Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as I have spoken earlier concerning the issue now before this body, the question of privilege, in terms of the tradition of the House and whether or not the President of France should be honored or be given the privilege of addressing a joint session of Congress tomorrow, as I speak, Mr. Speaker, as it is true with almost every young American learning about civics, the history of our Nation itself, how it was conceived, the fact that this Nation itself has a tradition of being a former colony of the British Empire, the fact that there are some very fundamental traditions that I think I can say without equivocation about what America stands for, the principles of democracy and human rights and all due respect for other human beings to live in their respective areas or regions, as I speak before my colleagues in this body, I notice there are only two murals or two picture frames that are part of the decor of our Chamber, and that of the great President, our first President of the United States, George Washington, and I see on the other corner of this Chamber a great leader, a great French patriot by the name of Marquis de Lafayette, a great patriot who supported wholeheartedly the cause of the American colony for its interests in wanting very much to be free from the shackles of British colonialism, and the fact that representation without taxation, as a principle, simply was not in order, and the fact that our country was conceived in blood, and we fought for those freedoms against British colonialism. So I think in the spirit of tradition and what we talk about the great Lafayette that came and helped us tells us something about what it means to be a free human being, what it means to go against colonialism, what it means to believe in the principles of democracy, human rights, and the right of human beings to live. I think this is the core of the issue that is now before us, and the privileged resolution expressing this sense, strong sense, among the Members of this Chamber that the Speaker ought not extend an invitation to the President of France to address us at a joint session tomorrow. I support wholeheartedly the provisions of this resolution, and I ask my colleagues in this Chamber to help us by making this point. The point is that this man really did not have to permit six nuclear explosions, to do this nuclear testing, despite the fact of protestations of some 167 nations, 28 million people who live in the Pacific region, 200,000 of their own citizens in French Polynesia who also opposed the testing, and ironically of all, Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of the French people themselves did not want President Chirac to conduct this nuclear testing. It is an abomination. It is an outrage. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, do not support the Speaker's invitation by allowing this man to address the Chamber tomorrow.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue, the privileged resolution, before the body.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend from Guam. [From the Washington Times, Jan. 31, 1996] India's Stand Could Stop Test-Ban Treaty (By Brahma Chellaney) New Delhi.--After the halt to French nuclear testing in the South Pacific this week, India may stand as the biggest obstacle to American hopes for the completion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year. France, having conducted six nuclear tests the past five months, now favors an early conclusion to the CTB talks in Geneva. President Clinton listed the treaty as a priority in his State of the Union address. China said yesterday it will continue testing until the implementation of the treaty, an outcome that is far from certain. The CTB negotiations stand in jeopardy of being derailed by Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's decision, announced in Geneva last week, to insist that the declared nuclear powers first agree to a timetable for total nuclear disarmament. Analysts say there can be no credible treaty without the participation of India, which exploded a nuclear device in 1974. Pakistan, also on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, would not sign if India did not, and a number of other developing countries could be expected to follow suit. Despite intense Western diplomatic pressure, India also plans to seek clauses in the treaty to bar the nuclear powers from updating their arsenals through laboratory testing, a move that would sharply raise the political and technical costs of the treaty. ``To be meaningful, the treaty should be securely anchored in the global disarmament context and be linked through treaty language to the elimination of all nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework,'' the Rao government said. It said it would insert specific language into the treaty's draft text to prevent it from becoming ``another flawed instrument aimed at curbing horizontal proliferation.'' China's announcement that it will continue testing was another blow to nonproliferation efforts. Beijing, which is expected to carry out two or three nuclear tests this year, supports a comprehensive test ban but says it will abide by a pact only when it takes effect in international law. ``The position of the Chinese government on nuclear testing is clear-cut and remains unchanged,'' a Foreign Ministry spokesman said. ``China has conducted a very limited number of nuclear tests, and things will continue to be that way''. Mr. Clinton has made the conclusion of a test-ban treaty a priority, renewing his call for a completion of the negotiations in his State of the Union address last week. ``We must end the race to create new nuclear weapons by signing a truly comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty--this year,'' he said. Mr. Clinton also has written to Mr. Rao seeking support for the treaty, but Indian officials said the prime minister has not replied to the letter. The treaty negotiations are entering a critical phase in Geneva, where this year's session opened Jan. 22. After a year of talks, there remain some 1,200 unsettled political and technical differences, including all the key provisions. With a number of countries working to influence the 104-page draft text, the final form of the treaty is very much in question. The conference functions on the basis of consensus, bestowing effective veto power on each of its 37 members. Although India could block Washington's plans by itself, it is building support among other non-aligned countries. It got a major boost last year when the U.N. General Assembly voted 106-39 to adopt a Burma-sponsored resolution calling for parallel negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament. Mr. Rao, who is under growing domestic pressure to test and modernize his country's nuclear option, has argued that the permanent extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty last May left India with no other way to pursue its goal of total nuclear disarmament.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think one thing that I want to add, and also for our colleagues to know, this is not a Pacific issue. I think this is something that we need to kind of widen our perspectives and think just because you and I are from this region of the world that this makes it somewhat un-American. The fact of the matter is, the United States is a Pacific Nation. The fact is that we conducted 160 nuclear bomb explosions in the Marshall Islands in the late fifities and early sixties. I might also add that we had to stop doing these tests because what happened was they found strontium 90, a by-product of nuclear contamination, in dairy products in the State of Wisconsin and other States. What happens, all of a sudden, everybody says, ``Oh, it is a hazard to our health to conduct these nuclear tests.'' Despite our efforts to tell France, do not do this, they went right ahead and conducted these tests. I might also note to the good gentleman's comments about the nuclear tests that were conducted in 1979. They drilled a hole or shaft in this atoll, which was supposed to be 2,600 feet, where the bomb was to explode. The thing went down halfway and got stuck. Guess what? They went right ahead and exploded that bomb, which caused not only a tidal wave, but tons of fish and all forms of marine life totally contaminated in the explosion they conducted in 1979. That is just one incident. Another point I think my good friend and colleague should know, I think some 12,000 Tahitians, French Polynesians, were exposed directly to nuclear contamination. No records are kept, everything is held in secrecy. I say the issue is not moot. The issue is that our good friend from France, President Chirac, has got to come clean. He has got to tell the world that that Mururoa Atoll, which some scientists estimate is the equivalent of five Chernobyls, 181 nuclear bombs exploded in that one atoll alone, can you imagine what happens if that atoll starts to leak, starts to break apart? What is going to happen to the marine environment in the Pacific? Oh, perhaps our good citizens from the State of California, maybe from the State of Washington or Oregon, might have something to say about nuclear contamination in the Pacific; of course, our good friends from the State of Hawaii. I think it is outrageous. It is an outrage that we are going to allow this man to tell us what democracy is about, to tell us that France is a true democracy of the world, when just the opposite, exploding six nuclear bombs that are going to affect the health of these people that live in that part of the world. I think it is an insult to the people that live in the world, and I would surely hope that our colleagues will help us in this boycott.