[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 41 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
[Pages 1998-2000]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
<R04>
The President's Radio Address
October 9, 1999
Good morning. On Tuesday the Senate plans to vote on whether to
ratify the nuclear test ban treaty. Today I want to emphasize
[[Page 1999]]
why this agreement is critical to the security and future of all
Americans.
Just imagine a world in which more and more countries obtained
nuclear weapons and more and more destructive varieties. That may be the
single greatest threat to our children's future. And the single best way
to reduce it is to stop other countries from testing nuclear explosives
in the first place. That's exactly what the test ban treaty will do.
The treaty is even more essential today than it was when President
Eisenhower proposed it more than 40 years ago, or when President Kennedy
pursued it. It's more essential, even than, when we signed it 3 years
ago, because every year, the threat grows that nuclear weapons will
spread--in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and Asia, to areas where
American troops are deployed, to regions with intense rivalries, to
rogue leaders, and perhaps even to terrorists.
The test ban treaty gives us our best chance to control this threat.
A hundred and fifty-four countries have already signed it, including
Russia, China, Japan, Israel, Iran, and all our European allies. Many
nations have already ratified it, including 11 of our NATO Allies,
including nuclear powers France and Britain. But for 2 years after I
submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification, there had been
absolutely no action.
Now, only a week has been allotted to consider it. That is
especially disturbing since the issue has been politicized--apparently
with large numbers of Republican Senators committing to their leader to
vote against it without even giving the issue serious consideration or
hearing the arguments.
Now, a week is not enough time for an issue of this profound
importance. That's why I've said I want to see the vote postponed so we
can have a thorough debate that addresses all the legitimate concerns.
The stakes are high. If our Senate rejected this treaty outright, it
would be the first time the Senate has rejected a treaty since the
Treaty of Versailles, which established the League of Nations after
World War I. We all know what America's walking away from the world
after World War I brought us--in the Depression and the Second World
War. If our Senate rejected this treaty, it would be a dangerous U-turn
away from our role as the world's leader against the spread of nuclear
weapons. It would say to every country in the world, ``Well, the United
States isn't going to test, but we're giving all of you a green light to
test, develop, and deploy nuclear weapons.''
Last year rival nuclear explosions by India and Pakistan shook the
world. Now both countries have indicated their willingness to sign the
test ban treaty. But if our Senate defeats it, can we convince India and
Pakistan to forgo more tests? America has been the world's leader
against the proliferation of nuclear weapons for more than four decades.
If our Senate defeats it, we won't be anymore. If our Senate defeats it,
what will prevent China, Russia, or others from testing and deploying
new and ever more destructive weapons?
Some oppose the treaty because they say we still need to test
nuclear weapons ourselves to make sure they're reliable. But this week
32 American Nobel Prize-winning physicists and other leading scientists
told the Senate that America doesn't need to test more nuclear weapons
to keep a safe and reliable nuclear force. After all, we stopped testing
back in 1992. And now we're spending about $4\1/2\ billion a year on
proven program, using our advanced technology to maintain a superior
nuclear force without testing. Since we don't need nuclear tests to
protect our security, this treaty does not require us to do anything we
haven't already done.
It's about preventing other countries from nuclear testing; about
constraining nuclear weapons development around the world, at a time
when we have an overwhelming advantage.
I've told the Senate I would be prepared to withdraw from this
treaty if our national security ever required us to resume nuclear tests
in the future. And I've urged them to work with me to include safeguards
in their ratification act, as they normally do.
Some also say these treaties are too risky because some people might
cheat on them. But with no treaty, other countries can test without
cheating and without limit. The treaty will strengthen our ability to
determine
[[Page 2000]]
whether other countries are engaged in suspicious activity. With onsite
inspections and a global network of over 300 sensors, including 33 in
Russia, 11 in China, 17 in the Middle East, we could catch cheaters and
mobilize the world against them. None of that will happen if we don't
ratify the treaty.
That's why four former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
current Chairman have all endorsed the nuclear test ban treaty. So have
a broad spectrum of religious leaders and many other leading Americans,
both Republicans and Democrats.
So I say to the Senators who haven't endorsed it, heed the best
national security advice of our military leaders. Hear our allies who
are looking to us to lead. Listen to the scientists. Listen to the
American people who have long supported the treaty. And since you're not
prepared for whatever reason to seize the priceless chance to fulfill
the dream of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy for a safer world, delay
the vote on the treaty, debate it thoroughly, and work with us on a
bipartisan basis to address legitimate concerns. And then you'll be able
to vote yes for our country and our children's future.
Thanks for listening.
Note: The President spoke at 9:06 a.m., c.d.t., from the Lake Michigan
Room at the Hilton Towers in Chicago, IL.