J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. The time to speak against the second-degree amendment would be under the control of the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, if I might respond and clear up any misunderstanding, the time agreement that was entered into and was specifically agreed to last night was 90 minutes under the control of the Senator from Nebraska, and 70 minutes under the control of the Senator from South Carolina. That time agreement is for debate on both the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the second degree, and the time can be allotted. Any Senator can debate either the underlying amendment or the amendment in the second degree.

Mr. EXON. You are wrong. You have a right to be wrong.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Amendment No. 2112 to Amendment No. 2111 (Purpose: To strike section 3135 of S. 1026 authorizing a program for hydronuclear experiments)

Mr. EXON. As per our previous agreement, I send an amendment in the second degree to the desk at this time and ask that it be read in its entirety, and I also ask that the cosponsors of the amendment be identified as part of the reading.

Mr. EXON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. EXON. Yes, I will yield 15 minutes.

Mr. EXON. If the Senator from South Carolina wishes to make an opening statement preceding the 15-minute remarks by the Senator from New Mexico, I am certain that will be agreeable.

Mr. EXON. I could not agree more and thank my friend for his remarks. Mr. President, the Exon-Hatfield amendment then, if I can repeat that again, is a very simple and straightforward one. It will delete section 3135 of the bill in its entirety and remove the $50 million authorization for hydronuclear testing that the Senator from Oregon has addressed in a very eloquent fashion. Our amendment makes no adjustment to the funding for either the stockpile stewardship program or the overall Energy Department budget. Our amendment is funding neutral. It simply removes the authorization in the bill to use $50 million to resume nuclear weapons testing, and the reasons for removing that and not doing it have been adequately addressed already by my colleague from Oregon and the junior Senator from New Mexico. Three years ago, as was alluded to by Senator Hatfield, a strong bipartisan coalition in both Houses of Congress twice approved a plan to phase out nuclear weapons testing and give the moribund comprehensive test ban negotiations a shot in the arm. Successful negotiation of a global comprehensive test ban treaty would significantly advance the cause of nuclear weapons proliferation by denying those nations tempted to develop nuclear capability the means to prove out their weapons. Getting that done, in the view of this Senator, is absolutely essential. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. President, raised some rather interesting questions in his riveting remarks to the Senate this morning. He said, why is this included in the defense authorization bill? It was not requested by the administration. How did it creep back in? I suggest the answer to the question is that, despite all of our efforts to the contrary, there are people embedded in the Pentagon today that want to resume nuclear testing on a full-scale basis. This is a step in that direction, a very important and a very ill-timed one, in the opinion of this Senator. Those people deep inside the Pentagon, and associated with it, have tried to influence the President of the United States to lift his objections, which he has stated over and over and over again to not begin nuclear testing by the United States of America, who is far ahead of any real, imagined or invented future enemies that might be a nuclear threat. If we begin testing today, it will be viewed by the rest of the world as they are currently reviewing and showing their distress of the French and their distress of the Chinese for the testing in this area that they are about as of now. We must not join. The attack that will be launched against China and France and the United States of America, the leader in this field, is a terrible step in the wrong direction. Mr. President, I feel so strongly about this issue. I talked a great deal yesterday, along with others, about the ballistic missile defense system. And on a close vote, the Senate validated the actions of our Armed Services Committee in that regard. I think that was a terrible mistake, but it has been done. But if we do not adopt the Exon-Hatfield amendment and go ahead with this program that is an open invitation, much more than a camel's nose under the tent, to start the nuclear race all over again, we will have essentially no one but ourselves to blame. A comprehensive test ban would also freeze in place the inherent advantage of the United States, as it has at the present time, because we possess the most tested and proven nuclear stockpile ever. After 1,148 nuclear weapons tests over 50 years, the United States possesses the safest and most reliable nuclear weapons in the world. No one can argue with that. The resulting law that we talked about earlier, called the Hatfield- Exon-Mitchell law, enacted an initial 9 months testing moratorium period, followed by 3 years of limited weapons testing, if necessary. And the Senator from Oregon referenced that in his remarks this morning. During this 3-year period, no more than 5 safety and reliability tests could be conducted each year, for a total of 15 tests. Approval for the tests are to be sought from Congress through an annual testing report outlining the justification for such testing. To date, no authority to conduct any weapons tests have been sought by the administration, and along with Russia, which, of course, are watching us in this area, we have not tested. Now comes France, and we all observe as to what they have done recently with regard to tests. Likewise, I will mention once again the concern I have with the Chinese action. But during the time following enactment of the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell law, those nations, led by the United States, have been working