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 29, 3 short days before he is to arrive in Washington, President Chirac of France announced, in a formal news release, the end to nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Though he makes a pretty speech, just in time to come to Washington as a fervent advocate of nuclear disarmament and to establish warm ties with America, I want to point out for my colleagues and to the American people, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of Chirac's recent piece of propaganda. Mr. Chirac began his news release with these words: Dear compatriots, I announce to you today the find end to French nuclear tests. Thanks to the final series that has just taken place, France will have a durable, reliable, and modern defense. Point No. 1, Mr. Speaker, France already has the world's fourth largest Navy and the world's third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons before it even began its final series of nuclear tests. France had already exploded over 200 nuclear bombs in land, air, and water, far from the home of the enlightenment. In particular, France had already exploded 178 nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. Were those 200-plus nuclear bomb explosions not enough to ensure a durable, reliable, and modern defense? If those 200 were not enough, why should we now believe that the 6 additional nuclear bomb explosions France has just conducted in the South Pacific would be enough to stay its appetite for an even more modern defense? Point No. 2: The final series of French nuclear tests were not even necessary. The United States freely offered France the technology it sought to ensure its so-called nuclear weapons reliability. Why did France not accept the United States offer? Because of a combination of two things: French national pride, and French suspicions that the United States was withholding state-of-the-art technology. Now Chrirac wants to be perceived as promoting nuclear disarmament and warm ties with America? One who defiantly violates world moratoriums and resumes unnecessary nuclear testings cannot and must not be regarded as a promoter of nuclear disarmament, and one who is suspicious of any offerings the United States might make certainly cannot be regarded as one who is promoting warm ties with the United States. Mr. Speaker, President Chirac continues his speech by saying: ``The security of our country and our children is assured.'' In turn, Mr. Speaker, I say ``At what price, and whose children?'' The sixth nuclear bomb that France exploded on Saturday, last Saturday, since violating the world's moratorium, was six times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan; a bomb, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that took the immediate lives of some 150,000 people, and later claimed another 50,000 who died from nuclear contamination and illnesses. In response to France's latest nuclear explosion in Fangataufa Atoll, the mayor of Hiroshima said these words: ``I feel renewed anger. Nuclear tests aimed at developing and maintaining nuclear technology will do nothing but increase the risk of putting human beings on the brink of ruin.'' I might now ask, Mr. Speaker, what kind of security has France really secured for our children? The Pacific Ocean covers one-third of the world's surface. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that France has put not only its children but all of our children on the brink of ruin by exposing them to nuclear contamination through a resulting toxic food chain. Mr. Speaker, Chirac's reckless actions have initiated the nuclear arms race all over again. Horrific environmental concerns aside, Chirac's decision to resume unnecessary nuclear testings in the South Pacific has opened a Pandora's box that holds chilling implications for nuclear and nonnuclear nations alike. Prime Minister Keating of Australia recently said, and I quote: The French government is to be strongly condemned for the latest test at Fangataufa Atoll, and for conducting it during negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which are now entering the final critical stages in Geneva, Switzerland. What implications, Mr. Speaker, does Chirac's reckless decision to initiate the nuclear arms race all over again hold for those negotiations and for the security of the world? Let me share with you, Mr. Speaker, the domino effect of Chirac's reckless decision. These is now a serious move by India to link the negotiations of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in Geneva to its call for negotiations to start this year on removing all nuclear weapons in a specified time. The five nuclear superpowers are, of course, against this move, but joining India is, ironically, Pakistan. Adding to this difficulty, India refuses to sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty on the basis that the nuclear nations are still maintaining their nuclear arsenals, which in effect make the whole treaty meaningless and discriminatory. India's Prime Minister has said and I quote: ``We are of the view that to be meaningful, the treaty should be securely anchored in a global disarmament context, and be linked through treaty language to the elimination of all nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, India is pushing for no loopholes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As it currently stands, what assurances do nonnuclear nations have if nuclear nations retain their nuclear arsenals? If France's resumption of nuclear tests in the South Pacific is a case in point, nonnuclear nations have next to nothing in assurances from a five-member club comprised of one who is willing to defy world moratoriums at will, and four who are willing to act in complicity by looking the other way. Mr. Speaker, because of Chirac's reckless and selfish decision, India is now ignoring Western pressure to scrap its ambitious ballistic missile program. India is saying. If France can defy world moratoriums to ensure a durable, reliable, and modern defense, then so can we. Just this week India successfully launched a new ballistic missile, the Prithvi, that has a range exceeding 150 miles and a capability of being fitted with nuclear warheads. This means, Mr. Speaker, that India has a missile with nuclear capabilities that can reach the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, so now Pakistan wants to utilize M-11 ballistic missiles from China. These M- 11 missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and they could hit key cities throughout India. But the chain reaction Chirac has created does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. India and China have just signed a mutual contract for India to purchase uranium from China. Now China, in an expression of its own security concerns, is developing warm relations with Russia. China's position is that you cannot depend on Western powers for its security. Now there is renewed apprehension between Russia and the NATO powers. All of this, Mr. Speaker, is a result of the fear France has created and fueled by its defiance in violation of the world moratorium to stop nuclear testing. Australian Prime Minister Keating sums it up this way: ``Such irresponsible actions send the worst possible signal to nations that aspire to possess nuclear weapons. The French government is to be strongly condemned.'' Despite world condemnation, Mr. Speaker, Chirac arrogantly continues his speech of Eurocentric rationale by marginalizing Asian Pacific concerns. President Chirac state: ``I know the decision I took last June may have caused worries and emotions.'' Mr. Speaker, can you believe this? Charac thinks his decision only caused ``worries and emotions''. Is he still denying the environmental effects of his unnecessary nuclear bomb explosions in waters conveniently located halfway around the world from France? Is he still claiming that his nuclear bomb explosions have no ecological consequences? Is he unaware that he has initiated a nuclear arms race all over again? Or does he just take nuclear proliferation lightly, suggesting that it should cause nothing more than a few worries and emotions? What kind of world leader could be so barbaric in his interpretations, Mr. Speaker? President Chirac continues by claiming that, ``While my resolve was not affected, I was not insensitive to those movements of public opinion.'' How sensitive, Mr. Speaker, was he? Was he sensitive enough to stop nuclear bombings? Was he sensitive enough to consider the 28 million people living in the Pacific region whose lives will be affected for decades to come as a result of the nuclear nightmare Chirac's unaffected resolve created for them? As Prime Minister Bolger of New Zealand has noted, and I quote: Despite all suggestions from France that this is a totally safe and benign operation, there is no such thing as a safe nuclear test. They all create massive damage. It is just a matter of how much, when, and what leakage there is. Philippines President Ramos also has this to say, Mr. Speaker, and I quote once again: I condemn in the strongest terms the latest tests by France. This latest test is a continued definance of the international communities' appeals to France. Mr. Speaker, I might also note, this latest test comes shortly after all 10 Southeast Asian countries signed a treaty providing for a nuclear-free zone in that part of the world. While President Chirac may claim sensitivity, the latest in French nuclear testings are an affront, a slap in the face, to Asia-Pacific countries. Since when is a slap in the face, Mr. Speaker, considered to be an expression of sensitivity? Promoting his propaganda to the hilt, Mr. Speaker, Chirac continues his response to the world's condemnation of French nuclear testings. These movements, as Chirac likes to call what have really been international, ``testified,'' he says, ``to the growing importance the world's inhabitants attach to collective security and safeguarding the environment. I share these concerns.'' Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the world's No. 1 nuclear proliferator, the man responsible for initiating the nuclear arms race all over again, would now try to convince us that he shares our concerns for collective security and safeguarding of the environment. If this were the case, why did he not just accept the technology the United States offered? Why conduct unnecessary nuclear testing? Why reopen the nuclear arms race? Why create the paranoia? Why pit nuclear nations against non- nuclear nations? Why pit Western powers against non-Western powers? Why, on the one hand, claim that there are no ecological consequences of nuclear testings, but on the other hand, choose to conduct these nuclear tests far from the borders of France? Whose environment is Chirac really interested in safeguarding, Mr. Speaker? And whose security is he really concerned about? In a very patronizing way, Mr. Speaker, Chirac also said, and I quote: I know that nuclear energy can be frightening, but in a world that is still dangerous, our weapon is a deterrent-- that means a weapon that can serve peace. Today I have the feeling of having accomplished one of my most important duties by giving France, for decades to come, the capability for its independence and security. I think that answers in question for us, Mr. Speaker. It is French security and the French environment that Chirac is concerned about. To heck with everyone else's independence and security. France has its own rules. France does its own thing. If it wants to violate world moratoriums, it will. France, after all, comes first. Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I thought peace meant working together to create an equitable environment for all citizens of the world not just French ones.While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I might question Chirac's use of the word ``independence.'' Does ``independence'' in Chirac's vocabulary include freedom for the native people of Tahiti who have felt the brunt of French colonial reign since the islands of French Polynesia were what Westerners would call ``colonized'' by France, after some 500 French soldiers with guns and cannons subdued the Tahitian chiefs and their warriors in the 1840's. Or is independence just a concept, like security, that Chirac applies only to the people of France? Mr. Speaker, Chirac continues his dramatic monolog by saying, and I quote: A new chapter is opening. France will play an active and determined role in world disarmament and for a better European defense. Mr. Speaker, do I hear Chirac correctly? Do I hear him trying to justify his latest nuclear testings by saying he did it all to stabilize relations in Europe? For him to suggest that the resumption of French nuclear testing was done to stabilize relations in Europe is ridiculous. When France first presented the idea that in an effort of concerted deterrence it would extend its nuclear umbrella to its European partners, there were few takers, Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 10 of the 15 European Union members voted with the United Nations, protesting the resumption of French nuclear testing. Why, Mr. Speaker, are not the European Union members more anxious to be a part of the French nuclear umbrella? Partly because the European Union members are more comfortable with the protection the United States has provided them for the past 50 years, and partly, Mr. Speaker, because historically, France just cannot be trusted. Mr. Speaker, in the 1940's, France surrendered to Nazi Germany. In 1966, at the height of the cold war, when nuclear missiles were pointed at every major country in Europe, France pulled out of the NATO alliance. Today France still has not officially joined NATO, and as we have clearly seen, from September of 1995 to January of this year, France cannot even be trusted to honor a world moratorium it agreed to only 4 short years ago. How can any nation, European or not, be assured of any French position? Mr. Speaker, Chirac says, and I quote: I will take initiatives in this direction in the coming weeks. As all of you, dear compatriots, I want peace--solid and durable peace. We all know that peace, like freedom, has to be built each day. This is the purpose of the decision I took and that will be the guideline for my action tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, can we really put stock in Chirac's guideline for tomorrow? France's own Urban Minister said about Chirac's decision to explode eight additional bombs in the South Pacific, and I quote, ``He did what he said he would do and he did the right thing.'' Mr. Speaker, something is rotten in Denmark when world leaders consider that they have done the right thing by violating world moratoriums that they agreed to. Chirac's aide said Chirac will earn international respect for sticking determinatively to a decision almost as unpopular domestically as it was internationally. Mr. Speaker, if the responses of world leaders from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, the Pacific nations and Europe is any indication of international sentiment, Chirac will be a long time in earning anybody's respect. Anyone with a social conscience, world leader or not, knows that the only interest Chirac considered in resuming nuclear testings was the higher interests of French military industrial lobbyists and their profitable $2.5 billion nuclear program. Mr. Speaker, now Chirac wants to come to Washington and make a case for peach and act as a spokesperson for the world's poor. But, Mr. Speaker, did you know that France is now the top weapons exporter of weapons supplier in the world? Mr. Speaker, is it with irony or with hypocrisy that President Chirac will promote peach and act as a spokesman for the world's poor when France is the biggest exporter of weapons to developing nations? Mr. Speaker, while Chirac may script his story for Eurocentric audiences, the people of the Pacific who feel the brunt of colonial reign have their own story to tell. It is a travesty that on Thursday their voices will be made mute in this Chamber by one who so arrogantly and so openly marginalizes not only their concerns, but the concerns of the world community as well. Mr. Speaker, it is an act devoid of all social conscience that has afforded Mr. Chirac the opportunity of delivering his downright deceptive message from a Chamber that symbolically represents the highest of democratic values. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together in insisting that the Speaker rescind the invitation he has extended to Mr. Chirac, and if the invitation is not revoked, then I urge my colleagues not to attend the Joint session of Congress. To attend the session is to act in complicity, to validate France's position that it is okay to violate world moratoriums, to resume nuclear testings, to initiate a nuclear arms race all over again, to place humanity on the brink of destruction. As a Member of both the Pacific Island community and the U.S. House of Representatives, and as one who has sailed to the nuclear testing site of Mururoa and been arrested at the hands of French commandos in waters the good Lord gave the people of Polynesia, as one who has considered the kind of world that I want my children to live in, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience be a party to such hypocrisy. Mr. Speaker, I include the following articles for the Record. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 30, 1996] Chirac Ends France's Nuclear Test Program (By William Drozdiak) Paris, January 29.--President Jacques Chirac announced tonight that France has ended its controversial nuclear testing program in the South pacific and will not embark on a fresh campaign in favor of disarmament. In a televised statement, Chirac said he decided to halt all further nuclear tests because France can now be assured to a ``modern and secure'' arsenal as a result of data gleaned from six underground blasts conducted over the past five months. ``A new chapter is opening. France will play an active and determined role for disarmament in the world and for a better European defense,'' he declared. ``I will take initiatives in this direction in the coming weeks.'' The French decision means China is the world's only declared nuclear power that still insists on the right to carry out weapons tests. Others, including the United States, have joined a moratorium while negotiations proceed on a worldwide nuclear test ban treaty. The Clinton administration hailed Chirac's decision and predicted it will add momentum to the treaty talks. ``The United States has consistently urged that all nations abide by a global moratorium on nuclear testing as we work to complete and sign a comprehensive test ban treaty,'' the White House said in a statement. Under President Francois Mitterrand, France had abstained from testing for three years. Chirac's decision last June, shortly after he took office, to resume testing sparked worldwide protests and contributed to a sharp drop in his popularity at home. He insisted that the tests were necessary to verify a new warhead for France's submarine-based missiles and to perfect computer-based simulation technology that would be employed once a test ban was imposed. The announcement that France is rejoining the moratorium came two days after the final blast, described as ``less than 120 kilotons,'' or six times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was conducted at the Fangataufa coral atoll about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti. Chirac acknowledged that he was ``not insensitive'' to the fear and consternation provoked at home and abroad by the resumption of France's underground nuclear explosions. Despite what he called the ``frightening'' power of nuclear bombs and threats to the environment, he insisted that France's arsenal will ``serve the interests of peace.'' Chirac plans to make a state visit this week to Washington, where he will make a speech before both houses of Congress. He is expected to use the occasion to launch a diplomatic counteroffensive, promoting the virtues of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty being negotiated in Geneva. French officials said Chirac also plans to co-chair an international conference on nuclear security in Moscow in April. The meeting, which will review safety problems at nuclear power stations, was conceived by the leaders of the world's major industrial democracies last year to prevent disasters such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident a decade ago. With the South Pacific testing ground now due to be closed, the French president reportedly will announce an aid package Tuesday to help compensate French Polynesia for the loss of lucrative earnings from the nuclear testing center. Chirac said France can afford to stop its program well ahead of schedule--and two tests short of the eight he originally planned--because he is satisfied that results already obtained have fulfilled the programs' objectives. But it was clear that the surprising ferocity of global opposition to the French program hastened its conclusion. Japan, Australia and New Zealand have waged a vociferous protest campaign since the tests started last September. A consumer boycott of French exports was launched in many countries, though the government here claims it did not inflict as much damage as initially feared on the French wine, perfume and clothing industries. Chirac contends that what wounded him most was the lack of solidarity from many of France's European Union partners, even after he suggested the arsenal could serve as a strategic shield for a future European defense community. Among the EU's 15 member nations, only Britain offered public support for the French nuclear tests. Germany and Spain remained mute out of deference to dismay among their citizens, while governments in the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries were overtly hostile to the French program. Now that the tests are concluded, however, Chirac gave notice that he intends to emphasize the fight against nuclear proliferation by pushing hard for a comprehensive test ban treaty by the end of this year. Seeking to curtail the hostility of protests abroad, France insisted several months ago that the treaty should embrace the ``zero option'' banning all tests, even those of the smallest explosive power. Some military experts, notably in the Pentagon, wanted to set the ban at a certain threshold to preserve the right to carry out micro-explosions, ostensibly to ensure the reliability of existing arsenals. After some hesitation, the United States and Britain endorsed the zero option now backed by Chirac. But Russia and China have not accepted the proposal. While Russia has stopped testing, the Chinese insist on the right to continue underground explosions because they contend their program lags far behind those of the other nuclear powers. Besides the continuing dispute over the zero option, negotiations for a test ban treaty now unfolding in Geneva have encountered problems from other countries that may aspire to join the nuclear club. India has predicated its support for a test ban treaty on a timetable for the elimination of all nuclear arsenals in the world, a hard-line position that if sustained could torpedo the negotiations.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is basically the platform our side of the aisle has in conjunction with the President's proposal.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you think, in my good friend's opinion, that our Republican friends have a high esteem for education as part of this proposed budget plan that they have in mind.