Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator from Ohio's leadership on this issue and the Senator from Alaska's comments in support of vocational education funding at the Appropriations Committee mark-up. I wonder if the Senator from Alaska would give his assurance that he will work to secure additional funding for vocational education as the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill moves forward?

Mr. DORGAN

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 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 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 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.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if a lot of this debate isn't about some here running for cover on the Social Security issue. Isn't it the case that several years ago, we had a very substantial debate about amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget? Isn't it true the author of the previous amendment and others were demanding on the floor of the Senate that we write into the Constitution the proposition that Social Security revenues ought to be able to be used to pay for other programs in order to claim a balanced budget? Isn't that the case? If that is the case, how do they come to us now and say we don't want to use Social Security moneys for the operating budget when, in fact, they wanted to put it in the Constitution 3 years ago?

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey would yield.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy of the majority leader. I hope we can find a way by which we are able to debate and vote on this treaty. I don't share the opinion that it is dangerous. I think it is important for the interests of this country that we ratify this treaty. Whatever the agreement, I also think it would be useful to have a hearing in the coming days and have the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others come forward and tell us their views.

Mr. DORGAN. I understand it would not preclude it, but would it necessarily include it? Does the majority leader think such hearings will be held? Notwithstanding that, I still think, one way or the other, we ought to get to this treaty, get it to the floor, debate it, and vote on it.

Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator believe there will be a hearing in the coming days?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina objected to my being recognized following his statement on the floor. The Senator from North Carolina, as I understand, is propounding a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Georgia be recognized, following which he be recognized. I ask consent I be recognized following the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't object to the Senator from Georgia speaking. I don't object to the Senator from North Carolina speaking. I simply ask if the Senator from North Carolina gets consent to be recognized, that I get consent to be recognized following his presentation. As I understand it, he has objected to that; is that the case?

Mr. DORGAN. Whose request?

Mr. DORGAN. I will certainly not object to my request.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not object, I ask that I be recognized following the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Carolina, for whom I have great respect, it is not and will never be my intention to prevent him from speaking on the floor. That was not the purpose of the unanimous consent request or the objections. I have talked to him personally about this issue. He feels very strongly about it, as the Senator from Delaware indicated. The Senator, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has a right to feel very strongly about his position. I respect that very much. This is an issue that is very important to this country and, in my judgment, to the world. We have a circumstance where 154 countries have become signatories to something called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Forty-seven countries have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This country has not. Mr. President, 737 days ago or so, this treaty was sent to the Senate by this administration; 737 days later we have not acted on this treaty. Some feel very strongly this treaty is not good for our country. The majority leader made that case. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from North Carolina, makes that case. They have strong feelings about it. I respect that. Other people have strong feelings on the other side, including myself. I believe strongly this country has a moral responsibility in the world to lead on the question of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Not many countries have access to nuclear weapons or possess nuclear weapons. Many would like to. How do we prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in this world, at a time when the shadow of nuclear tests recently made by India and Pakistan suggest there is an appetite for acquisition of nuclear weapons and testing of nuclear weapons? Two countries that do not like each other and share a common border explode nuclear weapons literally under each other's chins. Shouldn't that tell us there are serious challenges ahead with respect to nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear weapons? I think so. A unanimous consent request was propounded by the majority leader to bring up the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty next week. As far as I am concerned, it is all right with me. I have been suggesting it ought to be brought up for a debate. It probably would be better if there was a hearing first and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other respected folks came and set out their views and then, a couple of days later, debate it and vote on it. That would probably be a better course. Even in the absence of that, as far as I am concerned, bring it up. The Democratic leader said he thought 10 hours was probably not enough time. The majority leader said in response we can perhaps lengthen that. Maybe, based on that discussion, there can be an agreement today. I hope so. This ought to be brought up for a vote. I do not think the objection by the Democratic leader was an objection to say it ought not be brought up. He was concerned about time. It occurred to me from the response of the majority leader that can be worked out. In any event, as far as I am concerned, bring it up next week. Let's have a debate next week and a vote next week. Twenty-one nations have ratified this treaty since the beginning of this year. Most of our allies have ratified this treaty, but we have not. Some say it is dangerous, as the majority leader alleged today, using the term ``dangerous'' for this country. Others say it is not in this country's interest, that it will weaken this country, leave us unprotected. Let me describe some of the support for this treaty, going back to President Eisenhower who pushed very hard in the final term of his Presidency to get a treaty of this type. General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supports this treaty and testified recently again in support of the treaty. Four previous Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--General Shalikashvili, Gen. Colin Powell, Admiral Crowe, and Gen. David Jones--also endorse that same position, that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is good for this country and ought to be ratified by this Senate. Does anyone really feel Gen. Colin Powell, General Shalikashvili, and General Shelton would take a position that they think will weaken this country? Are they the extreme left? Are they the folks who, on the extreme of politics in this country, believe we ought to disarm? I do not think so. The Secretary of Defense supports this treaty and believes it ought to be ratified. I would not expect that he and Colin Powell and Admiral Crowe and all of those folks would do so unless they felt very strongly that this treaty is in this country's interest. A former Member of this body, Senator Hatfield, someone for whom I have the greatest respect, offered some sound advice on this subject. Senator Hatfield, incidentally, was one of the first servicemen to walk in the streets of Hiroshima after the nuclear strike on that city. I want to read what former Senator Hatfield said to us. He said: It is clear to me that ratifying this treaty would be in the national interest, and it is equally clear that Senators have a responsibility to the world, to the Nation and their constituents to put partisan politics aside and allow the Senate to consider this treaty. He, perhaps better than anybody in this body, understands the horror of nuclear weapons, having walked the streets of Hiroshima after the strike on that city. I quoted the other day Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union who warned that in a nuclear war the living would envy the dead. The question for this country is, Will we stand and provide world leadership on the issue of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons or will we decide it is not our country's responsibility; it is someone else's responsibility? Let England do it. Let France do it. Let Germany do it. Let Canada do it. We are the only country in the world with the capability of providing significant leadership in this area. We must, in my judgment, ratify this treaty. There are safeguards in this treaty. I will not spend much more time discussing it right now because we are on another piece of legislation, and that is important, too. But I make these comments because the safeguards in this treaty are quite clear. This is not a case where this country will ratify a treaty that, in effect, disarms us. We are not conducting explosive tests of nuclear weapons now. We have unilaterally decided--7 years ago--we are not exploding nuclear weapons. What contribution would be made by a test ban treaty? Simply this: If you cannot test your weaponry, you have no notion and no certainty that any weapons you develop are weapons that work. We have known for 30 and 40 years that the ability to suppress the testing of nuclear weapons will be the first step, albeit a moderate step, in halting the spread of nuclear weapons. This, in my judgment, in fact, is not a moderate step--this is a baby step. If we cannot take this baby step on this important treaty, how on Earth are we going to do the heavy lifting that is necessary following this that will lead to the mutual reduction in the stockpile of nuclear arms? Tens of thousands of nuclear arms--30,000 nuclear weapons between us and Russia alone. How are we going to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons and halt the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries and reduce the threat that comes from the nuclear weapons tests that occurred in Pakistan and India? How on Earth are we going to provide the leadership that is necessary, the tough leadership that is necessary in these areas if we cannot take this small step to ratify a treaty that has been signed by 154 countries now, and that makes so much sense, and that our Joint Chiefs of Staff have said represents this country's interests? How on Earth are we going to do the tough work if we cannot take this first step? I have a lot more to say on this subject. I have expressed to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, it is not my intention to be an irritant to anybody in this Chamber personally. I do not ever intend to suggest that someone who believes differently than I do is taking that position for any other reason except for the passion they have about this country and the policies they think will strengthen it. But we have a very significant disagreement about this issue. It is a very significant and important issue. I believe in my heart very strongly this country has a responsibility to lead in the right way on this matter. My hope is the unanimous consent request propounded by the majority leader--if there is more time needed; and the majority leader indicated that he was agreeable to that--my hope is that before the end of today we will have an agreement on when it will be brought to the floor, and then let's have a robust, aggressive, thoughtful debate so the country can understand what this means. Then let's have a vote and decide whether this country decides to ratify this important treaty that has been discussed for some 40 years--whether this country will take the first step that will help halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

