Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, one of my dear colleagues and former member from the other side of the aisle said to me, ``Eni, if you want to make a point and to make sure that an Embassy here in Washington gets your attention--just make it a point by coming to the well of this Chamber and share your concerns with your colleagues and the American people.'' Mr. Speaker, I have got good news and bad news. The good news is that the President of France and his military advisors are beginning to feel the pinch whereby consumers all over the world are refusing to purchase French goods and products to protest France's recently announced policy to explode eight more nuclear bombs in the middle of the Pacific Ocean beginning next month on the Moruroa Atoll. The bad news is that the French Government has now announced it will explode its first nuclear bomb explosion this month because there has been such a tremendous support from ordinary people and leaders of countries throughout the world condemning French nuclear testing. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the charismatic and dashing President of France to quit playing God with the lives of millions of men, women, and children who live in the Pacific. President Chirac should spend more time to resolve France's serious unemployment at 12 percent, rather than proving France's nuclear capability. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues and our citizens all over America to join other world citizens by refusing to buy French goods and products. Shame on you France, shame on you for reintroducing a nuclear arms race again--we do not need it and I believe the good people of France do not want it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, last month, French President Jacques Chirac announced that France will abandon the global moratorium on nuclear testing and explode eight more nuclear bombs in the South Pacific beginning in September. Chirac said that the eight nuclear explosions--one a month, with each up to 10 times more powerful than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima--will have no ecological consequences. Mr. Speaker, I cannot comprehend how President Chirac can say with a straight face that setting off the equivalent of 80 Hiroshima bombs-- 1.2 million tons worth of TNT--in a short time on the tiny coral atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa will have no ecological consequences. My constituents, the United States citizens and nationals in American Samoa, feel threatened by France's action and don't believe Chirac's assurances. Neither do the nations and peoples of the South Pacific. After detonating at least 187 nuclear bombs in the heart of the South Pacific, France's intent to resume further nuclear poisoning of the South Pacific environment has resulted in a firestorm of outrage and alarm in the countries of the region, as well as with the world community. House Concurrent Resolution 80, a measure I introduced which has passed the House International Relations Committee and which awaits floor action, recognizes the environmental concerns of the 28 million men, women, and children of Oceania and calls upon the Government of France not to resume nuclear testing on French Polynesia's Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls. I want to express my thanks to House International Relations Committee chairman, Ben Gilman, for his support in passing House Concurrent Resolution 80 out of committee and would also extend my appreciation to the ranking member of the committee, Lee Hamilton, for joining us as an original cosponsor. This measure has broad bipartisan support, and I would thank the members of the International Relations Committee, Representatives Jim Leach, Howard Berman, Doug Bereuter, Tom Lantos, Chris Smith, Gary Ackerman, Dana Rohrabacher, Sam Gejdenson, Jay Kim, Sherrod Brown, and Eliot Engel, who are original cosponsors or supporters of House Concurrent Resolution 80. Mr. Speaker, when the United States stopped atmospheric nuclear testing in 1963 and initiated underground tests, it moved from the Pacific islands to Nevada. One reason for this was the assessment that fragile coral atolls permeated with water were not suitable for underground explosions. After almost three decades of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, involving more than 140 underground tests, French Polynesia's Moruroa atoll has been described by researchers as a ``swiss cheese of fractured rock.'' Moruroa and its sister French test site at Fangataufa are water-permeable coral atolls on basalt, and they now contain several Chernobyls' worth of radioactivity. The great fear in the region is that if Moruroa suffers further damage, the radioactivity encased from over 100 nuclear tests would spill into the Pacific, causing unimaginable harm to the marine environment and the health of the Pacific peoples. Leakage of radioactive waste from the underground test sites to the surrounding waters and air has been predicted, and is inevitable. It is hardly surprising that so many people in the Pacific draw a connection to the epidemic-like outbreaks in surrounding communities, with symptoms including damage to the nervous system, paralysis, impaired vision, birth abnormalities, and increased cancer rates among Tahitians, in particular. Whether these health problems are connected to radioactive leakage or destruction of the coral ecosystem, it defies credibility to claim there are no environmental consequences to France's nuclear testing. Is it any wonder that the French Government has kept medical records at Moruroa a top secret and has permitted no long-term follow-up study of workers' health there. Mr. Speaker, I would also challenge President Chirac on his statement that France's testing program is harmless to the South Pacific environment and would take him up on his offer inviting scientists to inspect their testing facilities. If President Chirac is acting in good faith and he wants to get to the truth of the matter, then he should have no reservations in authorizing full and unrestricted access-- before the resumption of tests next month--for an international scientific mission to begin to conduct a serious, independent and comprehensive sampling and geological study of Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls. In conjunction with the monitoring, there should be a fully independent epidemiological health survey and full disclosure of the French data bases on the environmental and health effects from nuclear testing. Mr. Speaker, permission for an unrestricted and unimpeded scientific investigation has never been granted before. If French President Chirac's assertions are to be believed, then there is nothing to hide and it should be an easy request to meet. Until we get a response, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that although France has detonated over 200 nuclear bombs in the past 35 years, not one of these bombs has been exploded on, above or beneath French soil. In the truest form of colonial arrogance, France, instead, has exploded almost all of its nuclear bombs in its South Pacific colony--after being driven out of Algeria, a former colony also used as a nuclear testing dump. If the Government of France must explode eight nuclear bombs that undermine the historic progress achieved with the recently concluded nuclear nonproliferation treaty, then it should explode its bombs on French soil. Resuming the detonation of nuclear weapons in Polynesia would make France the only nuclear power to test outside the borders of the nuclear weapons states. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members of the House to adopt this resolution which sends a strong message of support for the 28 million men, women and children of the Pacific that are fighting to protect their way of life against France's colonial arrogance and nuclear adventurism. Mr. Speaker, I also want to share with my colleagues and our listening audience throughout America, some additional developments concerning France's attempt to explode eight additional nuclear bombs in the South Pacific under the Moruroa Atoll-- Mr. Speaker, I have learned through recent media reports that some 60 parliamentarians from the nations of the Pacific, from Asia and from Europe--all plan to travel to French Polynesia to protest the French nuclear testing program which will commence next month. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the French Government has already transferred the canisters and related materials to detonate the first out of 8 nuclear bombs for the next eight months. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the people and government of Germany are calling for an ``intense boycott'' of all French-made goods and products. Also, that a flotilla of yachts, schooners, and just about anything that can float--are all planning to voyage the Pacific and go to Moruroa to protest this immoral and politically expedient policy of the French Government to continue nuclear testing in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues and every good citizen of our Nation to support the 28 million men, women and children who make the Pacific Ocean a part of their existence on this planet--I ask for the goodness and compassion of the American people to support our Pacific island nations by boycotting all French goods and products that are being sold here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, this is the only way President Chirac and has military subordinates are going to listen to the concerns of millions of people around the world. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing personal against President Chirac and his military advisers, but I am in every way against such a stupid and unnecessary policy of the French Government to explode eight more nuclear bombs in the Pacific. As one can see on this map, Mr. Speaker--the Pacific Ocean covers almost one-third of our planet's surface. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, the Pacific Ocean is not a stationary mass of ocean water--the Pacific Ocean is a constant moving body of ocean currents that impacts the entire marine environment of every country that is part of this gigantic region of the world--this includes the entire State of Hawaii, the coastlines of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the map--this is the Morurao Atoll, which is located about 600 miles from the main island of Tahiti--and on this group of islands there are some 200,000 native Tahitians and expatriates who are all French citizens, Mr. Speaker. I ask, Mr. Speaker, has President Chirac ever taken the time and courtesy to consult with the French citizens living there. Of course not, because it is my belief that even the lives and health of these people are determined by the military and President Chirac as expendable. The same way, Mr. Speaker, on how the French Government determined that the lives of some 75,000 French citizens who were forcibly deported to Nazi concentration camps during World War II. And why? Because they were expendable. Mr. Speaker, I ask the good people of France to support the concerns of millions of your fellow human beings who live in the Pacific by telling President Chirac and his military cronies--France does not need to explode eight more nuclear bombs in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, despite indications that the public in France and in French Polynesia do not support French nuclear testing in the Pacific-- why does President Chirac insist that France explode eight more nuclear bombs? Some say to verify the reliability of its nuclear trigger system. But Mr. Speaker, the United States has already exploded over 1,000 times--nuclear bombs to verify and to test the reliability of our nuclear arsenals. Mr. Speaker, our country has already developed the technology--we have even offered France the technology--why is President Chirac reinventing the wheel, Mr. Speaker? It troubles me, Mr. Speaker--and what a sad commentary to make of the new leadership of France. What arrogance and total disregard that President Chirac makes of the serious environmental concerns that nations of the Pacific have had to make about the dangers to marine life and to the lives of people living in the Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask the world community and our own citizens to boycott all French goods, products, and services wherever and however such goods and products are sold in those countries, and especially here also in the United States. It appears that this is probably the only way leaders like President Chirac is going to seriously reevaluate and reexamine this most stupid and asinine policy of exploding eight nuclear bombs in order to catch up with the nuclear technology that has already been developed--and even more asinine, Mr. Speaker, is for the President of France to explode these eight nuclear bombs 15,000 miles away from French soil--and exploding these eight nuclear bombs in the middle of the largest ocean in the world--an ocean that is marine sensitive to all forms of marine life whereby the lives of millions of men, women, and children do depend upon every day in their lives. Mr. Speaker, I make this appeal again to all Americans--make your voices heard by boycotting all French goods and products and services-- send a strong message to President Chirac that his policy of exploding eight nuclear bombs is absurd and totally wrong. French Nuclear Official Vows Safety of Tests A senior official of the French Atomic Energy Commission told the French Parliament Defense Committee last week that, from a purely technical viewpoint, nothing prevented France form conducting nuclear tests on its own territory. The testimony, likely to be given widespread publicity, will supply new arguments to opponents of French nuclear tests who have suggested, half jokingly, that the tests be conducted in France if they are indeed as harmless as claimed by French president Jacques Chirac. Despite mounting international criticism, Chirac confirmed last week that France will proceed with plans to resume nuclear tests in its Pacific territories. Japan Threatens Action Over French Test Plan Japanese leaders have intensified protests to France over its declared resumption of nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, threatening that Tokyo will propose a resolution to the United Nations, send a protest flotilla and boycott French imports, including weapon systems for the Defense Agency. Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said July 19 in Hiroshima that Japan, plans to submit a draft resolution to the U.N. General Assembly in the fall calling for comprehensive prohibition of any kind of nuclear detonation testing.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, I want to speak to the Members of this body about the real impact that the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD appropriations bill--which we passed last night--will have on this country's first people, the Native Americans. I want to talk about how Native American tribes and their members remain among the poorest rural people in this great country; how they continue to live without safe, decent sanitary housing; and how the housing situation they find themselves in today is both scary and tragic. In 1990, the Bureau of Indian Affairs found that more than 55,000 new homes were needed in Indian country and that more than 35,000 homes needed extensive repairs. This was more than 5 years ago and knowing that this body allocates less than 3,000 units per year to Indian housing, it is highly unlikely that this acute need has diminished since that time. In addition, the figure that I have just mentioned does not account for the thousands of Native Americans who live away from their homelands but would return if they could be assured that they would find a home upon their return. The 1990 U.S. Census has found that Native Americans living in rural America have the highest percentage of homes without complete plumbing, more than any other population group in the United States. More than 12 percent of Native Americans living in homes in rural areas, which includes Indian reservations and communities and Native Alaskan villages, live without running water and flush toilets--amenities which most Americans take for granted. The 1996 VA, HUD appropriations bill cuts funding for new Indian housing starts by 61 percent. While in fiscal year 1995 Congress provided the Department of Housing and Urban Development with enough funding to construct 2,820 new Indian homes, the fiscal year 1996 budget will enable HUD to build just 1,000 new units. In addition, the bill cuts funding to operate Indian housing authorities by 14 percent, and funding for the modernization of Indian housing by 33 percent. Indian housing authorities manage HUD's Indian housing programs and throughout Indian country are the major providers of housing to Native Americans. When funds are cut to Indian housing authorities, we are literally denying homes to thousands of impoverished Native Americans. In other words, we are denying them the right to live as the rest of us. Private financing has not yet arrived in Indian country. Due to a complex system of trust land provisions, and BIA title record keeping, as well as an absence of appropriate financial markets, private lenders have not moved into Indian country. If private lenders are not present and Federal funding is being sharply reduced, how do we plan to house the thousands of Native Americans living on reservations and communities who need housing? Does this body propose to let them continue to live impoverished forever? America's first real contract with its citizens was when the Federal Government signed the first treaty with an Indian tribe. The more than 550 Native American tribes and their members constitute America's first people and it is about time that we begin to live up to the treaty obligations--such as decent housing--that we owe them. calling for a cessation of French nuclear testing in the south pacific

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues this morning a most serious problem now confronted by the 22 nations and territories of the Pacific Region--the Government of France plans to explode 8 more nuclear bombs in about 8 weeks, each 10 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Mr. Speaker, the millions of men, women, and children who live in the Pacific are sick and tired of this region being used as a testing ground for nuclear explosions. And it makes me sad to see the President of France, charging like a bulldozer--totally disregarding the environmental concerns of the millions of people living in the Pacific--and I ask the American people and my colleagues to send a strong message to the French Government by not buying French goods and products as a symbolic gesture to get President Chirac off his high horse, and stop this madness by canceling the nuclear explosions--and prove to the world what real leadership is all about. I know the people of the Pacific will be grateful. Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the people of France do not want their government to conduct nuclear explosions in French Polynesia. The countries of the Pacific, Asia, and Europe don't support it. What madness, Mr. Speaker. What madness. [From the Washington Post, July 12, 1995] Why Not Atom Tests in France France's unwise decision to resume nuclear testing was an invitation to the kind of protests and denunciations being generated by Greenpeace's skillful demonstration of political theater. But even before Greenpeace set sail for the test site, several Pacific countries had vehemently objected to France's intention of carrying out the explosions at a Pacific atoll. The most cutting comment came from Japan's prime minister, Tomiichi Murayama. At a recent meeting in Cannes the newly installed president of France, Jacques Chirac, confidently explained to him that the tests will be entirely safe. If they are so safe, Mr. Murayama replied, why doesn't Mr. Chirac hold them in France? The dangers of these tests to France are, in fact, substantial. The chances of physical damage and the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere are very low. But the symbolism of a European country holding its tests on the other side of the earth, in a vestige of its former colonial empire, is proving immensely damaging to France's standing among its friends in Asia. France says that it needs to carry out the tests to ensure the reliability of its nuclear weapons. Those weapons, like most of the American nuclear armory, were developed to counter a threat from a power that has collapsed. The great threat now, to France and the rest of the world, is the possibility of nuclear bombs in the hands of reckless and aggressive governments elsewhere. North Korea, Iraq and Iran head the list of possibilities. The tests will strengthen France's international prestige, in the view of many French politicians, by reminding others that it possesses these weapons. But in less stable and non-democratic countries, there are many dictators, juntas and nationalist fanatics who similarly aspire to improve their countries' standing in the world. The international effort to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons is a fragile enterprise, depending mainly on trust and goodwill. But over the past half-century, the effort has been remarkably and unexpectedly successful. It depends on a bargain in which the nuclear powers agree to move toward nuclear disarmament at some indefinite point in the future, and in the meantime to avoid flaunting these portentous weapons or to use them merely for displays of one- upmanship. That's the understanding that France is now undermining. The harassment by Greenpeace is the least of the costs that these misguided tests will exact. [From the Washington Post, July 11, 1995] France To Continue Nuclear Countdown (By Christopher Burns) Paris, July 10.