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to, if I could, have a dialogue with the gentleman on the topic he is just taking up. I will ask for my own time at a later point in time. I thank the gentleman for bringing the issue up and his interest. He wanted to conduct a dialog with our Speaker, and given the fact that we have had some very serious problems with our budget, and I noticed earlier that the gentleman mentioned about the 7-year cycle that our Republican friends have advocated so strongly for the past several months, that it is as if we have got to have the 7-year balanced budget. Can I ask the gentleman, to his knowledge, where do we come up with this number 7? Is it so much that it has to be 7 years? Are there assurances without 7 years we will never have had a balanced budget? Why can we not do it in 5 or 10 or 8 or 9?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is it the gentleman's understanding also that our Republican friends did make a request to our President, come up with a 7-year budget plan and we will consider it, and did not the President issue a 7-year budget plan?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What were the objections that our Republican friends now have with the President's proposed 7-year budget plan?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But it did provide a 7-year balanced budget?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So now what are our Republican friends trying to do to off-balance what the President set out? ``Here is your 7-year balanced budget plan.'' What are they going to do now?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I offer my apologies to my colleagues and to the American people, for these somewhat rough sketches of limited artistic value in terms of what they represent. On my immediate right is a picture of what an atomic nuclear explosion looks like as it was exploded by the French Government on Moruroa Atoll in the South Pacific in 1973. On my extreme right is a little chart, and this is not the Polynesian version of a Christmas tree, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to demonstrate to the American people that Moruroa Atoll looks like in the South Pacific. One of these little dots inside this volcanic formation on which the atoll sits constitutes one of 181 nuclear bomb explosions that have already taken place in this atoll in the South Pacific. Already the French Government has conducted five nuclear explosions since French President Chirac announced a change of testing policy in June of last year. Mr. Speaker, the islands of French Polynesia were what Westerners would call colonized by France, after some 500 French soldiers with guns and cannons subdued the Tahitian chiefs and their warriors in the 1840's. I was in Tahiti recently. I joined with some 40 other Parliamentarians from the Pacific, Asia, South America, and Europe. Led by the mayor of the town of Fa'aa, Mr. Manutahi Temaru, we joined together for a demonstration in the streets of Papeete, Tahiti, to oppose the resumption of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Despite international pleadings, protests, and appeals, the Government of France resumed nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll on September 5, 1995, exploding a nuclear bomb more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Sixty miles away on the island of Tureia, brown-skinned Polynesian children splashed and played in the ocean waves. On August 30, 1995, Mayor Temaru, Vito Haamatua, and myself traveled to the island of Tureia. We were joined with the arrival of the Rainbow Warrior II and together we headed for Moruroa where France had already placed the nuclear bomb in a shaft about 3,000 feet under the atoll. We sailed in anticipation of the French Government's announcement that the first nuclear explosion would take place on September 1, 1995. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the only reason why the French Government did not explode the bomb on September 1, was because our President was in Hawaii. The Clinton administration told the French Government, ``If you explode that bomb while the President is in Hawaii, he's going to condemn the nuclear explosion.'' So they extended it for a couple of days and the bomb was exploded on September 5. As we neared Moruroa, the Rainbow Warrior launched six inflatable zodiacs under the nose of French naval warships. The zodiacs were manned by young men and women from New Zealand, Italy, Australia, the United States, France, and Portugal. These young men and women were not commandos or soldiers. They were just ordinary citizens committed to a nuclear-free world. As our vessels penetrated waters France claimed exclusive rights to, we were arrested by French commandos, held for 16 hours, then transferred to another vessel, fully enclosed, unaware of where we were being taken, and completely prevented from taping an account of the seizure. Our cameras and videos were confiscated. Our communications system was destroyed. France's story is, of course, well-scripted. Its Eurocentric rationales for resuming nuclear testing in waters half a world away from where its own children play are presented through international wire services. France's freely elected spokesperson, President Jacques Chirac, insists that the resumption of nuclear testing in South Pacific waters is absolutely necessary to improve France's nuclear weapons capabilities and that the matter of exploding more nuclear bombs at Moruroa Atoll is in the ``highest interest'' of France. The tests, he assures the public, are of ``no environmental consequence.'' Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post a couple of days ago revealed that the French Government has now acknowledged that radioactive leakage has come out of this atoll. Radioactive iodine 131 can only be created as a result of nuclear explosions and causes cancer in humans. So goes the story of colonialism supported by American commentators like William Buckley who writes: What is it the protesters fear? Are the French experiments, conducted 750 miles from Tahiti, endangering anybody in Tahiti? For that matter, are they endangering anybody or anything in Moruroa? Has anybody detected a rise in pollutants in the area where the first tests were undertaken? Has a whale been killed? Two whales? Has $11 million in damage been done to the sea surrounding Moruroa? The answer has to be no, for the simple reason that if it were yes, we absolutely would have heard about it. That a nationally syndicated columnist and president and editor-at- large of the National Review could be so unaware of the effects of nuclear testing in relation to the food chain, ocean currents, and a people only 750 miles away, is appalling enough. But that a Eurocentric commentator could be so naive about the workings of the world and the media, suggesting that all issues get equal airplay and if we haven't heard about it it must not be so, is almost unforgivable. The people of the Pacific, who feel the brunt of colonial reign, have their own story to tell. From the island of Tureia, my Polynesian cousins tell of early French practices. Mr. Speaker, as I was held hostage for 16 hours on the Rainbow Warrior, I reflected on a lot of things. Polynesians are not just famous navigators. We have a tremendous number of great poets who worshiped nature and loved to describe the meanings of life and death and love and hatred; all that can be felt and expressed by the human mind. During this time, I wrote this little poem dedicated to the children of the little atoll of Tureia, and I entitled it ``Tureia Atoll.'' Tureia Atoll Our families own the island you never asked permission to take. We fished, picked coconuts, swam freely along the reefs and shores Until you, the colonial power in Paris, come to us and say, ``We take you to Papeete and give you free ride in the carnival.'' While we play at your amusement you blow the wind of death from our island of Moruroa. The people of Tureia were never consulted about the use of their island, Moruroa. They were never asked by the French Government if their island could be used as a French nuclear testing site. In 1960, they were simply invited to a carnival in Tahiti, placed on ferry boats that carried them across the waters for a day of amusement. In innocence they played while French colonialists decided that the two Pacific atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa would be the new sites for the French nuclear testing program. The sites, after all, were conveniently located thousands of miles away from the home of enlightenment, where certainly to the people of France the testings posed little harm and would be of no environmental consequence. Since 1960, France exploded 176 nuclear bombs on Moruroa Atoll. By my latest count now it is 181 nuclear bombs. On September 1, 1995, the count rose to 177. France has since exploded four more nuclear bombs at Moruroa and Fangataufa Atolls. Supposedly the last one is to be exploded next month. I doubt that. In the truest form of colonial aggression, not 1 of the over 200 nuclear bombs France has exploded in the past 30 years has been exploded on, above, or beneath French soil. Today, France is the only nuclear superpower to test outside of its borders. France's exploitation of Pacific peoples is a chilling commentary on man's inhumanity to man. Like a wild boar on the ocean waves, or a mad aberration of 21st century thought, President Chirac's irrevocable decision and insistent denial of consequence is what novelist Bernard Clavel called the shame of France. We all know nuclear bombs have only one purpose. They were created to destroy people. The result is they annihilate everything. The people of France know this. President Chirac knows this. We all know why France explodes its bombs in French Polynesia and not in France. No one wants to subject their homeland to this danger, if they have a choice. Historically, the people of the Pacific have had little choice. Nuclear nations, including France and even our own Nation, have consistently deemed Pacific islanders and their way of life expendable. In 1954, on Bikini atoll, the United States exploded the ``Bravo Shot''--a 15 megaton hydrogen thermonuclear bomb a thousand times more powerful than the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima 50 years ago. Before the bomb was exploded, the American officials who conducted this experiment discovered that the winds had shifted and that the 300 men, women, and children--including our own servicemen that were on this island--living on the nearby island of Rongelap, would be put at risk by the nuclear detonation and radioactive fallout. Despite the shift in the direction of the winds, they exploded the bomb anyway, subjecting hundreds of innocent men, women, and children to nuclear contamination. I submit that Marshall Islanders residing on nearby Rongelap and Utirik atolls justifiably believe they were used as guinea pigs and test subjects for United States nuclear radiation experiments conducted during this period. Their accounts are well documented. Although our Government is making every effort to resettle this island and offer monetary compensation to these