[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 22587]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        IN HONOR OF PAUL WARNKE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 14, 2001

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to honor the late Paul 
Warnke, who worked tirelessly to protect our country from the danger of 
nuclear war and to promote reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals. 
Paul passed away on October 31, just two weeks prior to the 
announcements made by President Bush and President Putin that the two 
superpowers would begin a process of drastic reduction in the number of 
deployed nuclear weapons. No one worked harder to see such policies 
implemented than Paul.
  Paul Warnke was a son of Massachusetts. Born in Webster in 1920 and 
growing up in Marlborough, he went to college at Yale University and 
graduated in 1941. He joined the war effort and served in the U.S. 
Coast Guard for the next 5 years. After his military duty, he went to 
law school at Columbia University. A classic story is that his first 
choice, the journalism school, was full, so he crossed the street to 
sign up at the law school. But for a quirk of fate, we might instead be 
celebrating Paul Warnke, the great journalist.
  In the years that followed, he pursued a legal career in trade 
regulations and anti-trust law. Then, in 1966, he was hired as general 
counsel at the Defense Department and a year later became Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he 
served for the next two years. During his time at the Defense 
Department, not only did he object to the prosecution of the Vietnam 
War, he also became sensitive to the crucial importance of arms control 
between the United States and the Soviet Union.
  In 1975, he wrote an article in Foreign Policy, ``Apes on a 
Treadmill'', in which he cautioned that the arms race was potentially a 
futile but expensive exercise. Citing Secretary of State Henry 
Kissinger's warning that an unlimited arms buildup between the U.S. and 
the Soviet Union could lead to successive periods of escalation and 
equilibrium, Paul wrote, ``Perhaps, then, we are not racing together 
toward Armageddon. Maybe the continued expenditure of billions for 
quantitative additions and qualitative improvements does not bring 
doomsday any closer. Instead, it may be that we are jogging in tandem 
on a treadmill to nowhere.''
  Noting the advantage that the U.S. had over the Soviet Union in the 
numbers and technology of nuclear weapons, Paul recognized the role 
that the U.S. could play in initiating a halt in the nuclear arms race. 
Hence, in the 1975 article, he advocated a six-month delay in the 
further addition of multiple warheads to land-and sea-based missiles 
and in the development of the Trident submarine and the B-1 bomber, in 
hopes that it would yield ``reciprocal restraint'' by the Soviet Union. 
Considering the current situation, in which economic conditions in 
Russia are pressuring it to reduce its nuclear arsenal, the U.S. again 
has the advantage and the same opportunity to take a leadership role. A 
quarter of a century later, Paul's words still apply.
  In 1977, Paul Warnke was nominated by President Jimmy Carter to be 
the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the chief 
arms control negotiator. He was confirmed to both posts and went on to 
serve with great distinction in the second Strategic Arms Limitation 
Talks, or SALT II. The SALT II treaty was signed on June 18, 1979, by 
President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev but unfortunately was 
never ratified. However, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union informally 
agreed not to undercut the SALT II numerical limits throughout the 1980 
until they were later supplanted by the START strategic arms 
reductions.
  I first became acquainted with Paul during his service as ACDA chief, 
but came to know him much more personally when we worked together on 
the nuclear freeze resolution in the early 1980s. While there were many 
in the arms control ``intelligentsia'' that looked down their noses at 
the concept of a nuclear freeze, which had originated as a grass roots 
movement to break the deadlock between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in 
the early years of the Reagan Administration, Paul was able to see in 
the freeze a powerful mechanism for action to halt the arms race. While 
fully comfortable with the arcane jargon of nuclear arms control, he 
was also endowed with the power to explain complex concepts in terms 
that were readily comprehensible to the lay person. But even more 
importantly, he saw through the complicated details of the strategic 
relationship to an essential truth--that both the U.S. and Soviet Union 
had far more weaponry than was needed for deterrence purposes, and that 
freezing the qualitative and quantitative arms race, followed by 
reductions in the size of these arsenals would better advance our 
security interests.
  And so, during the 1980s, Paul became one of the leading voices 
within the United States in support of a nuclear weapons freeze 
followed by reductions of strategic nuclear weapons. He spoke out 
frequently on issues of nuclear arms control, in articles, op-ed 
pieces, and numerous speeches and panel discussions throughout the 
country. He also testified before the Congress on these issues on 
several occasions. And in a 1986 interview, he also gave his opinions 
on research on ABM, or anti-ballistic missile, systems. ``[W]hat we 
ought to do is recognize that there is nothing that can be gained by 
engaging in a nuclear competition in space. At a minimum it will cost 
us billions and billions of dollars, but what is more likely is it will 
diminish the security of the United States.'' Our current 
administration would do well to heed Paul's words from a decade and a 
half ago.
  Paul continued his good work into the 1990s. Concerned not just about 
nuclear weapons, he scrutinized the conventional arms trade while 
serving on the Presidential Advisory Board on Arms Proliferation Policy 
which was established in 1995. And in 1998, Paul co-wrote an article 
with Jeremy Stone of the Federation of American Scientists in which 
they argued for de-alerting nuclear weapons, that is, standing down 
missiles from a launch-on-warning posture. This is an effort with which 
I have been personally involved, and I wish that Paul were still here 
to help with that fight.
  Paul was a forceful actor and spokesman for the cause of arms 
control. We will miss his leadership, but his legacy is the insight and 
guidance that he provided. For this reason we celebrate this great man 
today.

                          ____________________