Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. How many comprehensive hearings did that treaty have?

Mr. DORGAN. Is that less than 14?

Mr. DORGAN. Thirty seconds.

Mr. DORGAN. Are we going to lead and try to stop nuclear testing? Are we going to lead in trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons? I hope so. I cast my vote to ratify this treaty, believing it is the best hope we have as a country to weigh in and be a leader, to say we want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the rest of the country. Mr. President, I see my friend from Arizona has also joined us. I came to speak about this Agriculture bill. I know my colleague from Illinois is waiting to address these issues as well.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I came to speak about the Agriculture appropriations bill. The only reason I made these comments is, the Senator from Oklahoma was, once again, making statements. He is good at it. He feels passionately about these things. But I think, with all due respect, he is wrong on this issue. This country has a responsibility to treat these issues seriously. This country has a responsibility to lead in the area of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We don't lead in that regard by turning down or rejecting this treaty. There was a coup in Pakistan yesterday; we are told. We don't know the dimensions or consequences of it. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Pakistan and India are two countries that don't like each other. They exploded nuclear weapons, literally under each other's chin, within the last year. Is that a serious concern to the rest of the world? It is.

Mr. DORGAN. I have not yielded, Mr. President.

Mr. DORGAN. I did not say that the United States and Russia are the only countries that have nuclear weapons. I said we have 30,000 between the two countries. Other countries have nuclear weapons as well, and many other countries aspire to have nuclear weapons. The Senator from Oklahoma said something that is not the case. He said virtually every other country has weapons of mass destruction. That is not the case. The nuclear club, those countries that possess nuclear weapons, is still rather small, but the aspiration to get a hold of nuclear weapons is pretty large. A lot of countries--more than just countries, terrorist groups--want to lay their hands on nuclear weapons. What happens when they do? Then we will see significant threats to the rest of this world. It is in our interest as a country to do everything we can possibly do to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Do we want Bin Laden to have a nuclear weapon? Do we want Qadhafi to have a nuclear weapon? Do we want Saddam Hussein to acquire a nuclear weapon? I don't think so. Arms control agreements and the opportunities to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons are critical. How do we best do that? Many of us believe one of the best ways to do that is to pass this treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We are going to have this treaty back on the floor, I think, for 3 hours today. I will make it a point to come and I will spend the entire 3 hours with the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. DORGAN. I did not say that. Let me reclaim my time. I did not talk about ``only two countries.''

Mr. DORGAN. Just for a moment.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish my statement. They do not support arms control treaties. I respect that. I just think they are dead wrong. I have on my desk--I ask consent to show it again--a piece of a bomber. This is a piece of a Backfire bomber, a Russian bomber. Why is a Russian bomber in a circumstance where its wing was sawed off--not shot down, its wing sawed off? Because arms control agreements have reduced the number of delivery systems and nuclear weapons. This part was sawed off a Russian bomber wing as part of the reduction of the threat under our arms control treaties. These treaties work. We know they work. That is why, without shooting down a bomber, I have a piece of a Russian Backfire bomber wing, just to remind us that arms control treaties work.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me say this about the unanimous consent request. If you take a look at all the arms control treaties that have been offered to the Senate--the ABM Treaty, the START I treaty, the START II treaty, on down the line--and take a look at how many days of comprehensive hearings they had, No. 1, in the committee of jurisdiction and, No. 2, how many days they were debated on the floor of the Senate, what the Senator will discover is this treaty, that has been treated lightly, it is a serious matter--treated lightly by the fact that the majority leader said, even without comprehensive hearings, we will bring this treaty to the floor of the Senate and kill it. It alone is the arms control treaty that has been treated in this manner. All other treaties were dealt with seriously with long, thoughtful, comprehensive hearings--day, after day, after day--and then a debate on the floor of the Senate--day after day--which involved the American people and public opinion; and then this country made decisions about those treaties. I know there are some who have never supported an arms control treaty under any condition. They have not.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to make a couple comments about the conference report on Agriculture appropriations. Before I do, I would like to make a comment or two about the presentation just offered by my friend from Oklahoma. The Senator from Oklahoma, as he always does, makes a strong presentation for something he believes very strongly in. I believe very strongly that he is wrong. I believe very strongly in the other side of the issue. Let me describe why just for a few moments. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is a question presented to this country in this form: Will the United States of America assume the moral leadership that it must assume, in my judgment, to help stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world? There are two nuclear weapons superpowers--the United States and Russia. Between us, we have roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons. Some other countries have them, and many other countries want them. There are many countries, there are rogue nations, and there are terrorist groups that want to have access to nuclear weapons. The question of what kind of a future we will have in this world depends, in large part, upon the direction this country takes in assuming its responsibility to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We already decided 7 years ago, as a country, we will no longer test nuclear weapons. We made that decision unilaterally. Over 40 years ago, President Eisenhower said: We must have a Comprehensive Nuclear Test- Ban Treaty; we must do that. About 5 or 6 years ago, we began negotiating with other countries to develop such a treaty. Two years ago, President Clinton sent to the Senate a treaty that would provide a comprehensive nuclear test ban all around the world. For 2 years, that treaty languished here without 1 day of hearings before the primary committee that it was sent to, the Foreign Relations Committee. I know there is disagreement on that, but I tell you, Senator Biden, who is the ranking Democrat of that committee, says there was not 1 day of hearings devoted to that treaty. I understand some people want to kill it.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are going to be voting on the cloture motion on the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I come without great enthusiasm for this bill, although I admit there is much in this bill that is important and necessary. The process by which this conference report comes to the Senate is a horribly flawed process. We face a very serious farm crisis. Part of this legislation deals with that crisis. This appropriations bill deals with the routine appropriations that we provide each year for a range of important things that we do in food safety and a whole range of issues at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and elsewhere dealing with agricultural research and more. But it also deals with what is called the emergency piece in the Agriculture appropriations bill to respond to the emergency in farm country these days. We have seen prices collapse. We have seen flooding in North Dakota of 3 million acres that could not be planted this spring. We have seen some of the worst crop disease in a century. We have seen substantial problems with the import of grain coming into this country that has been traded unfairly. We have seen the shrinking of the export market with financial problems in Asia. The result has been a buffeting of family farmers in a very tragic way, many of whom are hanging on by their fingertips wondering whether they will be able to continue farming. We attempted to include some emergency provisions in this piece of legislation. This legislation does, in fact, contain emergency help for family farmers. I wish it contained that help in a different manner than it does. It contains it in a payout called the AMTA payment. This bill will actually double the AMTA payment. The problem with that is there will be a fair number of people across the country who will receive payments who are not even farming, are not even producing anything, yet they are going to get a payment. There will be people in this country who will get payments of up to $460,000. I expect taxpayers are going to be a little miffed about that. So $460,000 to help somebody? That is a crisis? That is not a family farm where I live. Taking the limits off, and allowing that kind of payment to go out, in my judgment, is a step backward. Most important, the Senate passed, by 70 votes, a provision that says: Let us stop using food as a weapon. Let us no longer use food and medicine as part of the embargoes that we apply to those countries and governments around the world that we think are behaving badly. By 70 votes, this Senate said: Let us stop using food as a weapon. Let us not use food and medicine as part of an embargo. This conference report does not include that provision because it was dropped. That is a step backward, in my judgment. We ought to have adopted the Senate provision that says: Let us not use food as a weapon. Let us stop using food as part of an embargo. There was no conference. It started. It went on for a couple of hours. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, who chaired it on our side, did the right thing. He opened it up for amendments. We had an amendment, had a vote, and the vote did not turn out right for some other folks in the conference, so they decided to adjourn. That was it. Never heard from them again. Then the leadership decided to put together this bill, and they coupled together a conference report. And so here it rests now for our consideration. I am not enthusiastic about it. But having said that, I likely will support it because farmers need emergency help, and they need it now. I do want to say that as harsh as I was about this process--and it was an awful process--I made it clear some weeks ago, when I talked about this, that Senator Cochran from Mississippi was not part of the reason this process did not work. On our side, he chaired the conference. And he did, I think, what should have been done. He opened it up for discussion, the offering of amendments, and to hold votes. That is exactly the way conferences should work. I applaud the Senator from Mississippi. As always, even under difficult circumstances, he is someone with whom I enjoy working and someone for whom I have great respect. But in this circumstance, we must pass some emergency help for farmers. This bill contains some of that emergency help. It fails to contain other