[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27373-27375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 27373]]

                      NO NEW WAVE OF ISOLATIONISM

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak in a moment on the 
trade bill, but first I want to repudiate, or at least take issue with, 
some of the comments that have been made by the President and those of 
his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, when he made comments 
about the Senate becoming the new isolationists.


  I looked at his speech he made before the Council on Foreign 
Relations just a couple of days ago. He blasted the Senate, blasted 
Republicans, or that was the implication. I will quote:

       It's tempting to say the isolationist right in Congress has 
     no foreign policy, that it is driven only by partisanship. 
     But that understates it. I believe there is a coherence to 
     its convictions, a vision of America's role in the world. Let 
     me tell you what I think they are in simple terms; First: any 
     treaty others embrace, we won't join. The new isolationists 
     are convinced that treaties--pretty much all treaties--are a 
     threat to our sovereignty and continued superiority.

  I could go on, but I am very offended by that statement. I am very 
offended the National Security Adviser of this President would make 
such a statement about Members of this Senate. He is factually 
incorrect. He is making statements that send bad signals throughout the 
world that are unfounded, and he should be ashamed, and he should 
apologize for this speech he made before the Council on Foreign 
Relations.
  He implies this new isolationism is against all treaties, and he is 
implying maybe Republicans don't like treaties. Let me just take issue 
with that.
  In 1988, we passed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. It passed 
by an overwhelming margin. We passed the START treaty, Strategic Arms 
Reduction Treaty, START I in 1992, START II in 1996, by overwhelming 
majorities.
  We worked and had a bipartisan arms control group that monitored arms 
control. I might mention, that started under President Reagan and 
President Bush. It has been discontinued, to my knowledge, under 
President Clinton, and maybe that is to his loss. One of the reasons 
that group was put together was that another arms control treaty, the 
SALT II treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty proposed by 
President Carter, was defeated.
  I am amazed, when people said the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was 
the first treaty defeated in the Senate, they don't count SALT II. SALT 
II was defeated. We didn't have an up-or-down vote, but President 
Carter had the treaty withdrawn. He could count votes and he didn't 
have 67 votes. It was not going to be ratified, so he withdrew the 
treaty. And he was correct in doing so. That treaty had fatal flaws.
  So subsequent administrations, President Reagan and President Bush, 
said let's have a bipartisan arms control group in the Senate that will 
help monitor, discuss, give advice and consent. So we had good dialog 
on treaties as they evolved, and this Senate was quite successful in 
ratifying those treaties. I mentioned the fact we ratified INF, START 
I, START II, Conventional Forces in Europe--we did that in the 1990s--
the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  I might mention, I did not support the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
but it still passed by an overwhelming majority. I have my reasons. I 
don't think it is verifiable. I think somebody can build chemical 
weapons in a closet and no one will ever know. But my point is, that 
happened just a year or so ago.
  This Senate also passed NATO expansion. We passed it overwhelmingly.
  So, again, for the President's National Security Adviser to say we 
are isolationist I think is absolutely wrong. To say we oppose all 
treaties is absolutely wrong.
  I might go ahead and mention that if the President submits the Kyoto 
treaty, the Global Climate Change Protocol negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, 
it will be defeated. This Senate passed a resolution prior to their 
signing that treaty with 90-some votes saying we will not ratify 
something that leaves out major players worldwide, players such as 
China, Mexico and India, who did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, didn't 
sign the treaty--that we would not sign it. It has several other fatal 