--France insisted today that it will go ahead with nuclear-weapons tests in the South Pacific following its seizure of an environmental protest ship in the area and despite protests from demonstrators and governments around the world. French commandos used tear gas Sunday to board and take commend of the Rainbow Warrior II, flagship of the environmental protection organization Greenpeace--an action the group called ``an outrage against peaceful protest and world opinion.'' The timing of the boarding--which took place in French waters near Mururoa atoll, site of the planned nuclear tests--was especially sensitive because it was just 10 years ago that French agents blew up the original Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, killing one person aboard. Today, as French warships escorted the 180-foot vessel away from Mururoa, two Greenpeace members using a motorized dinghy evaded French patrols and scaled a drilling rig at the test site to protest the eight planned nuclear blasts, but security forces removed them within 20 minutes. The rig is used to bore test shafts into the ocean bed below the atoll. Meanwhile, in London, Bonn, Hong Kong and other cities, anti-nuclear protesters carried effigies of French President Jacques Chirac, chained themselves to the gates of French diplomatic compounds or held rallies to express their anger over the tests, scheduled to begin in September. In Washington, Greenpeace activists chained themselves to the gates of the French ambassador's residence, unfurled banners and shouted slogans denouncing the tests. But French officials shrugged off the outcry, declaring that its seizure of the Greenpeace ship was justified. ``Faced with operations that violate the law, we do what is needed to ensure that the law is respected, and we will continue to do so,'' Prime Minister Alain Juppe said. In Aukland, Greenpeace's New Zealand campaign director said the Rainbow Warrior II had planned to protest by sailing peacefully into the 12-mile exclusion zone around the atoll. But the French high commissioner in French Polynesia, Paul Ronciere, justifying seizure of the vessel, said the crew wanted to ``run the ship aground on a reef or on a beach'' to stymie French test plans. Juppe added in his statement that France will take whatever measures are needed to ensure that its territorial waters are respected. He said Chirac's pledge to conduct the tests as a means of maintaining France's nuclear capability would be carried out ``because it is in the higher interest of the country.'' France says that when the tests are completed it will be ready to sign a multi-national test ban treaty now being negotiated. French leftists and environmentalists criticized Chirac's new conservative government over the tests, although there were no major protests in Paris. Indeed, the French public seems tacitly to support the government's nuclear policies. But France came under increasing criticism today from many of its allies, most of whom have opposed the tests. In Washington, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said: ``As we stated previously, we regret very much the French decision to resume nuclear testing, and we continue to urge all nuclear power's including France, to join in a global moratorium as we work to complete the comprehensive test ban treaty at the earliest possible time.'' Australia, a major critic of the tests, has signaled that it will seek Japanese support in pressuring Paris to call them off. On the seizure of the Rainbow Warrior II, Deputy Prime Minister Kim Beazley called the French action ``a disproportionate response,'' as assessment echoed by New Zealand Prime Minister Jim Bolger, who said the French had gone ``over the top.'' Chirac is scheduled to meet German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in Strasbourg, France, on Tuesday and officials in Bonn said the chancellor would bring up the issue of the tests ``and their effect on public debate in Germany.'' A recent poll showed that 95 percent of Germans oppose the tests.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, once again I take the floor to express to my colleagues and to the American people my deep disappointment with a decision made recently by the President of the Government of France to explode eight nuclear bombs in the South Pacific, and each bomb explosion is ten times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Mr. Speaker, I have just learned from media reports that some 47 parliamentarians from Australia and 11 from New Zealand, and several more parliamentarians from Austria, Japan, Denmark and Germany--all plan to travel to French Polynesia to protest the proposed nuclear testing program by the French Government which will commence in September of this year. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my support and commend the parliamentarians of all these countries for their commitment and convictions to tell the French government leaders that France's proposal to explode eight nuclear bombs is just plain wrong and contrary to the wishes of some 28 million men, women and children who live in this region of the world. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to make an appeal to my colleagues to join me by traveling to French Polynesia and let the French Government know that nuclear testing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is an outmoded, ridiculous, and simply a dangerous undertaking not only for the marine environment but the lives of the millions of men, women and children who live in the Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, the President of France recently proclaimed that France was the homeland of the Enlightenment, and I have no doubt that some of the world's greatest thinkers--men of reason--men who appreciate and value human rights, and who respect the rights of others. Mr. Speaker, again I ask--what possible reason is there to justify President Chirac's decision to explode eight nuclear bombs? He said in the interest of France--but what the concerns and higher interest of some 170 nations of the world that recognized the dangers of nuclear proliferation--the dangers of nuclear bombs being exploded in an environment that changes constantly because of seasons climatic conditions that produce earthquakes, hurricanes, cyclones; and another real serious danger to these French nuclear explosions, Mr. Speaker, is we have no idea what is going on below the base of this volcanic formation. After some 139 nuclear explosions for the past 20 years inside the core of this volcanic formation--something has got to give--and if radioactive leakages start coming out of this volcanic formation within the next 10 years or even 50 years--my problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the 60 million French citizens living in France are going to continue enjoying the good things of life like drinking their French wines, while the millions of people who live in the Pacific are being subjected to radioactive contamination--let alone some 200,000 Polynesians, Tahitians, who incidentally are also French citizens--all, Mr. Speaker, are going to be the victims. Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? Can Mr. Chirac honestly look at himself in the mirror--every morning and keep saying to himself that it is okay to nuke those islands out there in the Pacific, and that the lives of 200,000 French citizens in the Pacific are not important to the Government of France? What arrogance, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the minds of millions of people around the world--the Government of France has committed a most grevious error by authorizing an additional eight nuclear bomb explosions to take place in certain atolls in the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this special appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to my fellow Americans--make your voices heard--support the concerns of the millions of men, women, and children in the Pacific and around the world who do not support French nuclear tests--call and write letters to the Congress and the French Embassy here in Washington, DC--tell the leaders of France that exploding 1.2 million tons of TNT in an ocean environment is both dangerous, insane, and utter madness. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House Committee on International Relations will consider House Concurrent Resolution 80, which expresses the strong sense of the Congress for recognition of the concerns of the nations of the Pacific region--a recognition also of the environmental problems that will attend these additional nuclear bomb explosions--and to call upon the government of France to stop these nuclear tests since about 70 percent of the people of France do not want nuclear tests to take place, and countries from Asia, the Pacific region, the Western Hemisphere, Europe--all do not want France to resume nuclear testings. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 80, which already has the support of Members from both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: U.S. Doubts Fuel Fear of Collapse on Nuclear Test Ban--Physicists Meet to Reinforce Stand (By Charles J. Hanley) Weeks before they light the fuse in the far Pacific, the French have set off an explosion of global protest with their plan to resume nuclear weapons testing. But the nuclear future may depend less on what happens on a Polynesian island in September than on the outcome of a secretive meeting last week at a California resort, where leading physicists gathered to try to help a wavering U.S. government take a stand on a global test ban. These latest developments--a decision in France, indecision in America--have suddenly cast a shadow over international negotiations to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty by late 1996. The Polish chairman of those talks in Geneva sounds worried. ``It's possible,'' Ludwik Dembinski said of reaching the goal. ``But it will be very difficult.'' Fifty years after the first atomic test explosion in New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, the [[Page H 7684]] nuclear powers have committed themselves to a 1996 target for banning the tests that over the years helped them build ever more compact, durable and finely tuned weapons. But after 2,000-plus explosions in the Nevada desert, the central Asian steppes and the Pacific, some want the treaty to allow still more such ``activities''--tests by another name. India is key: If it refuses to sign a treaty, its undeclared nuclear-arms program would remain beyond international controls. The Clinton administration, split between the military and other U.S. agencies favoring a near-zero threshold, turned for help to the ``Jasons,'' a select group of independent scientists on call to advise the government. This panel of ``wise men,'' first organized in 1958, is named after an inventive hero of Greek myth. A knowledgeable source, insisting on anonymity, said a half-dozen Jasons--nuclear physicists--met in La Jolla, Calif., last week with government specialists to review the threshold issue. Their talks ranged across an arcane realm where milliseconds make the difference between small ``bangs'' and unimaginable explosions. In a two-stage thermonuclear bomb, a sphere of non-nuclear explosives is ignited and compresses an inner plutonium or uranium core to critical mass, setting off an atom- splitting chain reaction. This fission explosion compresses a second component, of light atoms, that fuse and give off heat in an even greater fusion explosion. Minimal ``4-pound'' experiments are fission reactions aborted in their first moments. They are useful in weapon safety work--to determine, for example, that accidental ignition of the conventional explosives at only one point on the sphere produces just a small fission yield. But Christopher E. Paine of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based antinuclear group, says even mini-yield experiments can aid weapons development. By stepping up to yields of several hundred tons, the ``experiments'' open many more possibilities for designers, Mr. Paine said. For one thing, weapons scientists could monitor the complete fission stage and modify designs as a result. A zero-yield treaty would block the plans of U.S., French and other scientists for new bomb types--warheads for earth- penetrating weapons, for example, and variable-yield warheads. The ultimate recommendation from La Jolla may have been foreshadowed in an unclassified report last year by Jasons who advised against even the smallest-yield tests under a treaty. The safety and reliability of existing weapons can be ensured by non nuclear tests for the foreseeable future, it said. The closed-door debates in America are of special interest in Moscow. Some in the Russian military complex are looking for reasons to resume testing, said Vladimir Kozin, an arms- control specialist at the Russian Foreign Ministry. He said he fears the world will fall back into old habits. ``We are on the verge of reviving the arms race.'' Four declared nuclear powers--the United States, Russia, Britain and France--have observed a test moratorium since 1992. Last month, however, the French announced they would stage eight underground explosions at their Mururoa atoll site between September and next May. The French say they need the tests to check the safety and reliability of their arsenal and to collect data, before a test ban, for later weapons work via computer simulation. But arms-control advocates say Paris mostly wants to use the tests to complete the design of a new warhead. The U.S. government reaffirmed its adherence to the moratorium. But as attention focused on France, things were happening in Washington, too. The United States had been expected to favor a test-ban loophole to let elementary weapons work via miniature nuclear blasts underground, with explosive yields equivalent to no more than four pounds of TNT. In late June, however, it emerged that the Pentagon wants a much higher ``threshold''-- reportedly 500 tons, equivalent to the power of 300 Oklahoma City bombs. In meetings last week, Clinton administration officials were trying to settle the U.S. policy dispute. None spoke publicly about the pending decision, but the heat was clearly on. ``There's a lot of pressure within the administration to go to a high threshold of several hundred tons,'' said one informed official. The heat was felt all the way to Geneva. ``Several hundred tons, in my personal view, is certainly not acceptable,'' Mr. Dembinski said in a telephone interview. India's delegate to the 38-nation talks was more direct in rejecting the idea of any tests at all. A test-ban treaty should mean ``complete cessation of nuclear tests by all states in all environments and for all time,'' Satish Chandra, speaking for the Third World bloc, declared at one Ge-