things that I think are very important. It seems to me, all in all, on balance, this legislation will probably proceed forward; the President will sign it; we will get some help out to family farmers; and come back again and see if we can provide some additional assistance when prices collapse and when that assistance is necessary. It is especially the case we will need additional disaster help. I do not think the $1.2 billion will do the job that is necessary all around the country to respond to disasters. Senator Conrad has described on the floor, as have I, the 3 million acres that did not get planted this spring because of flooding. Those producers need help. To be a farmer and not to be able to farm, having all of your land under water, that is what I call a disaster. The amount of money in this bill is not enough to deal with all of these issues all around the country, so I think we are going to have to come back and add to that and try to provide the resources that are necessary. But again, let me yield the floor because I know others would like to speak. I say to my colleague from Mississippi, I appreciate the fair manner in which he proceeded. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, who will acquire nuclear weapons in the months and years ahead? Which countries? Which groups? Which individuals, perhaps, will acquire nuclear weapons? Many would like to acquire nuclear weapons. Terrorist groups would like access to nuclear weapons. Rogue countries would like access to nuclear weapons. The cold war is over, the Soviet Union is gone, the Ukraine is nuclear free; the two nuclear superpowers are Russia and the United States. Between us, we have 30,000 nuclear weapons. What responsibility do we have as a country to try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries and to reduce the nuclear weapons that now exist? Well, we have a lot of responsibility. It is our requirement as a country to exercise the moral leadership in the world, to reduce the dangers of nuclear war, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Some have never supported any arms control agreements. I respect that. They have a right to do that. I don't agree with it. I think it is wrong. Nonetheless, there are those who have never supported any arms control agreements. Yet, arms control agreements work. We know they work. I ask unanimous consent to show a piece of a Russian Backfire bomber wing on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN. This is a piece of a wing sawed off of a Russian Backfire bomber. This bomber wasn't brought down from the skies with hostile fire. This bomber wasn't destroyed because of conflict. This piece of wing came from a Russian bomber because this country and the Russians have an agreement to reduce the number of bombers, missiles, and submarines in our arsenal, and reduce the number of nuclear warheads. This other item is copper wiring, ground up from a Russian submarine that used to carry missiles with nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. Did we sink that submarine in hostile waters? No, it was destroyed and the wiring ground up by the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, under which the United States assists in the destruction of bombers, missiles, and warheads in Russia. We bring down the number of weapons in our stockpile; they bring down the weapons in theirs. The delivery systems are brought down as well. Does arms control work? Of course, it works. We know it works. That is why I am able to hold the part of a Russian bomber here in the U.S. Senate. Of course, it works. There are some who have never supported any of this. They have that right. But, in my judgment, the decision not to support aggressive arms control efforts is inappropriate and wrong. Now we are debating the issue of whether we will have a Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty--something that was aspired to by President Eisenhower nearly 40 years ago. A Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty was something that President Eisenhower lamented he was not able to accomplish. Forty years later--after years of negotiation--2 years ago, it was sent to the Senate, signed by the President, and asked to be ratified in the Senate. It was sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I know there have been debates about it, but there was not one hearing in that Foreign Relations Committee in 2 years on the CTBT. And then, with 10 days' notice, it is brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Some say, well, that is fine. That is a consideration. That is not thoughtful consideration; that is a thoughtless way to handle this issue. This is a serious issue, a big issue, an issue with great consequence. Ten days, no comprehensive hearings--that is a thoughtless way to handle this issue. India and Pakistan have detonated nuclear weapons literally under each other's chin. They don't like each other. That is an ominous development for the world. The question of whether it could result in a nuclear exchange or a nuclear war is a very real question. Can we as a country intervene to say, do not explode these nuclear weapons, do not test nuclear weapons? Do we have the ability to say to India and Pakistan that this is a dangerous step? Mr. President, we had better have that resolve. That resolve must come from us. I have heard a lot of reasons on the Senate floor why this should not be ratified all from the same folks who have never supported ratification of any treaty that would lead in the direction of arms control. All of the arguments I have heard, in my judgment, are not relevant to this treaty. It is proposed that somehow this treaty would weaken our country. Here is what would happen when this treaty is ratified. The number of monitoring stations across the world will go to well over 300. We will substantially enhance our capability to monitor whether anyone explodes a nuclear weapon. Here is what