: We are going to give you 
10 days with no hearings, essentially, and then we are going to force 
you to vote and defeat this treaty because that is what we want to tell 
the world about our position on nuclear weapons and arms control, that 
is fine with me because we are talking about the right subject.
  If we do not ratify this treaty now, we will ratify it next year, and 
if we do not ratify it next year, then we will ratify it the year 
after. Because at some point, when 82 percent of the American people 
want arms control to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons through the 
ratification of this treaty, and when the Joint Chiefs of Staff say it 
will not injure the security of this country, at some point the 
American people will say: We want to have our way on this issue, and we 
will impress our way on this issue by having the Senate come to this 
Chamber and vote for ratification. If not now, later. But at some 
point, the American people will demand this country provide leadership 
in reducing the threat of nuclear war and reducing the spread of 
nuclear weapons.
  The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is on the floor. I mentioned a 
couple of times--I did not mention his name--but I referred to him as 
``the Senator from Virginia.''
  I say to Senator Warner, I mentioned--when I think you were not on 
the floor--one of my great regrets is that you are not with us on this 
issue because I have great respect for you and your abilities. I also 
appreciate the fact that some hearings are being held this week.
  But I confess, as I have said, I think this is not a good, thoughtful 
way to deal with something this important. I am not talking about the 
Senator's hearings. I am talking about, after 2 years of virtually no 
activity, saying: All right. Ten days from now we're going to have a 
vote. In the meantime, we'll cobble together a couple hearings and then 
figure how we get there, and vote the treaty down, and tell the world 
that is our judgment.
  I do not think that is a good way to do it. I think that is treating 
the serious too lightly. I do not think it is the best we can do. The 
better way for us to have done this, in my judgment, is to have decided 
we would hold a comprehensive set of hearings over a rather lengthy 
period of time, develop a national discussion about the import and 
consequence of a treaty of this type, and then have the Senate consider 
it. That is not what is being done.
  If we vote next Tuesday, I am here and I am ready. I am ready Friday 
and Tuesday to debate it. But I very much wish this had been dealt with 
in a much more responsible way. By that comment, I do not mean to 
suggest the Senator from Virginia is in any way involved in that. I, 
again, appreciate the fact that he is holding some hearings this week, 
hearing from people who are weighing in on both sides of this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply say to my good friend and colleague that I 
addressed many of the issues he has addressed in the last few minutes 
in a press conference today that I think covers the work of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  We are trying to do a very thorough job. We have had 10 hours of 
hearings in the last 48 hours. We will go into lengthy hearings again 
tomorrow morning.
  I thank my friend for his views.

                          ____________________