people, I submit the reality is--no amount of money can compensate for the normal health of the inhabitants of these islands. According to reports, the women of Rongelap gave birth to what many termed ``jelly babies''--babies that were born dead and did not appear to look human. Still today, many people of Rongelap suffer from cancer, leukemia, and all manner of diseases associated with nuclear contamination. For President Chirac to so arrogantly contend that these tests are of no environmental consequence is to deny the effects of history and marginalize the suffering of those who know first-hand the horrors associated with nuclear holocaust. Mr. Speaker, again on the Rainbow Warrior as I sat there sketching a few thoughts in my mind, I wrote another little poem that I entitled ``Annihilation.'' Annihilation You appear in a cloud, like a flash from the west that blinds our vision. In Tahati Nui, from the Tuamotos, Mangareva, Tubuai, Bora Bora, Raiatea, Taha'a, Nuahive, Tureia, Moruroa and Fangataufa. Like poisoned fish that float aimlessly from fissured reefs, Death moves slowly toward the people from the sun until it is too late. Farani, Farani, what have you done? The facts are clear and substantiated. After 30 years of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, French Polynesia's Moruroa atoll has been described by scientists as a ``Swiss cheese of fractured rock.'' British scientists have confirmed that the volcano underneath Moruroa atoll is ``becoming a web of vitrified cavities, from which an unknown number of cracks are spreading like spider webs.'' Areas of Moruroa atoll have already sunk by 1 meter or more. In fact, Dr. Roger Clark, a seismologist at Leeds University, has said that one more test could trigger the atoll's collapse, leading to huge cracks opening to the sea, threatening fish and other marine life, and ultimately jeopardizing the entire marine environment of the Pacific region. Epidemic-like outbreaks in surrounding communities have already resulted, with symptoms including damage to the nervous system, paralysis, impaired vision, and increased cancer rates among Tahitians, in particular. There is also a strong link between ciguatera poisoning and the destruction of coral reefs from nuclear testing and military operations in French Polynesia. Ciguatera poisoning occurs when the coral ecology is disturbed, producing toxic plankton that spread through the food chain to be eaten by fish, that are then consumed by humans. Though it causes no apparent harm to the fish, ciguatera poisoning can be fatal to humans. Even if nuclear testing stopped today the several Chernobyls' worth of radioactive contaminants encased in Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls will require comprehensive scientific monitoring for decades to come. Unfortunately, such independent and scientific studies have never been authorized by the French Government, and it is very unlikely such studies will ever take place due either to potential embarrassment to the Government or lack of sufficient resources and appropriate technology to remedy the hazards associated with nuclear contamination. While Chirac espouses his theme of ``no environmental consequence,'' he paradoxically denies the people of the South Pacific the most fundamental of rights regarding information about the environmental and health effects of the French nuclear testing program in Tahiti. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 80 which strongly expresses the sense of the Congress for recognition of the concerns of some 22 nations and territories of the Pacific concerning this very issue. I am very hopeful that my Republican colleagues will allow me to debate this issue and this resolution on the consent calendar next Tuesday, and I have made that request and sincerely hope that this will be the case. Mr. Speaker, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ``the five declared nuclear powers have acknowledged conducting a total of 2,036 nuclear tests since 1945.'' Approximately 942 of these tests have been conducted within the continental United States, 214 in Russia, and 306 conducted by the United States, Great Britain, and France in Pacific islands and atolls. It was only in June last year that the United States, France, and the major nuclear powers promised over 170 non-nuclear nations that they would exercise restraint with nuclear testing and would work toward a comprehensive test ban treaty. Despite reservations, these commitments were accepted at face value by the non-nuclear nations, which make up the vast majority of the countries of the world, and it was only with the support of the non- nuclear nations that permanent extension of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty was gained. One month later, French President Jacques Chirac's actions indicated France was more than willing to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--all in the name of national interest to ensure the reliability of its nuclear arsenal. However, nuclear physicists contend that the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons could be ensured by non-nuclear tests utilizing computer technology. Mr. Speaker, here is the point. The French Government did not need to explode these nuclear bombs. We even offered the French Government the technology they sought, so there was no justifiable reason for detonating additional nuclear bombs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of the French people were against the idea of resuming nuclear testing in the South Pacific. I find it deplorable, Mr. Speaker, that one of the five leading nuclear superpowers is willing to reopen the global arms race and encourage nuclear proliferation at the expense of world peace. I further find it abhorrent that the United States is acting somewhat in complicity with the actions of the French Government. Though the United States has gone on record in condemning France's resumption of nuclear testing, it continues to allow French military aircraft to overfly United States airspace while enroute to France's testing site in the South Pacific. According to the State Department, France's DC-8 supply planes are permitted to stop over on the West Coast on their way to Moruroa atoll. Reports suggest that these planes likely are carrying nuclear materials and bomb components, yet the State Department declares that it does not know what is on board these planes. For the State Department to abdicate its responsibility in determining the contents on board these supply planes is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. And, moreover, facilitating French aircraft to supply a nuclear testing program that we oppose smacks of hypocrisy, in my humble opinion. Mr. Speaker, the question now on the table for non-nuclear nations is: Do we depend on nuclear nations to restore morality through treaties and bans, or do we call on good people to hold their governments accountable for violations of international disarmament agreements? ``If men were angels,'' James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, ``no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.'' Mr. Speaker, nuclear bomb explosions constitute the ultimate rape of any nation. This planet has already been ravaged by more than 2,036 nuclear bomb explosions. Mr. Speaker, 179 of those bombs have been exploded by France in waters the legendary Polynesian God Taaroa gave the people of Polynesia. For France to continue to explode its nuclear bombs among a peaceful people living half a world away from the borders of France, I submit Mr. Speaker, is colonialism in its worst form. No ``higher interest'' can excuse such callous and horrific action. The Government of France should be obliged to control itself. It is time to stop the madness and take up the fight of holding nuclear nations accountable for the violent rape of non-nuclear nations, peoples, and environments, until angels govern men. I want to share with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, another little poem that I wrote while being held in custody on the Rainbow Warrior for 16 hours. I termed it ``The God Taaroa.'' And the god Taaroa divided the waters from the waters and gathered the people from the sun unto one place called The Seas. And the god Taaroa let the dry land appear and gathered the people of France together unto one place, and it was so. And he saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And god Taaroa said, let them have dominion. And darkness mushroomed upon the face of the deep. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues an article that appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser of this month, in fact, just last week, and the fact that in a major speech by Pope John Paul II, from the Vatican City, he made a special pleading to diplomats from 161 countries of the world to stop nuclear testing. I hope President Chirac is listening to the Pope's plea on behalf of the people of the world to stop this madness. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, there was an extensive article written by Mr. Thomas Kamm in the Wall Street Journal concerning France and its colonial empire, or whatever is left of it, particularly the French colony known as French Polynesia, as I discussed earlier, and the main Island of Tahiti which is approximately the same size as the Island of Oahu in the State of Hawaii. For the benefit of my colleagues, the Island of Oahu is where Honolulu is situated. Immediately after World War II, in recognizing that France needed to catch up with the so-called nuclear power nations, the late President Charles DeGaulle decided to conduct nuclear testings, and he did this originally in the deserts of what was then a French colony called Algeria. Mr. Speaker, something happened. The Algerians decided to kick the French out, and it cost 1 million lives of the Algerian people before French colonialism in that part of the world in Africa was terminated. So President DeGaulle looked around and said, ``Geez, if I cannot test nuclear bombs in Algeria, where can I go?'' So he directed his military officers and said, ``Look out in the vast French Empire and find where else I can test.'' Mr. Speaker, they looked around and they came to the Pacific region where France has several colonies; one in New Caledonia, another in Wallis and Futuna, and unfortunately one in French Polynesia. It was there that they decided this is where the French nuclear testing program was going to be reborn. President DeGaulle promised the Tahitians tremendous prosperity and that many goods would be brought in, initially saying, ``We are just going to be there to build airports.'' To the dismay and disappointment of the Tahitian leaders and people, they later realized what was to become of their fate in years to come; that the nuclear testing program was to be done in their islands. The article in the Wall Street Journal was very persuasive, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, and explains the grandeur of the French Empire and the cost of some $10 billion for this nuclear testing program that they have conducted in French Polynesia. There is tremendous social turmoil