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to voice my strong opposition to a proposal recently announced by the President of France--that his government, i.e., the Government of France intends to explode eight nuclear bombs in certain atolls in the South Pacific beginning in September of this year--that's one nuclear bomb explosion each month for an 8-month period, and each bomb explosion is ten times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan--some 50 years ago commencing next month. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of France, Mr. Chirac, why is he playing with the lives of millions of people of the world by starting another nuclear arms race? Mr. Speaker, we will commemorate next month--when 50 years ago our Government decided to drop and exploded two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan at the height of World War II in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, the atomic bomb we dropped on the city of Hiroshima resulted in the deaths of some 140,000 men, women, and children of that city, and with some 70,000 buildings either severely damaged or completely destroyed. The very center of this atomic bomb we exploded on the city of Hiroshima resulted in temperature measurements in excess of 5,400 degrees Fahrenheit, and the explosion destroyed literally everything within the 1\1/2\ mile radius. As many as 28,000 persons dies as a result of exposure to radiation, and also as a result of the nuclear explosion, the winds blew radioactive black rain and caused exposure of radioactive contamination to many others who were not directly exposed to the nuclear explosion. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to elaborate further on the pros and cons as to whether our country made the right decision to explode these two nuclear bombs against Japan--however you want to argue this issue, but war has one basic mission in mind, and that is to kill your enemy. But in our present day, Mr. Speaker, man has devised such weapons of mass destruction that war has taken an entirely different perspective. One thing is absolutely certain, Mr. Speaker, nuclear bomb explosions do not discriminate against soldiers and civilian populations, especially when during the Cold War and perhaps even now-- by pressing that nuclear button, both military and densely populated cities have become targets for mass destruction. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the President of France why does he want to explode eight more nuclear bombs to further contaminate the fragile marine environment in the Pacific Ocean--where an island community of some 200,000 Polynesian Tahitians and Europeans living in French Polynesia may face serious exposure to radioactive contamination from these nuclear explosions. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, these eight nuclear bombs the government of France intends to explode in French Polynesia will only add to the very serious danger where this volcanic formation under the Mururoa Atoll has already been exposed to some 139 atomic explosions-- to put it another way, Mr. Speaker, some 139 holes have already been drilled into this volcanic mountain that surrounds the rim of the Mururoa Atoll--some holes are as deep as 3,000 feet, and in each of these holds a nuclear bomb device was exploded within this volcanic mountain. Mr. Speaker, one does not need to be an expert nuclear scientist to tell any person living in the Pacific Region that not only is this volcanic mountain seriously contaminated with nuclear radioactive wastes, but that this mountain is basically below sea level, and that underwater mountains is totally surrounded by ocean water. Mr. Speaker, that ocean water in the Pacific carries the most basic life giving form as the most vital marine life resource--plankton. Mr. Speaker, another serious danger to those since French nuclear explosions in these atolls has been a tremendous increase of liguatera poisoning of the coral reefs and a variety of fish and other forms of life common to any marine environment. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the President of France can really demonstrate his capacity as an outstanding world leader by simply recognizing the fact that the government of France does not need to explode these nuclear bombs; our country already has the technology France needs to improve its nuclear capability, and I understood our nation has already offered to share this technology with France. Mr. Speaker, with the combined nuclear capability of the United States, Great Britain and France--can anyone honestly believe a nation or group of nations can ``win'' a nuclear conflict? Mr. Speaker, this is why it is so important that the five nuclear nations--also the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations to show real leadership and initiative by abolishing nuclear bombs testing and provide strict controls over the proliferation of nuclear weapons and prevent another unnecessary nuclear arms race--and on this the government of France has failed miserably to show real leadership among the nations of the world. Mr. Speaker, I include the following three items from the Washington Post for the Record: [From the Washington Post, July 15, 1995] Anti-Nuclear Protests Mar Bastille Day Chirac Says Test Plans In pacific Unchanged Sydney, July 14.--Demonstrators around the Pacific opposed to French plans to resume nuclear testing held rallies and marches to try to spoil France's Bastille Day celebrations today. But in Paris, President Jacques Chirac brushed aside the chorus of international protest and reaffirmed his commitment to go ahead with the testing, telling a Bastille Day news conference his decision was irrevocable. Chirac said civilian and military experts had advised him unanimously when he took office in May that the tests were necessary to ensure the safety of the country's nuclear arsenal, complete the checking of a new warhead for France's nuclear submarines and develop computer simulation techniques. ``I therefore made the decision [to go ahead] which, I hardly need to tell you, is irrevocable,'' he said. He repeated that France would sign and respect a complete test ban treaty next year and told French citizens the nuclear deterrent gave their ``big modern country . . . political weight in the world.'' Here in Australia's biggest city, Sydney, about 10,000 people shouting ``Stop French testing'' marched to a police- ringed French Consulate. Marchers, clogging four city blocks at a time, carried banners reading ``Truffles not testing'' and ``Boycott products of France.'' Expatriate Polynesians burned a French flag at a protest south of Sydney, and 1,000 people rallied outside a convention center in Canberra as the French ambassador went ahead with an official reception. Protesters yelled ``No more tests'' at guests. An Australian legislator presented a 100,000-name petition to the French ambassador calling for testing to stop, and unions hurt French businesses with a range of Bastille Day boycotts. Air France cancelled Bastille Day flights between Sydney and Paris and Sydney and New Caledonia due to a 24-hour ban on French military planes and French airlines by transport workers. In New Zealand, about 2,000 protesters dumped manure outside the French ambassador's Wellington residence and heckled the ambassador and luncheon guests by chanting ``Liberty, equality, fraternity, hypocrisy.'' About 2,500 protesters marched on the French Embassy in Fiji's capital, Suva, and presented a 50,000-signature petition to the ambassador. Placards read, ``This is not Hiroshima'' and ``If it is safe, do the tests under Chirac's nose.'' On the other side of the Pacific, protesters marched in Lima, Peru, and Bogota, Colombia.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the President of France for having recently acknowledged a very serious matter that for some 50 years every French head of state has denied any involvement of the French Government. Last Sunday, Mr. Speaker, President Jacques Chirac of France publicly stated that the Government of France was an accomplice and was involved in the deportation of some 75,000 Jews, whom a majority were French citizens and many refugees also--their deportation to Nazi Germany during World War II. These Jews were sent to Nazi death camps, and according to reports only about 2,500 survived. In his remarks, President Chirac said, ``France, the homeland of the Enlightenment and the rights of man, a land of welcome and asylum, on that day committed the irreparable. Betraying its word, it delivered its dependents to their executioners.'' Mr. Speaker, I admire President Chirac for saying these noble words, but I would admire him even more if he would be consistent with his statements and policy towards resumption of nuclear bomb explosions in the South Pacific. Quoting from President Chirac's own words, Mr. Speaker, if France is truly the homeland where the rights of men are respected and honored, then why is President Chirac giving a deaf ear--an unwilling spirit--to listen and to examine carefully the plans and requests from leaders of countries from around the world, especially the leaders of countries and territories representing some 28 million men, women, and children of the Pacific region, to stop this insane practice of exploding nuclear bombs in these Pacific atolls. Mr. Speaker, if France is truly the homeland of the enlightenment, then why is the President of France not giving serious consideration to reason and commonsense thinking by the majority of humanity throughout the world--do not explode nuclear bombs in the middle of the Pacific Ocean--given the fact that the Pacific Ocean covers almost one-third of our planet's surface. Mr. Speaker, may I also remind the President of France that two-thirds of the world's population reside in the Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, the president of France makes the point that exploding eight more nuclear bombs in the South Pacific is a necessary step to improve France's nuclear deterrent system. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the technology to improve the trigger mechanism to explode nuclear bombs is already available. It has been done, and guess which country has this technology. We do. The United States of America. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding our country was willing--and is still willing--to share the technology with France, so France does not need to spin its wheels again to continue a testing program when the answers are already known to questions concerning nuclear explosions. So, Mr. Speaker, I raise another point concerning President Chirac's decision to rescind France's 1992 moratorium on nuclear testing. President Chirac said the decision by his government to resume its nuclear testing program in the South Pacific is in the highest interest of the Government of France. Mr. Speaker, I submit I have a problem with President Chirac's claim that exploding eight nuclear bombs--each bomb ten times more powerful than the nuclear bomb that was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and killing over 100,000 men, women and children at the height of the conflict with Japan during World War II--the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that these eight nuclear bombs President Chirac's government intends to explode during an 8-month period starting in September of this year, these nuclear bombs are going to be detonated on two South Pacific atolls in French Polynesia. The President of France claims that exploding these eight nuclear bombs on these Pacific atolls is ecologically safe and that the marine environment will not in any way be affected by it. Mr. Speaker, the President of France is not an expert on nuclear bomb explosions, and certainly I'm not an expert on this matter, but doesn't it make sense, Mr. Speaker--common sense, that is--I strongly suggest to President Chirac that a panel of nuclear scientists from around the world be invited to these Pacific atolls and allow them the opportunity to fully examine what the French Government has done after already conducting 139 underwater nuclear bomb explosions and 41 atmospheric nuclear bombs under the Moruroa Atoll. Mr. Speaker, the French Government claims these nuclear bomb explosions are being conducted underground and not underwater. Mr. Speaker, I submit this claim is yes and no. The reason for my saying this is that the Morurao Atoll is made up entirely of coral reefs and marine life, but in the middle of the atoll is a volcanic formation shaped like a cone, but is below sea level. So what the French officials have done is drill some 139 of these holes into this volcanic formation, and accordingly in the middle of this volcanic mountain the nuclear bombs are detonated. Mr. Speaker, what concerns me and nuclear scientists throughout the world is that after exploding nuclear bombs 139 times inside this volcanic formation--something has to give after doing this for the past 20 years. Nuclear scientists have expressed serious concerns about leakages of nuclear contamination directly into the ocean, and the consequences of marine environmental contamination to all forms of marine life can never be restored to life again. That's the danger, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, why is the French Government so afraid to allow a panel of knowledgeable and expert scientists to examine the Moruroa Atoll, if all that the French Government alleges on safety and health to humans are true? So, Mr. Speaker, while these nuclear bomb explosions will explode inside a volcanic formation--this volcanic mountain-like formation is surrounded entirely by the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Speaker, while it is quite convenient for the French Government to claim a 12-mile territorial jurisdiction around [[Page H 7253]] the Moruroa Atoll, the fact is, the ocean surrounding the atoll does not discriminate on whereby nuclear contamination is carried freely and dispersed by the ocean currents--and these ocean currents affect the entire Pacific Ocean. Mr. Speaker, if the President of France continues to refuse to listen and to stop his government's nuclear testings in the Pacific, I am left one other possible option--declare and ask the goodness of the American people to boycott all French products being sold in the United States and throughout the world. I also make an appeal, Mr. Speaker, for our musicians and leaders noted in the media and entertainment business to set September 1 of this year to conduct concerts, musical arrangements and gatherings to protest French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information. [From the Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1995] Government Watch--National Confession Credit President Jacques Chirac with the moral and political courage at last to say unequivocally what other French heads of state have refused to say for 50 years. Credit him with publicly recognizing France's direct responsibility in the deportation of some of the 75,000 Jews--many of them refugees but the majority French citizens--who were seized and shipped to Nazi death camps during World War II. Official French complicity in this crime against humanity has long been known and documented. Yet for decades successive governments sought to place responsibility solely on the country's German occupiers, later adding the collaborationist Vichy regime to the roll of those guilty. Chirac, in remarks at a memorial service for 13,000 Jews who were seized in Paris in 1942 and transported to the death camps, was explicit about the actual French role. ``France, the homeland of the Enlightenment and the rights of man, a land of welcome and asylum, on that day committed the irreparable.'' His nation owes those victims, he said, ``an everlasting debt.'' It's seldom easy for proud nations to admit crimes or follies. Only in 1976, for example did President Gerald R. Ford apologize on behalf of the government for the hysteria- prompted wartime internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry 34 years earlier. That great wrong had long been widely recognized. In France for more than five decades it was official denial that prevailed. President Chirac, to his great credit, has made any further denial untenable.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, to respond further to him, Mr. Chairman, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshalls, and the Republic of Palau, are basically independent. Basically whatever funding Congress provides for them as part of the compact agreement is administered directly from the Secretary's office. I assume that it now falls in the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Budget.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. It has the support of the majority, and of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] from the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the House Resources Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Williams, to hold the Bureau of Indian Affairs to a May 31, 1996, deadline to report to Congress on the status of Indian Trust Fund Accounts. Mr. Chairman, the Indian Trust Fund Accounts, the trustee of which is the U.S. Government, have been a disaster. In good faith, the American Indian tribes agreed to permit the U.S. Government to invest the profits from certain oil and gas leases on Indian lands in trusts. These funds were to be used for the benefits of the tribes. In what I consider to be probably the biggest disgrace of this country's history, the Bureau of Indian Affairs managed to lose records or misallocate profits to such an extent that one of the major professional accounting firms has not yet been able to determine the status of these accounts after 4 years, and 20 million dollars' worth of investigations and review. Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The Indian tribes and Congress have already been patient for too long. If the BIA cannot find the records after 4 years of looking, they are probably not going to find them in an additional 18 months. Congress, and the Resources Committee in particular, need this report to make a policy decision on how best to proceed, given the current status of the trust accounts, whatever the status might be. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have been working on the problems of Indian trust funds for several years. Just last November we passed the American Indian Trust Fund Reform Act of 1994. This act requires that a special trustee for trust funds be named to overhaul the manner in which these funds are managed. Further, this act calls for the BIA to submit a report to Congress by May 31, 1996, on the reconciliation activities being conducted. The date of May 31, 1996, was added to the legislation at the request of the Department of the Interior and is more than adequate. By May 1996 we will know if these accounts can be reconciled or not. It is a waste of time and money to continue to extend this process and it is unfair to the Indian tribes who have shown an abundance of restraint throughout. Mr. Chairman, let's not extend this embarrassing situation any longer. Let's ensure that the various Indian tribes which have been waiting for an accounting of these trusts do not feel compelled to sue the U.S. Government for the financial information to which they are entitled. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, both Mr. Yates and Mr. Regula, who have been trying to come to grips with this problem for the past several years. I want to earnestly thank the gentlemen for their support on this proposed amendment because I believe this amendment will give the Bureau of Indian Affairs the time it needs to wrap up the reconciliation process and provide Indian tribes and the Congress with the information needed to determine what we need to do thereafter. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman Underwood's amendment to reallocate funding to the Government of Guam to compensate the financial burden placed on the local government by actions of the Federal Government. In 1986, by public law the Congress adopted the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Governments of Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. This compact exempts citizens of the freely associated states from meeting certain U.S. passport, visa, and work permit requirements, and allows them to reside, work, and attend school in the United States and its territories. Guam and the other territories were not involved in these discussions. Because Guam is the closest United States soil to the Freely Associated States, many indigent citizens of these states have migrated to Guam, and the Government of Guam has been required to expend in excess of $70 million to provide for the educational and social services of these people. While the United States Government has agreed in principle to assist the Government of Guam with these expenses, to date, only $2.5 million has ever been appropriated. In fiscal year 1996, the administration proposed $4.5 million for this purpose, but the Appropriations Committee did not include that amount in its bill. As the gentleman from Guam has been saying since he came to Washington, this is a $70 million unfunded mandate. An unfunded mandate we can easily correct with the savings approved in the Gallegly amendment. In effect this is simply a reallocation of a portion of these funds, and the bill will remain below the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. I urge my colleagues to provide the funding for this prior U.S. commitment and vote in favor of the Underwood amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Congressman Gallegly's amendment to title I of H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Committee on Resources had approved by voice vote an authorization bill (H.R. 1332) which will, among other things, delete the position of Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs, terminate funding for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, terminate funding for four territorial assistance programs, provide multiyear funding for the territory of American Samoa, and add procedural improvements for the relocation of the people of Rongelap. H.R. 1332 will save the U.S. Government in excess of $100 million over the next 7 years. Regrettably, the Appropriations Committee has chosen not to accept the approach adopted by the Resources Committee. Earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced that he was going to close the Office of Territorial and International Affairs, within the Department of the Interior. Later, as the details became available, it became apparent that the administration wanted only to downgrade the office and reduce its size to approximately 25 people. Given that the territory of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are the only territories in which OTIA is actively involved, and given the increased level of self-autonomy already provided to the territories, I submit that 25 people is much too large a staff for this office, and believe it should be terminated or cut substantially. While the four assistance programs contained in the President's budget and the appropriations bill have been useful in the past, the time has come to terminate these programs as well, and move forward in our relations with the territories. Mr. Chairman, the Gallegly amendment is consistent with the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 and consistent with the actions of the authorizing committee this year. In effect, the authorizing committee, and the full House are moving in one direction on these issues, while the Appropriations Committee is moving in another. The Gallegly amendment cuts Federal spending, reduces Government bureaucracy, and moves the administration of the U.S. insular areas toward greater self-autonomy. Chairman Elton Gallegly and I have been working on an authorizing bill for the territories all year. Our approach has been approved by the Resources Committee, and will be a significant change in insular policy for our Government. This change has been a long time in coming, but the time has come. Mr. Chairman, Congress' move toward reduced Federal spending is causing significant pain throughout our Government. I am pleased that insular policy is one area in which the authorizing committee has achieved substantial bipartisan agreement. Insular policy is not an area followed closely by most of us, but those of us who work in the area see this as a positive change, and I urge my colleagues to support the Gallegly amendment and conform the appropriations bill to the budget resolution and the action of the authorizing committee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is correct.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, what the Secretary of the Interior has done is terminated the Office of Assistant Secretary of Territorial and Insular Affairs. In doing so, he is placing part of the responsibility to his Assistant Secretary for Budget and Planning. Within the Office of Budget and Planning, I am told that under the Deputy Assistant Secretary and further down the line there, he is going to establish an office which is called the director that is supposed to be keeping an eye, at least on behalf of the Secretary, on whatever is left to do with the territories. What we are trying to do here, if I might respond to the gentleman, the Secretary of Interior made an announcement based on our hearing that he was going to terminate the entire Office of Territorial Affairs. I assume that he is going to do it directly under the auspices of his office and assistants.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, I want to express my strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations. The amendment simply restores the badly needed funds for education of American Indians and Alaskan Native children in public schools. Mr. Chairman, I submit this is a downright tragedy that the Congress of the United States would take away money from our American Indian children's future to fund other programs like timber sales management. Mr. Chairman, I also want to make it clear that funding for title IX is not duplicative of BIA directed funding. Title IX funding is for children in public schools, while BIA funding is for Indian children in BIA or tribally operated schools. Mr. Chairman, as so eloquently stated in a letter by my good friend from Alaska and chairman of the House Committee on Resources, why do we continue to pick on those who simply cannot defend themselves, the children? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment and restore the funds needed for the education of American native and Alaskan Native children.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to protest France's intent [[Page H 7009]] to resume nuclear testing on French Polynesia's Moruroa and Fangataufa coral atolls this September. French President Chirac's decision to detonate eight thermonuclear bombs in the South Pacific--one a month, with each up to 10 times more powerfull than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima--is a crime against nature and a violation of the basic human rights of 28 million men, women, and children of the Pacific to live in a clean, uncontaminated environment. I cannot comprehend how President Chirac can say with a straight face that the equivalent of 800 Hiroshima bombs exploding in a short time on two tiny coral islands will have no ecological consequences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that is pure baloney. I don't buy it, and neither does the world. After detonating at least 187 nuclear bombs in the fragile marine environment of the South Pacific, France's desire to again resume the spread of nuclear poison has ignited a firestorm of international outrage and protest by the countries of the world. Governments around the globe have strongly condemned France's decision. Our Nation in addition to Russia, Japan, Germany, Austria, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, The Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and the 12 island nations of the South Pacific forum, have joined ranks in opposition to France's resumption of testing. Just yesterday, French President Chirac was jeered by Members of Parliament while speaking before the European Union's Assembly. In a 331-74 vote, the European Parliament condemned France's plans to resume nuclear testing, noting that the tests threatened the ecology of the South Pacific around Moruroa Atoll, while undermining progress toward a global test ban treaty. Mr. Speaker, public opinion polls in France have shown that the overwhelming majority of the French people--over 70 percent--oppose resumption of nuclear testing. There is simply no need to detonate nuclear bombs in the South Pacific, as top advisors to former French President Mitterand have attested recently that France could obtain needed information using computer simulation technology offered by the United States. Chirac, however, has cavalierly discarded this option in favor of developing an independent French simulation technology. Mr. Speaker, this same misplaced arrogance lead to the deaths of 300 French hemophiliacs from AIDS because the French Government refused to use proven American technology in order to develop their own blood test technology. Mr. Speaker, in light of how controversial the matter is domestically in France, I would issue again an appeal to the world's most revered protector of the environment, Jacques Cousteau, to provide leadership for the good people of France to force their government to reconsider this senseless decision resuming nuclear testing in the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I would also challenge President Chirac on his statement that France's nuclear testing program in French Polynesia is harmless to the environment and would take him to his offer inviting scientists to inspect their testing facilities. If President Chirac is truly acting in good faith, then he should have no reservations in authorizing full and unrestricted access--before the resumption of tests in September--for an international scientific mission to conduct a serious independent and comprehensive sampling and geological study of Moruroa and Fangataufa Atolls. In conjunction with the monitoring, there should be a fully independent epidemiological health survey and full disclosure of the French data bases on environmental and health effects from nuclear testing. Mr. Speaker, if French President Chirac is to be believed, then this should be an easy request to meet. Until he responds, however, I would urge our colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 80, legislation I have introduced calling upon the Government of France not to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, in case some of my colleagues may not have seen the photo as an example of a nuclear bomb explosion in the South Pacific. I want to share with my colleagues--once again--a nuclear explosion that took place on the Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. Mr. Speaker, again a very colorful picture of a nuclear bomb explosion--but a very deadly sight on what will happen to the millions of fish, whales, dolphins, turtles--and every form of marine life that comes in contact with nuclear contamination as a result of the nuclear explosion. Mr. Speaker, I also want to share with my colleagues a photograph showing the President of France--Mr. Chirac--not a popular man among his fellow European parliamentarians. Mr. Speaker, President Khol of Germany is against French nuclear testing in the Pacific, and so are most of the European nations. Mr. Speaker, I submit what France is doing she's opening up a whole can of worms by encouraging, Mr. Speaker, encouraging nations like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea and India to reexamine seriously their nuclear testing programs since France--as a member of the current nuclear family and UN Security Council--simply is telling these countries and all others, were going to explode eight more nuclear bombs--and if it means subjecting the indigenous tahitians to further nuclear contamination--to hell with them. Such arrogance Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker, I have a deep and abiding respect for all the good citizens of France but I am appalled, disappointed, desmayed disgusted and simply outraged that the President of France has the mitigated gall to order his military people to explode eight more nuclear bombs in French Polynesia. If there is ever a time--Mr. Speaker--that my Polynesian Tahitians cousins have at times described to me--out of utter frustration their dealings the men of France who head lead their government, the Tahitians would say. ``Farani taioro--Farani taioro! [From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 1995] French Nuclear Tests Spark International Protest (By Thomas Kamm) Paris.