hard to reach agreement in Geneva on a comprehensive test ban treaty. If we want to flush that down the drain, then defeat the Exon- Hatfield, et al., amendment. I must confess, Mr. President, that I have had some rather angry words with certain administration officials on this particular matter. While the President has been steadfast, there are some close to him who are wishy-washy on this issue. I hope the President will listen to those of us who have done a great deal of study and have a great deal of concern about this. And I think the President will, notwithstanding the fact that some of those closest to him are wishy-washy on the issue, and I have told that to them to their face. After 2 years of negotiations, we are hopeful that we are entering maybe some kind of an end-game with regard to a comprehensive test ban treaty. The nuclear and nonnuclear nations of the world are on track to reach an agreement, possibly, by 1996--a goal expressly endorsed by not only the United States, but China, Russia, and France. No one should ignore the fact that the permanent extension of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was obtained this spring with the assurance provided by the nuclear powers that a comprehensive test ban treaty would soon follow. The world is in agreement: It is time to close the nuclear Pandora's box, and a comprehensive test ban treaty is a significant step toward that end. Let us not kill the possibility. I recount the history of this issue so as to provide a context for better understanding the real reason why the Armed Services Committee provided $50 million for hydronuclear testing. Let no Senator misunderstand the true [[Page S 11359]] intent behind this provision of the bill. Its purpose is to bust out of the nuclear testing moratorium we have been observing for the past 3 years as a result of the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell bill that has been referenced on several occasions this morning. It wants the United States to renege on our commitment made during the NPT conference. It hopes to scuttle the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations now underway. The cumulative effect of these consequences will be to undermine our efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. As a result, our national security will be weakened, not enhanced, by the resumption of nuclear weapons testing and a new nuclear race will be in full swing. Our standing as a world leader will be irreparably harmed on the issue of nonproliferation. For proof of these things to come, simply look at the world condemnation over the recent French decision to resume testing. The world is astonished, but the French, in their way, go ahead as they always do. Let us not follow their course. Some may ask, what is a hydronuclear test exactly? The simple definition is that it is a very low yield detonation--usually measured at a few pounds of explosive yield--to assess primary performance and safety of warheads. While a high-explosive explosion generates sufficient energy to melt the core of the weapon, the nuclear energy release is insufficient to cause the bomb to reach full criticality and with the possibility that it would explode with full power. It is true that the U.S. negotiation position in Geneva would allow for such experiments not to exceed 4 pounds of yield under a comprehensive test ban treaty. However, a treaty agreement has not been reached, and it is the present administration policy not to conduct such tests outside the treaty. I hope the President and the administration maintain that position. Moreover, the authorization bill seems to use the term ``hydronuclear experiments'' rather loosely. As section 3165 of the bill notes, the tests to be performed may be measured not in terms of pounds of TNT yield, but rather in tons. That was stated in somewhat different form by the Senator from Oregon in his remarks to the Senate this morning. The type of nuclear tests the committee majority has in mind are not--I emphasize ``not,'' Mr. President--traditional hydronuclear tests. They are looking at detonation with yields up to 40,000 pounds-- that is a whole lot more than 4 pounds--or 20 tons of explosive power. The $50 million authorization provided in the bill for these nuclear weapons tests is a particularly mischievous add-on to the President's budget request. The mandate is in violation of existing law, which states that all proposed nuclear tests be included in the annual administration report on our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the need, if any, to conduct tests. Specifically, the bill violates the provision of the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell law that states, ``Only the numbers and types of tests specified in the report * * * may be tested.'' In short, the bill totally negates the process already in existence for proposing and approving, with congressional concurrence, new nuclear weapons tests. More central to the point is whether these new tests are really needed. No safety or reliability problem is known to exist with any of our Nation's nuclear weapons to justify a resumption of weapons testing. On this most important point, there is no disagreement. Administration officials, from the laboratories to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, all the way up to the President, are unanimous in this opinion. Even the JASON group--also referenced by the Senator from Oregon in his remarks this morning--an assembly of outside nuclear weapons experts, concurs with the finding that no safety or reliability problem exists, and that the restart of nuclear testing is not necessary. Mr. President, there is no explanation in the committee bill as to which warheads are to be tested, or which weapons, why they are to be tested--though, in a very vague fashion, almost a carte blanche authority--and they do not even say how many tests are allowed. There is no limit. Absent a known safety or reliability problem, the primary purpose for the resumption of testing is unknown. If it is to maintain worker expertise at the Nevada test site, it should be made clear that the committee has