right now among the 200,000 Tahitian Polynesian people living there, wanting to know whether they should still consider themselves French, should that seek independence, or should they seek some form of autonomy. There are good reasons and bad reasons, and for those who are earnestly seeking to provide more self-autonomy and perhaps even independence, I quote from the article an observation of what seems to be the sentiment among the young people in French Polynesia. I quote from a young man who said, The French run everything here: the State, the airport, the port, economic life, everything, and we have nothing. To get a job here, you need a French diploma. But I am not French. I am Maohi. The French are colonialists. We are at home here, and we are treated like dogs. There is no question there have been a lot of economic benefits brought with this so-called prosperity, Mr. Speaker. However, the $10 billion investment by the French Government promotes not the needs of the Tahitians, I promise my colleagues, but the enhancement of its nuclear testing program. That is all it is. Mr. Speaker, there is currently a conference going on right now in Geneva, the Conference on Disarmament, where the Honorable John Holum, Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, is pleading with the conferees on negotiations for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a statement from our President to the members of the conference. A comprehensive test ban treaty is vital to constrain both the spread and further development of nuclear weapons, and it will be helpful to our mutual pledges to denounce the nuclear arms race and more towards the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear arms. But we have got a little problem with this, Mr. Speaker. In the article in the Washington Post today, the state of India, through its ambassador and representative to this conference said, ``Wait a minute. You want us to sign onto this test ban treaty, but you do not want to get rid of your nuclear bombs.'' Now, does not it seem silly? Mr. Speaker, it seems that these non-nuclear nations are getting very leery about the double standard that the nuclear powers are pressing on them, to say that we are going to sign onto a nuclear test ban treaty, but the nuclear nations continue to have the nuclear weapons and we do not know who they are pointed at. India said, ``No, we are not going to agree to that unless there is an additional agreement, and that is to get rid of all nuclear weapons, all nuclear bombs.'' It seems that the nuclear powers are having problems with that idea. India has already exploded a nuclear bomb device in 1974. It was the only nuclear bomb explosion India conducted and proved to the world India had the technology to also produce nuclear warheads if it wanted to. But from my readings and meetings with the leaders of this great democratic nation, the largest democracy in the world, by the way, Mr. Speaker, they are committed to getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether, but somehow there seems to be a difficulty among the nations that currently have in their possession nuclear warheads and bombs. So we sign onto a test ban treaty, but the nuclear superpowers still want to hold on to their nuclear bombs. To me, that seems to be a contradiction of the first order. Mr. Speaker, as I have stated earlier to my colleagues, next week on Thursday, the President of France has been invited to address a Joint Session of the Congress. President Chirac is going to be here to share with our President, I suppose, and the leaders of the Congress, his wisdom on how to conduct foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, this is really funny. There was an article in the New York Times that came out yesterday where in several instances French officials anonymously dropped a leak here and a leak there saying, ``This is what we are going to share with American leaders when our President comes to Washington.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, I do not see why we should be coming to listen to the speech when he has said: This is what I am going to talk about. Unbelievable. First President Chirac is going to tell the American leaders and our people that we are not doing enough in the Bosnian crisis. France is going to be the leader, or play a very preeminent role in representing, I suppose, the European countries, whatever that means, and to let the United States know that it is not to do this unilaterally, even though we have been successful in the Dayton agreements and the talks that transpired in recent weeks. Second, Mr. Speaker, another suggestion that we are going to be hearing from President Chirac is that our Government is not giving enough foreign aid to Third World countries. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind President Chirac who has been providing security for Europe, including France, for some 50 years during the cold war when President DeGaulle unilaterally decided to pull out of NATO. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know the reason why DeGaulle wanted to pull out of NATO? Because he did not like the idea that the United States was playing too great of a role in the politics and the security of European countries. Can my colleagues believe that? DeGaulle even demanded that the United States troops that were then stationed in France leave in 60 days. What was the response of our Government? ``President DeGaulle, does that also include the 10,000 soldiers that lie buried in French soil to free you from Nazi Germany?'' That is the arrogance that we get from the leaders of this Government. Third, Mr. Speaker, I might also add to my colleagues that President Chirac is going to have another suggestion for us. He is going to suggest to our Republican colleagues that we cannot afford to force our Government into bankruptcy or default because it will have serious economic consequences to the economy of France, to Europe and other nations of the world. Mr. Speaker, that is a real interesting lecture. He should be an expert on it, with about a 20 percent popularity rating in France, serious strikes where millions of French workers are outraged that his Government did not provide for their needs, and the problems affecting the economy of France as it now stands. Last, Mr. Speaker, President Chirac is also going to suggest to my colleagues that we are not fulfilling our responsibilities as a world leader. Do you believe that, Mr. Speaker? He is going to give us some pointers. He is going to suggest how we can go about becoming a better world leader, as if the Government of France is a world leader itself. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I think he needs to have a couple more lessons. Mr. Speaker, I can just imagine the logistic problems we are going to have before President Chirac gives his enshrined speech before us next week. Mr. Speaker, I am going to address a little more extensively sometime next week a very special person that I certainly admire, who not only have his portrait in our Chamber, but certainly the spirit of that man lives on. I have learned to respect the contributions that he has made not only as a great French patriot, but as a firm believer in democracy and the principles of human rights at the time that we were a colony of the British Empire. Mr. Speaker, I make reference, briefly, to the Marquis de Lafayette. As my colleagues will note, there are only two murals depicting not only our first President, but this great French patriot. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to share with my colleagues the commentary that I wish the Government and the leader of France could be a little more positive and helpful with regard to the serious problems that we now face in the world. I wish that they would immediately cease exploding these nuclear bombs. If the test are so safe, why are they not done under the Eiffel Tower, in Marseille, or in Paris? Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary that here is a leading democracy of the world playing colonial mostly in the ugliest way, and I wish and hope that my colleagues would share the concerns of the millions of people around the world, the leaders of some 166 nations protesting, pleading and asking President Chirac: Do not explode these nuclear bombs. But despite all of that, Mr. Speaker, he just went ahead and exploded them. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, this man deserves our presence here? I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, he does not, I hope that my colleagues will join me by not being in this Chamber when President Chirac addresses the Congress next week.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my friend for his observations. Mr. Speaker, we are also joined here in our special order by my good friend, and by profession, an outstanding physician from his home State of Washington. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Hawaii and my good friend from the State of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I can pretty much venture to raise my projections as to what we might expect next week when President Chirac supposedly is to address the House. I suppose one thing he is going to demand that all Americans should learn how to speak French, that perhaps French should be the spoken language here in America. I suspect also that our good friend from France is going to demand that nobody would be able to translate, because he is going to be speaking in French, he is not going to be speaking in English, even though he is very, very good at speaking the English language. All that aside, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Washington, [Mr. McDermott] and certainly my good friend from Hawaii, [Mr. Abercrombie] and the gentlewoman from Hawaii, [Mrs. Mink] who was here earlier for participating in this dialogue to express our real serious concern about the presence of President Chirac and the fact that it has the outrageous condemnation of so many countries throughout the world and millions of people throughout the world, having the arrogance to conduct these nuclear tests or these nuclear explosions in the Pacific for the past several months. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience, and I thank the members of the staff of the House for their patience in allowing me to address the House in this special order. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 1996] As Nuclear Tests End, Pacific Outposts Fear Losing Aid From Paris (By Thomas Kamm) Papeete, French Polynesia.