Mr. DORGAN. Of course I will yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Virginia. One of my deep regrets is that he does not support this treaty because I have great respect for him and have worked with him on a number of matters. He truly knows this area and studies this area. There is room for disagreement. But I say, again, that Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, General Shalikashvili, General Shelton, and so many others have reviewed all of the same material--much of it secret material, secret documents--and have come to a different conclusion, believing that this treaty is very important for this country and that it is very important to ratify this treaty. But my hope mirrors that of Senator Warner, that when we have this debate, we will have a debate about ideas and about the kind of public policy that will benefit this country and the world, the kind of public policy that will allow us to continue to be strong, to have the capability to defend our liberty and freedom, but the kind of policy that will also provide leadership so this country can help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the years ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is, the Senator from Washington has the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding of the 12 o'clock issue is, there was to be no amendment offered prior to 12 o'clock; and it is now 12 noon. But that restriction has nothing to do with whether or not the Senator from Washington has and retains the floor of the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was in the appropriations markup yesterday when the Senator from Washington was preparing to offer the amendment she now describes on the floor of the Senate. I asked the question at that point during the discussion whether the product from the Appropriations Committee that was brought to the committee yesterday, and now to the floor, would, in fact, require or allow or cause the firing of up to 30,000 teachers that had been previously hired under this program. I asked the question, I think, a couple of times, trying to understand, is there a deliberate effort to say we don't want to have a program with national goals or aspirations to reduce class size by hiring more teachers; we don't want to have that program. Is that the goal, to not have that program any longer? I was not able to get an answer to that. But we now have the program. Is it not correct we have a program in which we in Congress said we will authorize and fund to try to reduce class size around this country in our public schools by adding some additional classroom teachers? We know that works. Study after study tells us that works, that it improves education. A teacher in a classroom with 30 students has substantially less time to devote to those students than a teacher in a classroom with 15. We know that. We know it works in every way to have smaller class sizes. This Government already decided it wanted to have a program of that type. We funded it and authorized it last year. Unless the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington is adopted, is it not correct that all across this country, we will see the dismissal of teachers who are now in the classroom helping reduce class sizes, improving education, because the resources will not be available any longer to fund that? And will that not be a significant step backward in our goal to improve public education in this country?

Mr. DORGAN. I have a question I want to propound to the Senator from Washington. Isn't it the case that while in some areas there has been adequate funding, in this area on the major initiative dealing with class size, we will have to fire classroom teachers around this country unless this resource is put back in the piece of legislation before the Senate?

Mr. DORGAN. Is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Let me just ask a final question of the Senator from Washington. I do this saying, first of all, that I have great respect for the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I watched what he did yesterday in the area of education and health care and a range of other areas, where he tried to take resources that were rather limited and make the right investments with them. There are many areas on which I applaud the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa. I think they deserve our accolades and applause for their work in a number of areas. The Senator from Washington, however----

Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish the question, if I might.

Mr. DORGAN. I understand. I did not expect that the Chair or the Senator from Pennsylvania would have a problem with my complimenting the Senator from Pennsylvania. But I will cease and desist that.