received no testimony to suggest that the testing expertise is eroding, or if it was, the proposed authorization to use $50 million to resume testing would stem this. There is not any question but that this Senator has stood at the forefront--because we live in an uncertain world, and we have no way of knowing what the next move in the world, especially in nuclear testing is going to be--I have been at the forefront in maintaining a facility, with the people at the Nevada test site to be there, to do the testing, if an emergency arises. I suggest that the true reason for the committee action is the basic belief that the United States should test for the sake of testing. It is a good thing to do, some seem to feel, even if it means undermining our Nation's efforts to close Pandora's box and halt the spread of nuclear weapons around the globe. American leadership in the world community is strongest when we lead by example. We should continue to do that--lead by example. There is never more the case than in the area of nuclear weapons testing. We must continue to lead, and we must be responsible. Contrary to the committee direction, there is no reason, Mr. President, to restart nuclear weapons testing. American public opinion has been solid against such a proposition for quite some time. Our country is poised to join the world community in taking a historic step toward limiting the number of nuclear states in the future. Seriously endangering these efforts, as the committee testing provision would do, we will be working against the very national security interests that we profess to support in other areas of the bill, such as ballistic missile defense funding and, of course, the Nunn-Lugar program. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Exon-Hatfield, et al., amendment and turn back this misguided attempt to fire up the cold war rhetoric of the past. After 1,100 nuclear detonations, our stockpile is safe. It is reliable. It is time to concern ourselves with whether other nations are going to start and deploy their own nuclear arsenals. The resumption of U.S. nuclear weapons testing will doom--will doom-- the comprehensive test ban negotiations, and in the process, give the green light to the world leaders, hoping to find superpower status in the form of even a nuclear bomb or two. Our amendment is a choice between priorities. A vote for the Exon- Hatfield, et al., amendment is a vote against the spread of nuclear weapons. A vote against our amendment is a vote for more testing and an abdication of responsible U.S. leadership. We would be no different from the French, in their decision to test-- an object of worldwide ridicule and derision. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to carefully think and then cast their vote, which I think and hope will be overwhelming, for the cause of halting the spread of nuclear weapons, and support the Exon- Hatfield, et al., amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EXON. I yield myself such time as I may need from our allotted time. I just want to compliment my very dear friend and colleague from Oregon for the excellent remarks that he has just made. It puts in perspective so dramatically and so honestly and in such a straightforward manner the heart and soul of the Exon-Hatfield amendment, which is to follow on the Exon-Hatfield amendment of 3 years ago that we were joined in by the then-majority leader, George Mitchell. I think maybe we were somewhat surprised when we won that vote. But I think it was a giant leap forward in facing up to the realities of the situation that confront us. So I thank my friend and colleague, a man of great wisdom and experience, for outlining in a very articulate fashion his views as to why the Exon-Hatfield amendment should be adopted, and also backing that up with his vast experience. When he was talking about those dark days of World War II when important decisions were being made, I was at Clark Field in the Philippines, which had just been taken during that particular period of time. And I know also--not to the extent that I believe my friend from Oregon did--but we knew full well what was being planned. We knew the sacrifices that were going to have to be made. And when the Senator from Oregon said his life was probably saved by that action, I think that is very much on point. Having said that, I would like to come to the defense for a moment of former Senator Harry Truman, then President Harry Truman, who had the [[Page S 11358]] courage to make that devastating decision that I believe very likely left its mark on the great President Harry Truman. I am convinced he did the right thing, but it was a horrible thing. The Senator from Oregon has brought that very dramatically to the attention of the Senate. Therefore, while I have been known as a hawk, and continue to be a hawk, I happen to feel that humanity has to recognize that if we keep maintaining as a major part of our national security the threat of another Hiroshima, then we are in dire circumstances, as far as humanity is concerned. I ask my friend, though, about one part of his remarks, if I understood them correctly--I suspect there was somewhat an unintended understatement, if I heard my friend correctly--I believe he said that if the Exon-Hatfield amendment is not adopted, it will irreparably harm the chances for a nuclear test ban treaty. I believe those were the well-chosen words the Senator from Oregon used. I happen to think that is a very minimal statement. I simply say if the Exon-Hatfield amendment does not prevail, it will not harm our effort for a comprehensive test ban treaty, it will destroy it. I wonder if the Senator from Oregon feels that I am justified in making that statement a little more stronger than he did in his well- chosen remarks?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I was hoping we could move back and forth on time. There are 31 minutes left on our side. I would like to have a better balance on time. But if there is no speaker ready to go over here, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. EXON. The Senator is wrong, but he has a right to be wrong. [[Page S 11365]]