--If French Polynesia has too many beauty queens, blame it on geopolitics. The winner of the Miss Tahiti pageant went straight to Miss World--bypassing the Miss France contest entirely. This was fine with Miss world pageant officials, but not with Vaes Devatine, a Tahitian who saw red, white and blue. She set up a rival contest to send a representative to compete in France. ``We are a French territory, and it's aberrant not to go through national channels,'' says Ms. Devatine, who runs a public-relations firm. ``It's a strategic and political mistake.'' From the seemingly trivial to the geopolitical, self- governing French Polynesia has a case of split personality. While the islands want to retain their cultural identity, they don't want to lose the benefits of their link with France. ``We're constantly playing a balancing act,'' says Alex du Prei, the editor of Tahiti Pacifique. ``The truth is, we want it both ways.'' price tag of power The same may be true for France. its far-flung outposts are vital to its sense of grandeur--and to its claim of being a global power. But grandeur comes at an annual cost of about 50 billion francs ($10 billion). And so, under pressure to cut its budget deficit to meet the criteria for a common European currency, France may be forced to address a long- held taboo: Does it still need its overseas empire? This issue already is brewing in French Polynesia. When President Jacques Chirac, breaking a three-year moratorium, resumed nuclear tests in this tropical paradise more than 10,000 miles from Paris last September. Tahiti exploded in a day of riots. On Tuesday, the French government acknowledged that its nuclear tests had caused leaks of radioactive materials in the South Pacific. While it insisted the levels were too small to pose a threat to the region, the admission is likely to spark renewed protests. Still, now that France has pledged to end all nuclear tests beginning next month, many Tahitians are wondering how they will survive without the windfall that came with being what pro-independence militant Nelson Ortas calls ``a dumping ground for the bomb.'' After all, French money accounts for almost 70% of its annual resources. While France has vowed to maintain current aid levels until 2006, some question what its long-term interest will be in French Polynesia once the tests end. ``The problem isn't the nuclear tests,'' says Nelson Levy, chief executive of Tahiti Tourisme, the tourism promotion board. ``The real question is, how do we cope afterward?'' last great colonial power With Britain handing over Hong Kong to China in 1997 and Portugal set to do the same with Macao in 1999,this network of overseas outposts--known in France as DOM-TOM, short for departments et territoires d'Outre Mer--is far bigger than those of the U.S., Britain or the Netherlands, and seems to some like an anachronism. ``France is the last great colonial power,'' says Paul Neaoutyine, a leader of New Caledonia's independence movement. While many French citizens disagree, it could become increasingly difficult to justify subsidizing what they call ``the confetti of empire'' at a time when France is still smarting from widespread strikes over proposed cuts in entitlement programs. But no French outposts want to break their link with the mother country. When New Caledonia, the nickel-rich South Pacific island that was racked by pro-independence violence last decade, holds a referendum on the issue in 1998, it is likely to vote to stay French. In Mayotte, an island off Africa's southeastern coast, moves are afoot to strengthen links with France by turning the territory into a full- fledged department, with all the rights accorded to French citizens. It's easy to understand why. For if this is colonialism, it is colonialism in reverse. ``They've invented a totally new form: not colonialism by exploitation, but an empire of handouts,'' says F. Roy Willis, a history professor at the University of California at Davis who is writing a book on overseas France. France's ties to its outposts also are riddled with contradictions. The minimum wage in overseas France--in both the public and private sectors--was lower than in the mainland until this month; meanwhile, civil servants in some territories, including local hires, are paid nearly twice what they would earn in France. French Polynesians pay virtually no income tax, but they also don't have access to France's social safety net. And even though French officials insist that overseas territories are as French as Paris, trade with them is accounted for as foreign trade. ``Double-speak is omnipresent,'' says Jean-Luc Mathieu, the author of several books on overseas France. Nowhere are the distortions and ambiguities of France's influence more visible than in French Polynesia, this collection of 130 islands and turquoise lagoons that cover an expanse as big as Europe and that explorers likened to the Garden of Eden. When Gaston Flosse, president of the self-governing territory of 200,000 people, returned last October from the United Nations General Assembly in New York, he called a news conference to express his pride at having twice represented France when President Chirac stepped out. But that same day, French Polynesia's representatives at a South Pacific Commission conference refused to enter the assembly hall because the French flag was higher than French Polynesia's banner on the table. French Polynesia has its own flag, its own currency--the Pacific franc, pegged to the French franc--its own anthem and its own government and institutions. Yet its livelihood is owed to France: It boasts a gross domestic product per capita eight times higher than that of many neighboring Pacific Islands. ``It's the most extreme case of an artificial economy,'' says Paul Ronciere, France's high commissioner in French Polynesia. a second colonial shock Annexed by France in 1843 after a sly colonial governor negotiated control of the islands with a drunken Polynesian king in return for a small stipend, French Polynesia long remained the languid, untouched paradise immortalized by the painter Paul Gauguin. But in 1963, after Algeria gained its independence, Gen. Charles de Gaulle moved France's nuclear- test site from the Sahara to Mururoa Atoll, 750 miles southeast of Tahiti. French contractors, businesses and public servants swelled the local population; over one-third of France's navy was stationed here. Islanders flocked to Papeete to find jobs in construction and services, disrupting the subsistence economy. Imports from France ballooned. But this boom was short-lived, lasting only through the 1970s, and it bequeathed the highly distorted economy that exists today. ``Expatriate'' civil servants were paid nearly twice their normal pay--and the wages of local hires were aligned on this scale. To keep up with the bloated, high- paying public sector, private industry is in effect protected through high tariffs on imports, making it difficult to produce competitively. Thus, French Polynesia finds itself priced out of the world market and hooked on the $1.2 billion that France pumps in each year to keep the economy going. France has pledged to keep this up for another 10 years while an economic reconversion plan is worked out, but outlays beyond 2006 are in doubt, and weaning Tahitians from this artificial standard of living will be difficult. trouble ahead Some Polynesians think last September's riots are a sign of trouble ahead. The protests were led by unemployed youths, most of who were among the native Maohi people who make up 67% of the population. Many of those youths live in Faaa, a ramshackle suburb of Papeete that is French Polynesia's biggest city, with a population of 35,000. If Tahiti is a paradise, it doesn't show here. On a seaside plot of land, Mereta Turau shares a wooden shack without windows or electricity with his 10 grown-up children--nine of whom are unemployed. A 62-year-old who moved here from Raiatea Island to work in construction during the boom years, he is now a fisherman resigned to his fate. ``With or without independence, it will be the same hard life for people like me,'' he says. But the young are more radical. ``The French run everything here: the state, the airport, the port, economic life, everything,'' says 31-year old Tefana Tavarii. ``And we have nothing.'' Standing beside him, 24-year-old Camille Rooarii agrees. ``To get a job here, you need a French diploma. But I'm not French. I'm Maohi. The French are colonialists. We're at home here, and we're treated like dogs.'' Faaa's mayor is Oscar Temaru, a proindependence leader. At city hall, a series of Polynesian-style huts, the French flag and official portrait of Mr. Chirac are conspicuously absent. The 51-year-old Mr. Temaru, a former customs officer, makes a point of speaking English, not French. ``The French say Tahiti is France, but we can't accept that,'' says the soft-spoken Mr. Temaru. ``Geographically and historically, this is my country, not Chirac's. Paris is almost 20,000 kilometers away, people are freezing there while we're sweating in the heat.'' Mr. Temaru hopes for a peaceful evolution toward independence, saying Tahiti has to rethink its whole development model. ``If France says bye- bye, we'll tell our people we have to return to the land. We don't want to go back to the Stone Age, but to reality.'' But many view Mr. Temaru as an idealist. ``Independence would plunge French Polynesia into misery,'' asserts Mr. Flosse, the president. ``France doesn't impose its presence on us. We're the ones who want France to stay.'' A majority of French Polynesians agree. A poll last October showed some 57% of Polynesians don't want independence, while 15% are in favor of independence within three years. Mr. Temaru's party has only four of 41 legislative seats. But even those who want to remain part of France say the country has to break its economic dependence on the mother country, and it should wisely use the 10-year grace period to start building a local economic base. ``The departure of the nuclear-test center is both an opportunity, because we'll be obliged to change systems whether we want to or not, and a risk, because we're not really prepared to change systems,'' says Jean-Claude Barral, the principal of Faaa's only public high school. ``But it's clear we can't continue living in the same system we've had for 25 years without money falling from the sky.''