we have now. Here is what they will have if the CTBT enters into force. How on Earth can anyone credibly argue that this doesn't strengthen our ability to detect nuclear explosions anywhere on the Earth? It is an absurd argument to suggest that somehow ratifying this treaty will weaken our country. The last four Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all the senior military leadership now serving in this country, including Gen. Colin Powell, and previously retired Joint Chiefs of Staff support this treaty. Would they do so because they want to weaken this country? Of course not. They support this treaty because they know and we know this treaty will strengthen this country. It will strengthen our resolve to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The Joint Chiefs of Staff say in a very real sense that 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. Gen. Omar Bradley said, ``We wage war like physical giants and seek peace like ethical infants.'' There is not nearly the appetite that, in my judgment, must exist in this country--and especially in this Senate--to stand up for important significant issues--serious issues. That is what we have here. The military leaders say this treaty is in this country's security interest. The scientists, 32 Nobel laureates, the chemists, physicists, support ratification. Dr. Garwin, who I was out on the steps of the Capitol with last week, who worked on the first nuclear bomb in this country, says this treaty is in this country's interest. We can safeguard this country's nuclear stockpile, the scientists say; we can do that, they say. And the detractors say, no, you can't. These detractors--let me talk for a minute about this. National missile defense: They say: Let's deploy a national missile defense system right this minute. The Pentagon and the scientists say we can't, we don't have the capability. Our friends say: No. We don't agree with you. You can and you have the capability. They say: We demand you do it, and we want you to deploy it. On the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, the detractors say: Well, it would weaken this country because we can't detect nuclear tests and we can't maintain our stockpile. And the military leaders and the scientists say: You are wrong. We can safeguard our stockpiles. We can detect nuclear explosions. This selective choosing of when you are willing to support the judgment of the best scientists in this country or the military leaders of this country is very interesting. Last week, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder, the leaders of England, France, and Germany, sent an op-ed piece to the New York Times asking this country to ratify this treaty. That ought not be the position this country is in. This country ought to be a leader on this issue. Now, we are being asked by our allies to please lead. We ought not have to be asked to provide leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. What are we thinking of? Last week, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee referenced comments from the Governor of my State on the floor of the Senate, saying he is worried that the nuclear stockpile is not safe and pointing out that we have nuclear weapons in our State. It is an interesting and brand new argument that I hear. I have not heard anyone stand on the floor of the Senate in recent months saying we have a real problem with the safety of the nuclear stockpile. This is just a straw man. That is what this is. I know the majority leader thought it was probably an interesting strategy to bring up the treaty without comprehensive hearings, without comprehensive discussions and debate, and without much of an opportunity for the American people to be involved in the debate on a Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and then say we want to vote on it. We are going to kill this thing. You know those who think that way I guess can grin all the way to the vote tally. But there won't be smiles on the faces of those around the world who rely on this country to be a leader in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. This country has a greater responsibility in this area, and we can exercise that responsibility by voting to ratify this Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hope the Senator would not put forth any unanimous-consent request. I hope we would simply have an agreement among the two leaders in the Chamber that they will alternate back and forth. The difficulty with a unanimous-consent agreement is you may get a circumstance where you have no one on one side and three or four speakers on the other side. I think it is practical to manage it the way the Senator has suggested.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for all the anxiety that is expressed in this Chamber about when we might vote and the consequences of that vote, I at least observe that we are finally on the right subject. This is an important issue. This is an important matter for the Senate to consider. There are big issues and then there are small issues. There are important issues and some not so important. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, in my judgment, is a big, important issue. Will the United States of America be a leader, will it assume its moral responsibility in the world to provide leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the risk of nuclear war? That is the question before the Senate. Sadly, some in this Chamber answer that question by saying: No, not us, not now. In fact, some, if you look at their record on arms control agreements say: Not us, never. This treaty is not so difficult to understand, despite the protestations of some. Forty years ago, President Eisenhower called for a treaty of this type. Seven years ago, the United States decided we would unilaterally stop the testing of nuclear weapons. Nearly 5 years ago, our country was a leader in convening nations to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty. Two years ago, that Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was sent to the Senate for ratification. Not 1 day of hearings was held in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2 years--not 1. Then abruptly, 10 days ago, we were told there would be 14 hours of debate and 10 days hence we would have a vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That was not and is not a thoughtful way for the Senate to deal with this issue, especially an issue of this importance. Now to the debate. Mark Twain once said when asked if he would participate in a debate: Absolutely, provided I can take the negative side. They said: We have not told you what the debate is about. He said: It doesn't matter, you don't need time to prepare for the negative side. I will not ascribe those motives to those who are strongly in opposition to this treaty, but some of the charges and allegations made just seem, to me, to be preposterous. I heard an hour or so ago in this Chamber the term ``unilateral disarmament'' applied to the U.S. ratifying this treaty. What a preposterous charge, unilateral disarmament. Let's look at who supports this treaty. I heard a discussion about Gen. Colin Powell. Gen. Colin Powell supports this treaty. He said so. We have the date, the time, the place, the statement. He now, apparently, in a telephone call he said he would like to defer the vote because of questions raised in hearings, hearings that were 2 years in the making. Gen. Colin Powell, General Shalikashvili, the last four Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Shelton, the present Chairman and the Secretary of Defense--all of whom say they support this treaty. Why? Because they believe this treaty protects this country's security interests. They believe this treaty is in this country's interest. I will read some statements because those who come to the floor talking about the military consequences of this treaty need to understand to what all the senior military leaders in this country now testify. The Joint Chiefs, the senior military leaders in this country, say: 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 number of nuclear weapons coincide with the efforts to control testing of nuclear weapons. . . . The Joint Chiefs support the ratification of this treaty. Colin Powell and others in January 1998 said: We support Senate approval of the CTBT. Gen. Colin Powell supports the ratification of this treaty. We are told he wants the vote delayed. So that does not change the fact that he is on record saying he supports the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. What about monitoring? We hear all this noise about if we ratify this treaty, countries will cheat. Our military leaders--and certainly the scientists--but especially our military leaders say that if we ratify this treaty, we will have monitors all around the world. I show the situation on these charts: Here are the monitors without ratification; here are the monitors with ratification. The number of monitors is dramatically enhanced. The ability to detect nuclear tests, detect cheating will be dramatically enhanced. No one that I know of can credibly or thoughtfully argue that we are not enhancing our capability in this country by ratifying this treaty. What about the scientists? Thirty-two Nobel laureates in physics and chemistry, the most powerful intellects in this country were at the White House a couple of days ago. One who testified yesterday worked on developing the first nuclear bomb; one who testified the day before invented radar and then invented the laser--what do these scientists tell us about this treaty? They say: Ratify this treaty. This treaty is in the country's best interest. Scientifically, they tell us that we can safeguard our nuclear stockpile; we can more effectively monitor tests around the world. They say, without equivocation: Ratify this treaty. That is from scientists. What about the American people? Surveys show 80 percent of the American people say: Ratify this. It is interesting to me, military leaders do not count; scientists do not count; the American people do not count. There is this cold war mentality, I guess, that nothing has changed. Some who have never supported an arms control agreement are back here again today saying this will not work either. Other arms control agreements have worked, and we know it. We have seen the destruction of nuclear weapons by sawing wings off bombers, by destroying missiles and warheads, and not by hostility but by arms control agreements that call for reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons. That has happened. These arms control agreements have been successful. This treaty will be successful if this Senate will ratify it. The support of military leaders and scientists--and, for that matter, the American people--seems to matter little in this Chamber. The scientific opinion of the most respected scientists in the world are second-guessed by those who believe they can understand this issue in a matter of a day or two. Thirty-two Nobel Prize winners, two seismology organizations, three current weapons lab Directors, the Secretary of Energy, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense all have a common position on this country's ability to solve the scientific and technical tasks required in this test ban treaty; and all of them say that this treaty is in the country's interests. The spread of nuclear weapons, that is what all this is about-- stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan detonated nuclear weapons not too long ago under each other's chin. These are two countries that do not like each other. Ought that not send some fear all around the world about the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Or maybe some do not understand nuclear weapons. They think that they are just bombs. There is an Indian author named