flaws. The President went ahead and signed it anyway. If the President 
submits that treaty for ratification, it will go down in defeat.
  Is it our fault the President went ahead and submitted the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Didn't he read the Constitution? The 
Constitution says it takes two-thirds to ratify a treaty. He never had 
two-thirds. He didn't even have a majority. Was that the Republican 
Members' fault when we had Members of the Senate, day after day, saying 
``We want a vote on the treaty''? The President said, ``We want a vote 
on the treaty.'' We had ranking members, the ranking minority Member of 
the Senate and several others saying, ``We want to vote on the 
treaty.'' So we did what we often do around here; we entered into a 
unanimous consent agreement that could have been objected to by any 
Senator and scheduled a vote.
  Then people wanted to get out of the vote because, oops, we counted 
and we don't have 67 votes. There were not even 50 votes. All it would 
have taken was a unanimous consent to defer the vote and that attempt 
was not made. Senator Lott tried to offer the President an escape 
route, but he wouldn't take it. The President didn't even call Senator 
Lott until an hour, maybe 2 hours, before the vote. That is the 
President's fault.
  Let's go back to treaties. Is this Senate willing to ratify and 
consider treaties?
  What about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? That is a treaty we 
have ratified, but we also know it has not been enforced. We know 
Russia has been selling nuclear weapons and materials to Iran, and this 
administration has done almost nil about it. The fact is the last 
Congress passed legislation to increase penalties for firms that, 
through Russia, are selling to Iran. The President did not want to sign 
it. He eventually signed it.
  He has been lax in the enforcement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty with respect to Iran. The administration has been looking the 
other way with China, who has been selling arms, missiles, and 
equipment to Pakistan. China signed that treaty. Russia signed the 
treaty. Iraq signed the treaty. And the administration turns its back 
on Iraq. North Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and 
they have not complied with it. They have not come close to complying. 
As a matter of fact, we have uncovered evidence that they are pretty 
active in their nuclear program.
  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says there will be onsite 
visits. North Korea said: No, there will be no onsite visits; we are 
turning off the cameras. The administration said: We are going to 
reward your noncompliance and build you a couple of nuclear powerplants 
and we will give you millions of dollars of oil every year if you 
promise not to do this anymore.
  What was North Korea's response? Thank you very much; we will take 
your money, your powerplants and, incidentally, we will lob missiles 
over South Korea, over Japan, and maybe hit the west coast of the 
United States, certainly Alaska.
  The administration has rewarded noncompliance of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty by North Korea. They have done the same thing with 
Iraq. My colleagues might remember we had a war. We had a war in Iraq 
in 1991--actually, in 1990, we had a significant buildup. In 1991, we 
had a war.
  At the conclusion of that war, we said: Before we are going to allow 
Iraq to sell oil, we are going to have international arms control 
inspectors to make sure they are not building nuclear weapons and that 
they were not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--to 
make sure they are not building chemical weapons, not building 
biological weapons; so we are going to have an arms control group 
monitor Iraq to make sure they are not building weapons of mass 
destruction. Unless they complied with that, we were not going to let 
them sell oil. That was in 1991. That was after we won the war with 
Iraq.
  Guess what has happened since then. Since this President has been 
elected, gradually over time, we have allowed Iraq to sell more oil 
year by year. We have zero inspectors in Iraq today. Zero. So they are 
able to build their nuclear weapons, chemicals weapons, and biological 
weapons. We do not have anybody on the ground. We may have satellites 
flying around, but they cannot pick that up. They can be built in small 
rooms.
  This administration's record on proliferation is poor. Their record 
on enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation

[[Page 27374]]

Treaty is pathetic. Again, to have this administration lecturing 
Members of the Senate and saying we are new isolationists is totally 
unfounded.
  They rewarded Iraq for their noncompliance. They did not comply with 
the regime imposed on them by the United States and, frankly, the 
entire world--the United Nations. They did not comply with it.
  What did we do? We rewarded them and said: You can sell all the oil 
you want. And the administration ratified that by a unanimous vote in 
the Security Council 3 weeks ago which said to Iraq: You can sell all 
the oil you want and, incidentally, you do not have to have any arms 
control inspectors whatsoever in Iraq; none, zero.
  Great. That is a great policy.
  Speaking of nonproliferation, the whole idea of nonproliferation is 
we do not want a lot of nuclear weapons primarily, but we also do not 
want chemical and biological weapons spreading around the world. We do 
not want them expanding.
  Maybe the administration better give us some answers, including the 
Vice President of the United States, when we have evidence turned in by 
the intelligence agencies--actually, it was done by a Chinese agent--
that shows us they have copied or they have multitudes of information 
on our nuclear weapons, including our missile designs, our latest 
warheads, and a whole variety of things. We found out about that.
  When did the President find out about it? His National Security 
Adviser found out about it in the fall of 1995. Sandy Berger, who is 
Assistant National Security Adviser, at least was briefed about it by 
the Department of Energy in April of 1996. According to Mr. Berger's 
statement, he did not brief the President until July of 1997. Mr. 
Berger, why didn't you brief the President?
  Somehow, I do not believe that. He should resign. If the National 
Security Adviser finds out that China has access to our latest 
technology or designs on nuclear weapons in April of 1996 and does not 
brief the President until July of 1997, he should be replaced. These 
are weapons that threaten the security of the United States. These are 
weapons that threaten the security of the world. And he did not find 
time to brief the President of the United States? I do not believe 
that.
  When did the President find out they had stolen these weapons or they 
have the designs for these weapons? What is our National Security 
Adviser there for? To make partisan speeches in New York calling 
Republicans new isolationists? He does not find time to brief the 
President, but he has time to sit in on campaign meetings throughout 
the year and at the same time we have Chinese arms merchants coming to 
the White House writing big checks? This thing smells. It is 
despicable. Yet he has time to make partisan speeches that are totally, 
completely unfounded.
  I have gone over a few treaties, and I have mentioned several the 
Senate has ratified when Republicans have been in control and when the 
Democrats have been in control. We had bipartisan ratification for 
every treaty I mentioned.
  I mentioned the Kyoto treaty earlier. It has bipartisan opposition, 
and if the President submits it, it will not be ratified.
  I mentioned the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty about which the 
President is so upset. It was not ratified because it is a treaty in 
perpetuity. It is a treaty that says 100 years from now or 40 years 
from now, no matter what China does, no matter what Russia does or what 
Iraq does or any other country, if we find out they have an aggressive 
nuclear program, we still cannot test because we will abide by the 
treaty in spite of the fact that other countries may not.
  The Senate, by a majority vote, said it is not going to ratify a 
treaty that has zero test limits. Every President in the past has said 
if we have a treaty, it should be temporary, a moratorium, and not a 
permanent ban; it should allow for some small amount of testing. 
Frankly, we think some countries which have signed it are already 
cheating, but we cannot detect it because it is not verifiable.
  Many think this is not a treaty on which we should bind the United 
States for the next 40 years. Mr. President, you have to submit a 
better treaty. You have to consult with Congress. You have to get some 
advice and consent. You cannot rail and make partisan statements that 
you want a vote and you get a vote, but then you say: Wait, I didn't 
know. I thought we were guaranteed to win. That is not in the 
Constitution. Congress fulfilled its constitutional duty. Maybe the 
President should read the Constitution. It takes two-thirds of the 
Senate to ratify a treaty. It is not our fault he did not have the 
votes. He did not even come close to having the votes.
  What about this new military isolationism about which Mr. Berger is 
talking, implying the Republicans do not want to get involved in a 
foreign war? Maybe he is alluding to this Senator.
  In January of 1991, we voted in the Senate whether to authorize the 
use of military power in Iraq. And we did. We passed it by a vote of 52 
to 47. We had some bipartisan support. Vice President Gore supported 
that resolution.
  Most Democrats opposed it, including the majority leader, including 
some very respected Senators whom I know and think the world of: 
Senator Nunn, Senator Boren, for example. They were saying let's give 
sanctions a little more of a chance before we initiate the war. I 
respected that. I didn't agree with it, but I respected it. I did not 
question them or call them isolationists. I did not question their 
patriotism. But yet when some of us had some reservations or opposition 
to the bombing campaign in Kosovo, we are now called isolationists. I 
disagree with that.
  In the Rambouillet accords, the Secretary of State, Madeleine 
Albright, basically said: Mr. Milosevic, you need to sign this treaty 
we have put together or we're going to bomb you. I have made several 
speeches on the floor that have those transcripts. Those were 
statements that she made: We're going to bomb if you don't sign.
  I was opposed to that. I stated at the time I thought it might make 
matters worse. And, frankly, it did.
  If you are concerned about the humanitarian loss, things were a lot 
worse after the bombing was initiated. After we pulled out the 
observers, the monitors, things really got bad. Thousands of people 
lost their lives. Is it unpatriotic to question that action? Does it 
make you an isolationist because you don't think we have used all the 
diplomatic tools at our disposal before we start trying to bomb 
somebody into submission?
  This administration has bombed four countries in the last 13 months. 
They have bombed in Serbia; they have bombed in Sudan; they bombed in 
Afghanistan; they bombed in Iraq--most all of which have not been 
effective. In Serbia, particularly Kosovo, for a long time it made 
matters a much worse.
  I don't question people's integrity or their patriotism or whether 
they are new isolationists. I question that policy. The same thing in 
Bosnia. I thought we should have given the Bosnians a chance to defend 
themselves. This administration did not. There was a difference of 
opinion. I met with Bosnian leaders who came in and said: We don't want 
your troops to be stationed in Bosnia. We want to have arms so we can 
defend ourselves. I happen to agree with that policy and also said: If 
we go this route, we are going to be stuck in Bosnia forever. We are. I 
visited the camps in Bosnia. We are going to have U.S. soldiers there 
for a long time. Now we are going to have United States soldiers 
occupying Kosovo, probably for decades, at a cost of billions of 
dollars.
  So my point is, this administration seems quick to bomb, and if you 
question their rhetoric or if you question the issue, well, maybe you 
are a new isolationist. I just disagree with that.
  I don't like name calling and there seems to be a lot of it lately. I 
am personally offended. Somebody made the implication that, well, 
somebody was a racist because we didn't confirm a judicial nomination. 
I am very offended by that comment. I am upset about that comment and 
the implication from the President and from a couple Members of this 
body. That does not add to the debate. That is not right. It is 
inaccurate.