--Protests over France's decision to resume nuclear tests in the South Pacific are spreading, and the repercussions are hitting French companies, too. And while the chorus of international protests is rising and calls for a boycott of French products are increasing, President Jacques Chirac is standing firm, denouncing environmental concerns as ``totally irrational with no scientific backing.'' Political analysts think Mr. Chirac is in a bind. He apparently misperceived the international impact of his decision to resume underground nuclear testing at the French Pacific atoll of Mururoa in September. Now, however, he knows that decision is widely unpopular--though far more so abroad than at home. At the same time, with his government under fire at home for its cautious economic approach and with Prime Minister Alain Juppe enmeshed in a scandal over the allotment of public housing, a climb-down on the nuclear issue could badly damage Mr. Chirac's credibility only two months after he took office. ``He can't change his mind, because he would look ridiculous,'' says Dominique Moisi, associate director of the French Institute for International Relations. ``But France will be blocked for months on the international scene. Every time the president speaks, there will be protest banners and catcalls.'' Italian President Oscar Luigi Scalfaro is the latest to join the outcry against the nuclear testing, yesterday urging Mr. Chirac to reconsider his decision. ``Nothing is more intelligent than to listen to other people's beliefs when they are expressed so unanimously,'' he said. His comments can one day after Mr. Chirac was loudly booed by left-wing and Green members of the European Parliament during a speech in Strasbourg, France. The Parliament building was bedecked with banners bearing statements such as ``Less arrogance in the Pacific, more courage in Bosnia,'' a reference to the French navy's seizure Sunday of a Greenpeace ship in French waters in the Pacific. Later Mr. Chirac was told by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl that the decision to carry out eight underground nuclear tests had ``provoked violent public reaction in Germany and elsewhere.'' Meanwhile, calls for a boycott of French products are spreading from Australia and New Zealand to Europe. Yesterday, German, Norwegian and other northern European environmental and political groups called for a boycott of French products. Estee Lauder Inc., the U.S. cosmetics company, was concerned enough about a boycott in Australia that it issued a statement there stressing that it is not French. ``It has come to our attention that a number of people are under the assumption that the Estee Lauder companies are French in origin. That is certainly not true,'' the cosmetics group said. [[Page H 7010]] At least one French company has already been dealt a setback. Lemaitre Securite, a maker of industrial safety shoes, says a licensing deal it signed in March with Austrialia's Dunlop Footwear is on the verge of falling through because its Australian partner says the climate isn't conducive to marketing French products. ``French companies shouldn't pay the price of Tarzan's games,'' says Lemaitre's chairman, Jean-Michel Heckel. Tarzan, he says, is Mr. Chirac. His comment reflects a widespread feeling in France that Mr. Chirac's decision was based more on political concerns than military ones. Mr. Chirac says the nuclear tests are necessary to ensure the efficiency and safety of France's weapons stockpiles, but he vows that France will join the U.S., Britain, China and Russia in signing a permanent test ban treaty by Sept. 30, 1996. Many analysts believe the Gaullist Mr. Chirac resumed the tests to differentiate himself from his predecessor, Socialist Francois Mitterrand. In the process, he appears to have underestimated the backlash, and his decision, coupled with his tough talk on Bosnia, gives the appearance of grandstanding.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, I rise to express great concerns about the cuts which the Interior appropriations bill makes in the funding of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Mr. Chairman, when viewed in the context of the massive cuts which all Federal programs are taking, the BIA cuts may not seem serious. But, when viewed in the context of the special Federal legal and moral obligations to the Indian people, these cuts only further undermine the honor and integrity of this Nation in meeting those obligations. With that honor and integrity at stake, however, the Appropriations Committee, in its report, makes a serious error which calls into question the good faith of the United States toward all native Americans. In particular, language on page 53 of the committee's report directs the BIA to submit a report to the committee on the gross gaming revenues of Indian tribes and the amount of Federal funding such tribes are receiving. The threat is thinly veiled. About one third of the Indian tribes in the lower 48 States have developed tribal revenues from gaming operations. In this respect, they are not unlike nearly all of the States which have developed State lotteries as a means of generating governmental revenues. Two small tribes, ideally situated, have for all practical purposes achieved economic self-sufficiency and complete independence from Federal funding. Only a handful of other tribes are making significant gains from their gaming operations. The overwhelming majority are deriving revenues from their operations which permit them to only partially meet critical unmet needs which the Federal Government has refused to meet over the years. But in every case, whatever the level of their gaming income, these tribes are devoting the net revenues to governmental operations and programs, as required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Yet the committee's report levels a threat at these tribes. After years of encouraging tribes to seek self-sufficiency and after years of failing to meet this Nation's obligation to assist tribes toward that goal, the report threatens to cut off their Federal funds in proportion to governmental revenues generated by their own initiative. But we know, in Indian affairs, that no good deed goes unpunished. If this Congress is going to be consistent, Mr. Chairman, we need to require each State government to make a report to Congress on the gross income derived by that State from gaming and other commercial activities, and to take those State receipts into consideration when allocating Federal funds. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Secretary of the Interior, in responding to the study requirement of the committee report--should the Senate concur--will put the report into context. When reporting on the level of tribal gaming revenues and on the level of Federal funding, he must also advise the Congress of the level of unmet need of that tribe and its members. The study of the tribe's unmet need must be comprehensive, accurate, and that need must be [[Page H 6943]] measured in terms of the effort necessary to put that tribe and its members into a position comparable to the average circumstances of all Americans. Until this Nation fulfills its obligation to the Indian people to ensure them a standard of living comparable to the rest of the Nation, it is unjust to threaten the Federal funding of programs for their benefit because they have begun to exert their own efforts toward self- sufficiency.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, just weeks ago, French President Jacques Chirac announced that France will abandon its 1992 moratorium on nuclear testing and explode eight more nuclear bombs in the South Pacific beginning in September. Chirac said that the nuclear explosions will have no ``ecological consequences,'' and described his decision as ``irrevocable.'' After detonating at least 187 nuclear bombs in the heart of the South Pacific, France's intent to resume further nuclear poisoning of the South Pacific [[Page H 6904]] environment has resulted in deep outrage and alarm in the countries of the region, as well as with the world community. I rise today to urge my colleagues to support legislation I introduced recently, House Concurrent Resolution 80, which recognizes the environmental concerns of the people of Oceania and calls upon the government of France not to resume nuclear testing in French Polynesia's Moruroa and Fangataufa Atolls. In a broad showing of bipartisan support, 15 Members of Congress have joined me as original cosponsors of House Concurrent Resolution 80-- including the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, the Honorable Lee Hamilton; the chairman and ranking member of the Asia-Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, the Honorable Doug Bereuter, and the Honorable Howard Berman; and the chairman and ranking member of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, the Honorable Chris Smith and the Honorable Tom Lantos. I want to express my deepest appreciation to these gentlemen, as well as to other distinguished senior members of the House International Relations Committee--including the Honorable Jim Leach, the Honorable Gary Ackerman, the Honorable Jay Kim and the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher--for their strong support of this measure. I also want to thank members from districts touching the Pacific that have joined us as original cosponsors, including the Honorable Robert Underwood of Guam, the Honorable Patsy Mink and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, the Honorable Norman Mineta from California and the gentleman from Oregon, the Honorable Peter DeFazio. The distinguished Member from Massachusetts, the Honorable Edward Markey, must also be commended for his leadership in the field of nuclear nonproliferation and support of legislation opposing France's nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, like a wild boar on the ocean waves, or a ``bulldozer'' as described by his mentor, the late President Georges Pompidou, or a mad aberration of 21st century thought, French President Chirac's so- called decision and insistent denial of consequence is what novelist Bernard Clavel called the Shame of France. Mr. Speaker, we all know nuclear bombs have only one purpose. They were created to destroy every living plant and animal, including humans. The result is they annihilate everything. The people of France know this. The government of France knows this. Mr. Chirac knows this. We all know why France explodes its bombs in French Polynesia and not in France. The leaders of France do not want 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 the United States, have consistently deemed Pacific islanders and their way of life expendable. For example, in 1954, on Bikini atoll the United States detonated the ``bravo shot,'' a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb over a thousand times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. 