Mr. EXON. There are a whole group of wishy-washy advisers to the President. I talked about people inside the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense supports my position. I hope you are not saying the Secretary of Defense supports your----

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question? I thank my friend from North Dakota. That is exactly what I was trying to find out. Now we have moved from 8:10 to 8:40. It has been a very convenient arrangement that the Senate has been going through trying to meet accommodations. I will try to be back at about 8:40.

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

Mr. EXON. Yes. If I understand the agreement right, the Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes, as does the Senator from South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent, as previously agreed to, that immediately preceding the vote on the Exon amendment, 2 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Nebraska and 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. EXON. Then a tabling motion would not be in order at this time, would it?

Mr. EXON. Are we under controlled time?

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

Mr. EXON. You did not on Bosnia.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Iowa. Ordinarily I would be in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa and by the Senator from Maine. But this is not an ordinary time. I wonder what is going through the minds of our European allies today when they hear what is going on day after day after day on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We zapped them good on a bipartisan vote that I thought was a horrible mistake on Bosnia. Now, as we zap them again at this particular time, after zapping them and leaving them adrift on a vote that we took a few moments ago with regard to nuclear testing, they might give up. I simply say at another time this might be a good amendment. I urge a vote against this because I think we have hit our allies all we dare hit them at this particular juncture.

Mr. EXON. The Senator from Nebraska asks if he might be allowed, under a unanimous-consent request, 1 minute to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. EXON. It is going to defense contractors and not where it belongs.

Mr. EXON. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. I will be supporting the amendment that he has offered. This is the same debate as with the amendment that was offered by myself and my colleague, Senator Grassley, last year on a very similar matter. There has been a lot of heated rhetoric today. As a hawk, I stand here and tell you that this Defense authorization bill is a fat turkey. But we have not really talked about the real fat. The $7 billion is a drop in the bucket. If you will look at what is inaugurated in this bill, it is billions if not trillions in the future. I am fearful that unless the people who are supporting this agree to raise taxes, of all things, you are going do see a decline in the quality of people who serve in the Armed Forces.

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 2113