[[Page 27375]]

  In that particular case, the judge was opposed by the National 
Sheriffs Organization and opposed by the State chief of police. For 
that reason, I voted no. It did not have anything to do with his race.
  I just think name calling--whether you are calling somebody a new 
isolationist or whether you are saying somebody has racial motives--is 
very offensive.
  Let me just touch on a couple other issues. Mr. Berger alludes to the 
fact that we are isolationists. We have a trade bill before the Senate 
today, the African trade bill. We are trying to pass that. We are 
trying to include the Caribbean Basin Initiative. We are trying to pass 
that as well.
  There are some Members on the Democrat side who are opposing that. 
They have a right to do it. My guess is, an overwhelming majority of 
the Senate will vote to pass this. And I do not question the integrity 
of one of my colleagues who is opposing it. He has the right to do 
that. They are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to offer 
their amendments. They are entitled to have discussion and debate on 
the issue.
  But if you look at trade over the last 10 or 15 years, this Congress 
passed NAFTA by a bipartisan vote. We passed GATT. NAFTA, we passed in 
1993; GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in 1994.
  This Senate is more than willing to pass fast track. The President 
did not call for fast track to be reauthorized because he was running 
for reelection in 1996. Some of the leaders of organized labor did not 
want it, so he didn't call for it to be done in 1996. He waited until 
after his reelection and then he sent it to us.
  He was the first President, going all the way back to President Ford, 
I believe, who didn't have fast-track authority. After he was 
reelected, he said: Hey, Congress, pass this. The Senate wanted to pass 
it, but the House couldn't. A lot of House Democrats said: You didn't 
want to take a tough vote before the election, so we do not need to do 
it now either. He could hardly get any votes from Democrats in the 
House to pass fast track. So he is the first President in decades who 
has not had that authority. It is not the Republicans' fault. That is 
not new isolationism.
  Is the President catering to protectionist forces within his own 
party and within the organized labor agenda? He could not get it 
through the House; but it was not the House Republicans, it was the 
House Democrats that presented the problem. And those are just the 
facts.
  Another issue at hand is the World Trade Organization. There is going 
to be a meeting of the WTO in Seattle. Most Republicans support the 
idea of reducing trade barriers throughout the world. There are 
negotiations with the People's Republic of China in the WTO. They were 
so close, and the President would not say yes. A Chinese delegate came 
to the United States and made a lot of trade concessions. Frankly, it 
was a pretty good deal. My compliments to the President's Trade 
Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, who negotiated a good deal. And 
then the President would not say yes.
  Why? Because maybe a few people in organized labor did not want him 
to say yes. Regardless, he did not say yes. So now he has called, I 
guess, the Chinese Premier and said: Well, we really want to do WTO. He 
had them here a few months ago, and he said no. Whose fault is that? 
Who is the new isolationist? Most of us realize we need to develop and 
encourage growing markets with China.
  So I mention a few of those things to just repudiate, in the 
strongest words I possibly can, Sandy Berger's comments talking about 
the new isolationist fever that is running through Congress. Maybe 
there are some people running for President who have that philosophy. 
They don't represent the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, the 
primary person espousing that belief left the Republican Party.
  In the Senate, I serve on the Finance Committee with Senator Roth and 
Senator Moynihan, and others on that committee, who have jurisdiction 
over trade issues, who have jurisdiction over tax issues. There is not 
an isolationist trend coming out of that committee or from the Senate.
  If the President wants to get treaties ratified, he needs to consult 
with the Senate. He could have found out from the Senate he had some 
flaws in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and did not have the votes. 
He could have found that out before asking for the vote and saved 
himself some embarrassment. Hopefully, he will come to that realization 
with the Kyoto Treaty.
  We had a resolution in the Senate with, I believe, 94 votes that said 
Kyoto was fatally flawed, don't bring it to the Senate in this form or 
it will not be ratified. So maybe he is taking that as a hint he 
doesn't have the necessary 67 votes.
  I hope the President and his National Security Adviser will move away 
from this rhetoric of ``new isolationism'' because, frankly, they are 
fomenting something that is not there. It is very much to the 
disadvantage of our country, our reputation worldwide, and it does not 
do them service because it is not true.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from South Carolina.

                          ____________________