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the gentleman from Oregon, 3 million, and another 1.3 million live in Hawaii, and 150,000 in the territories of Guam and the Mariana Islands, and these are American citizens. These are not aliens. These are not people, as if we just put aside and just assume that nothing is going to happen to us. I am very fearful of this. I want to say this to my good friends, the gentleman from Hawaii and the gentleman from Washington. This atoll, it has been estimated, is the equivalent of several Chernobyls, right now, inside this atoll, where the French Government has exploded 181 nuclear bombs, and they are telling the world that--each one of these red dots, I would say to my good friend, represents a nuclear detonation that the French Government has put in this atoll for the past 30 years, and they are saying it is OK. Jacques Cousteau in 1987 was permitted to do a study of the situation there as far as the marine ecology was concerned. He came out and made an observation, there were leakages. There were fissures. Another problem with Jacques Cousteau's mission was he never went down further south, lower and in greater depth of exactly what is down there. In other words, nobody knows what is happening down there. Another observation, 60 percent of the people of France did not want President Chirac to resume nuclear testing. This is another thing that really bogs my mind, when the very people that he represents did not want him to do this, he went right ahead and blew them up. Five nuclear bombs have already been exploded. Leakages are already evidenced as a result of these explosions. The French scientists and the Government of France have the gall to tell the public and throughout the world that it is still okay, we can still continue to do this.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One of the things I want to add to my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, is sometimes our own people here in America do not realize we are also a Pacific nation. Our country may be situated a little closer to Europe and the Atlantic, but the fact of the matter is that 33 million Americans live in the State of California, which happens to be a Pacific Coast State, and my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, has in Washington State, 4\1/2\ million people.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As if nothing happened.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would say to my friend, I have made this observation earlier. It is bad enough that we cannot even harness and control the situation that we have in harnessing energy from the nuclear power in providing electricity and for other good things, the positive things that it does, but we do not know what to do with the storage. We have a very serious crisis now in our country and other countries as well that use nuclear power for electricity. It is bad enough that we cannot even solve that problem, but it is OK to come up with as many nuclear bombs as you can among these nations that can produce them and go and shoot one another, and just simply annihilate this whole planet. Not only is it the height of hypocrisy, but contradictions that even I cannot comprehend.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on what the gentleman said by indicating and admitting for the Record, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that my interest is personal. I freely admit to it. I think we can make a case on the merits politically, scientifically, regionally, if you will. I think we can make a case on the morality of it in the social-political sense, but I must confess to you, Mr. Speaker, and do so quite freely, that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and myself are among the few people that have actually seen the results of a hydrogen bomb test, because we saw the results of the Johnson Island test that was made by our country. That is where I made by first resolve. This is not an issue that I came to this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I have been recently converted. I saw with my own eyes what happened when we exploded a relatively minor hydrogen device 900 miles away from Hawaii, and the sky lit up. It was and remains the most awesome physical sight, the most--I have chills, Mr. Speaker. As I speak with you right now, my body is suffused with a chill, because it is etched in my mind's eye and will be for the rest of my life what that test looked like. I resolved at that point, coming down the hill from the Manoa Valley down Punahou street to the bottom of the hill where I have spent the last three decades of my life, I resolved at that moment that I would devote whatever political energy I could bring in whatever form was made available to me as a free citizen of the United States to see to it that I would speak out and speak on the issue of atomic and hydrogen testing with the idea of ending it, ending it for everybody and for all time, because it is antihuman. It is antihumanity. It is not just a matter of political sovereignty, it is not just a matter of one set of forces against another. It is not a matter for abstract intellectual discussion in a textbook or a military briefing on a map on the wall with little cards and drawings moving around, or scales of warfare and what are acceptable casualties and what are not. It is the most elemental circumstances of physics being made manifest in the most destructive way, not constructive, not the sense of humanity that we would like to exemplify as a species, where we see the love of God in one another, but we see the destruction of the species and the planet and what we are capable of. Mr. Speaker, we are capable of great things as a species. We are capable of great humanity, we are capable of being worthy of the spark of life that is in us, as best we can understand it, but we are also capable as a species of committing great evil and great harm, and we will be judged. We will be judged one day, if only by ourselves, as to whether or not we have exemplified what is best in us, not what is worst in us. These tests are an abomination in the sight of any God that is worthy of the name, and any species, anyone who has a desire to manifest his or her humanity to the best of his or her ability I think and I hope would stand with us next week and at least make this gesture, and it is nothing more than that, I understand that, but make this gesture that justifies our existence as human beings by saying that we will not stand here in this place of honor and privilege, because I hope that all of my colleagues would agree that this is a place of honor and privilege. We have been elected here by free men and women in a free society. This is a gift that has been given to us to be on this floor and to speak. I would hope that we would honor that gift that has been given us and live up to the faith that has been put into us, that has been given to us by the voters of our respective districts, and say that we will not be on this floor when that speech is given, because the privilege of the floor should not be given under such circumstances.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me add to my friend, yes, we did conduct in the Pacific, but something did happen afterward. There was world outrage what our country was doing in testing in the Marshall Islands for one obvious reason. Do you know what happened? We found strontium 90 in dairy products. The clouds had shifted and it affected all over the different regions of the world. So we had good reason for having to stop because there was a real serious hazard in conducting atmospheric tests at the time. In fact, it was at the time that the Soviet Union and our country made a band not to conduct any more atmospheric tests. We told France, please do not do this because we know the aftereffects. Do you know what happened? No way. They exploded 12 nuclear atomic explosions in the atmosphere. Let me tell you of the problems that caused, that situation when the French Government went ahead and did it, totally disregarded the warnings from our own Government. Yes, we paid the price and we are still trying to compensate for the lives of those men, women, and children on the islands of Rongelap and Utirik to this day because those people were directly subjected to nuclear contamination and forever their lives will never be the same because they are now subjected to leukemia and all forms of cancer.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What is really funny about this, there was an article that appeared in the New York Times yesterday. The French are masters at doing this kind of thing. They leak some things here. They leak some things there and tell you what, they have already explained what Chirac is going to tell us next week. Let me share with my colleagues and with my good friend from Hawaii what Chirac is going to be telling on this pulpit next Thursday. This is what he is going to say: The U.S. Government should not go into bankruptcy or default because it will seriously impact France's economy as well as other countries of Europe and the world for that matter. That is a real good line of instruction to our Republican friends. Second, Chirac is going to lecture the Congress and our President and the American people that our country is not paying enough to the crisis in Bosnia. Would you believe that? This is the kind of thing that we are going to get from this man. It is OK because this is what the French officials are already telling the world. This is unbelievable. Another thing, Chirac is also going to tell the Congress and our President that our country is not paying enough foreign aid to Third World nations. May I remind President Chirac where the United States has been for the past 50 years in providing security against aggression in Europe and when de Gaulle at the time pulled out of NATO and demanded of U.S. forces to leave France within 60 days, and what was our response to that? Does that also include the 10,000 soldiers who lie buried in the soils of France, freeing them from Nazi aggression in World War II? This is the kind of thing that we are faced with. All I can submit to my good friends here is that this is the kind of thing that we are going to be hearing from him. Another point, Chirac is going to say: Well, you are not contributing enough to the Bosnia crisis. But at the same time France expects to be the leading eminent role model and leader of Europe to provide the remedy that is needed for the Bosnia crisis. I think we can agree somewhat to the reason why there has been an impasse all these months, because they could not agree even among the European countries. So the United States had to be there to show real leadership how to remedy this crisis in Bosnia. Another thing, Chirac is also going to give us a lecture that we are not a world class leader; we are not living up to our responsibilities as a world leader among nations. Could you believe this? Could you believe this? Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. This is unbelievable. This is what the French Government officials have already leaked in the press and to the media. This is what we are going to be hearing next week. Do you know what is really funny about this whole thing? He will not say anything about the French nuclear testing program. Is that not sad? Is that not totally indefensible?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend for making that observation. I want to share with my colleagues and the American people, they may be Polynesians, they may be Tahitians, but, by God, these are human beings. It is so often said that France is the home of enlightenment, France is the home of all these beautiful observations about what human life is. This is the worst example of French democracy, if they call it a democracy. It is really sad, a really sad commentary that our national leaders have seen fit to allow this man to address this Congress, while the world's condemnation sits on the head of this man, whether it be in Europe or in the British Commonwealth of Nations. What in the world are we doing? I cannot believe this.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for making that observation. This has always been the question raised by everyone around the world. If it is so safe, why not test it in France? I will tell my colleagues the reason why: The French people will not allow it, and all the peoples in Europe will not permit France to do such a thing. They had to pick on the most innocent people living on this planet.