Arundahti Roy who is one of the most acclaimed young authors in the world right now. She writes about a nuclear attack and nuclear weapons. Let me read some of this for a moment. She talks about the sentiments of survivors of a nuclear attack: What shall we do then, those of us who are still alive? Burned and blind and bald and ill, carrying the cancerous carcasses of our children in our arms, where shall we go? What shall we eat? What shall we drink? What shall we breathe? . . . There's nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons. . . . (But) under the circumstances, silence would be indefensible. Let's not forget that the stakes we're playing for are huge. Our fatigue and our shame could mean the end of us. We have a responsibility as a country. Those who raise arguments I have heard today--I wonder how can they sleep at night, if they believe our nuclear weapons are unsafe. A physicist yesterday said: We have had them for 40 and 50 years. We know how they work. We know how to safeguard them. We know how to keep them over time. Yet we have people on the floor of the Senate talking about the fact that the stockpile may not be safe. One of my colleagues said: Drop some of them on your State. You think they'd work? Of course they would. You would not, in a million years, guess about whether it would detonate on your State if a nuclear weapon were aimed at your State. We know our stockpile works and is maintained at great cost. Cannot monitor? Nonsense. That does not even deserve much of a response. Everybody says our monitoring will be enhanced. Unilateral disarmament? Rubbish. There is nothing here that suggests that. This country already decided we were not going to test 7 years ago. The question now is, Will we give others a green light to test? We decide that we won't test, but we will refuse to ratify a treaty that says to others: We don't want you to test either. It is a curious set of circumstances by which this comes to the floor. Every other arms control issue has been dealt with seriously. The ABM Treaty: 8 days of Foreign Relations Committee hearings, and 18 days of Senate debate on the floor of the Senate. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1988: 23 days of committee hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee; 2 days of Senate floor consideration. START I: 19 days of hearings; 5 days on the Senate floor. START II: 8 days of Foreign Relations Committee hearings; 3 days on the Senate floor. Chemical weapons: 14 days of hearings; 3 days on the Senate floor. NATO enlargement: 7 days of hearings; 8 days on the floor. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: 2 years it was here. Not 1 day of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during 2 years; and then we are told, 14 hours of debate. The New York Times today has the spectacle--welcomed from my standpoint, by the way--but the spectacle of the leaders of England, France, and Germany asking us to assume our role as a leader, asking us to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. No one ought to ask us to do what we have a responsibility to do. We ought not to be in the position of having other countries have to ask us to assume leadership in trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the risk of nuclear war. We ought to be leading on this issue, not following. Omar Bradley, that great general said some many years ago, and it applies especially today, it seems to me: The world has achieved a brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servants may prove to be our executioner. Everyone in this Chamber knows our responsibility. Our duty--as the nuclear superpower on this Earth--our duty is to lead. And we cannot and we must not shrink from that duty ever. There is great anxiety about what happens at the end of 14 hours, and what if, as some now speculate, many Senators, especially on the other side of the aisle, decide they cannot support this treaty. Some say that would be a chilling, chilling result, with devastating results around the rest of the world. I know this: This is a difficult, uncertain time, with many countries wishing to possess and acquire nuclear weapons. It is a difficult time, with India and Pakistan detonating nuclear weapons. It is a difficult time, with rogue nations and terrorist groups that want to threaten much of civilization. We have unloosed the nuclear genie, and we must assume responsibility in providing an opportunity for the entire world to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. One way to do that--an important and effective way to do that--is to decide as a Senate to ratify this treaty.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I want to make it clear that funding to assure the timely and accurate processing of Medicare claims also is a high priority for me and the beneficiaries in my state. I also would like a reassurance that the mark will not affect access to health care services in rural America.

Mr. DORGAN. I am concerned about the funding level in the Senate bill for vocational education. While the Senate bill generally increases our investment in education, unfortunately funding for vocational education basic state grants would remain at the President's request of $1,030,650,000. Funding for vocational education basic state grants has been virtually frozen over the last several years by both the Congress and the President. Consequently funding for vocational, career, and technical programs has not kept pace either with inflation or with funding for other education programs. In fact, if vocational education funding had simply kept pace with inflation over the last eight years, it would be $220 million greater than is being proposed for FY2000. I would suggest an additional $100 million in funding for basic state grants, which represents about a 10 percent increase, but realistically, I believe $50 million would represent a reasonable step in the correct direction.