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. After almost three decades 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.'' Moruroa and its sister French test site at Fangataufa are water-permeable coral atolls on basalt, now contaminated in the worst way similar to the crisis at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Leakage of radioactive waste from the underground test sites to the surrounding waters and air has been predicted, and is inevitable. Epidemic-like outbreaks in surrounding communities have already resulted, but symptoms including damage to the nervous system, paralysis, impaired vision, birth abnormalities, and increased cancer rates among Tahitians, in particular. It is no wonder that the French Government has kept medical records at Moruroa a top secret and has not even permitted long-term follow-up study of the local indigenous or Tahitian workers who were subjected radioactive contamination. Yet, Chirac, like so many other leaders of nuclear nations, insists that nuclear tests are harmless to the environment. As reported by the National Resources Defense Council in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, ``the five declared nuclear powers have acknowledged conducting a total of 2,036 nuclear tests since 1945.'' of this total, 942 of the tests have been conducted within the continental United States, 710 in Russia/Kazakhstan, and 306 atomic explosions conducted by the United States, Great Britain, and France on Pacific islands and atolls. It is interesting to note that although France has detonated over 200 nuclear bombs in the past 35 years, not one of these bombs has been exploded on, above, or beneath French soil. Mr. Speaker, in the truest form of colonial agression, France, instead, has exploded almost all of its nuclear bombs in its South Pacific colony, after being driven out of Algeria, a former possession also used a nuclear testing dump. France currently has the world's third largest stockpile of nuclear bombs in the world. But Chirac told reporters on the eve of his first presidential trip abroad that his decision to explode eight more nuclear bombs in the South Pacific was crucial to ensure the reliability and security of the coutry's nuclear weaponry. I made this decision, Mr. Chirac states, ``because I considered it necessary in the higher interest of our nation.'' Whatever happened to the higher interest of some 170 non-nuclear nations? I say to the military establishment of France and to the President of France, if exploding eight more nuclear bombs is so crucial to ensure the security of your country's weaponry, explode your eight nuclear bombs under the Arc de Triomphe and along the rural and farm areas of France, and see if the citizens of France will support you in the higher interest of your nation. Mr. Speaker, the peoples of the North and South Pacific want nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They know firsthand the horrors of nuclear testing and have agreed amongst themselves to keep their part of the planet nuclear-free. Isn't it ironic that it is among these people that France is about to explode 8 nuclear bombs--one nuclear bomb explosion a month--with each detonation up to 10 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb that was dropped on the city of Hiroshima 50 years ago? Incidentally, this is not happening by the choice of the 28 million men, women, and children of a European world power playing the role of colonial master to the detriment of peaceful citizens on the other side of the world. When is enough, enough? Two hundred-plus nuclear explosions, with almost all in South Pacific waters, apparently is not enough for France. Mr. Chirac wants eight more. So what about the rest of the world? I suspect that the military establishments of every nuclear power want to perform more tests to ensure the reliability of their nuclear arsenals. But the fact is, all of the nuclear powers, except China, have given up this benefit and stopped testing programs in the interest of making the world a safer place to live. Government after government after government, in a firestorm of international outrage, have spoken out in opposition to France's resumption of nuclear testing. Demonstrations involving tens of thousands of protestors have taken place in French Polynesia, and around the globe. The United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and the 12 other island nations which comprise the South Pacific forum have condemned France's decision to resume nuclear testing, noting that it would be a major setback to relations between France and the international community. Two months ago, the United States, France, and the major nuclear powers promised over 170 non-nuclear nations that the nuclear powers would exercise utmost restraint with regard to nuclear testing and would work toward a comprehensive test ban treaty. Despite reservations, these commitments were [[Page H 6905]] 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. Weeks later, the French Government now sends the message that in the name of national interest, it is more than willing to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and impede good faith negotiation of a genuine comprehensive test ban treaty. Not only does France send the message that world peace takes a back seat to national security paranoia, but it now sends the message that, as a nuclear nation, it shamelessly, shamelessly, Mr. Speaker, deems expendable the welfare and the fragile marine environment of 28 million men, women, and children living in the Pacific region. Nuclear bomb explosions constitute the ultimate rape of a people. The welfare of the South Pacific's 28 million people should not be the sacrifice paid in the name of France's paranoia and hypocritical policy concerning nuclear deterrence. For France to disregard its moral responsibility to the non-nuclear nations and world community is the eiptome of actions taken by a colonial master against its subjects, and it is about the ugliest form of colonial aggression taken by France against the indigenous people of Tahiti. ``It is regrettable that France has given in to out-dated arguments,'' respected French oceanographer Jacques Cousteau said. ``Great wars are of the past. The struggle for peace is carried out first and foremost through education and the restoration of morality. Today's wisdom makes it necessary to outlaw atomic arms.'' Cousteau's sentiments were echoed by former French President Francois Mitterand, who in condemning Chirac's testing decision, recently stated, ``The time has come to put an end to the nuclear armaments race.'' Cousteau and Mitterand's statements reflect how controversial Chirac's nuclear policy is domestically in France. French public opinion polls show an overwhelming 70 percent, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to resumed nuclear testing. Today, on trial of broken treaties and irrevocable decisions, with the United States still in flux on nuclear testing while promising to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty, 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 the good people of France and the United States 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.'' In light of Mr. Chirac's irrevocable decision, and in consideration of opinion polls documenting Jacques Cousteau as the leading popular figure in France, I would again urge Mr. Cousteau to lead the good people of France in the fight to oblige its government to control itself. As the world's preeminent guardian of the environment, his place in history dictates that Mr. Cousteau play a greater and more forceful role in preventing this travesty against the health and welfare of the 28 million men, women and children who live in the Pacific region. Mr. Speaker, this planet has already been ravaged by more than 2,036 nuclear bomb explosions. It is time that we stop the madness. I would urge most strongly that Paris reconsider its decision to resume nuclear bomb explosions in the South Pacific and would urge the citizens of the world community to take up the fight in holding nuclear nations accountable for the violent rape and utter destruction of non-nuclear nations, peoples, and the environment--until angels govern men. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would invite our colleagues to cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 80 and join us in sending a strong message of support for the peoples of Oceania and in opposition to France's resumption of nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues and my fellow Americans, a photo shot of a nuclear bomb explosion that was detonated on the Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia. Mr. Speaker, the photo of the nuclear explosion--I must confess--is a very pretty one--but very, very deadly. You see Mr. Speaker, modern warfare is no longer something where there is honor to fight hand-to- hand combat--at least combatants meet on the field of battle to fight. You see Mr. Speaker, nuclear bomb explosions don't just kill human beings--nuclear bomb explosions do not ask for permission to kill just soldiers and sailors--Mr. Speaker, nuclear bomb explosions literally vaporize human beings--you're not even going to have to find many bodies even to give the deceased decent burials. Mr. Speaker, this photo is an example of what nuclear explosions are like when the Government of France will resume exploding eight more nuclear bombs beginning in early September of this year. Mr. Speaker, I am making this appeal to my colleagues in the House and to all my fellow Americans who love to sail in the Pacific--who can appreciate the concerns of some 28 million men, women, and children who live in the Pacific--to write and call the officials of the French Government that exploding eight nuclear bombs in the coming months is bad policy, and President Chirac should wake up, and he should come to his senses and stop this madness--stop this insane and inhuman practice of exploding nuclear bombs not only against the fragile environment of the Pacific Ocean but anywhere else in the world. What a sad commentary on France's upcoming celebration of Bastille Day on July 14--how absurd and stupid can President Chirac be, Mr. Speaker, when 70 percent of the people of France are against nuclear explosions--and yet the President of France has totally disregarded this concern. Let's stop this madness, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following article from the July 12, 1995 Washington Post: [From the Washington Post, July 12, 1995] Why Not Atom Tests in France? France's unwise decision to resume nuclear testing was an invitation to the kind of protests and denunciations being generated by Greenpeace's skillful demonstration of political theater. But even before Greenpeace set sail for the test site, several Pacific countries had vehemently objected to France's intention of carrying out the explosions at a Pacific atoll. The most cutting comment came from Japan's prime minister, Tomiichi Murayama. At a recent meeting in Cannes the newly installed president of France, Jacques Chirac, confidently explained to him that the tests will be entirely safe. If they are so safe, Mr. Murayama replied, why doesn't Mr. Chirac hold them in France? The dangers of these tests to France are, in fact, substantial. The chances of physical damage and the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere are very low. But the symbolism of a European country holding its tests on the other side of the earth, in a vestige of its former colonial empire, is proving immensely damaging to France's standing among its friends in Asia. France says that it needs to carry out the tests to ensure the reliability of its nuclear weapons. Those weapons, like most of the American nuclear armory, were developed to counter a threat from a power that has collapsed. The great threat now, to France and the rest of the world, is the possibility of nuclear bombs in the hands of reckless and aggressive governments elsewhere. North Korea, Iraq and Iran head the list of possibilities. The tests will strengthen France's international prestige, in the view of many French politicians, by reminding others that it possesses these weapons. But in less stable and non-democratic countries, there are many dictators, juntas and nationalist fanatics who similarly aspire to improve their countries' standing in the world. The international effort to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons is a fragile enterprise, depending mainly on trust and goodwill. But over the past half-century, the effort has been remarkably and unexpectedly successful. It depends on a bargain in which the nuclear powers agree to move toward nuclear disarmament at some indefinite point in the future, and in the meantime to avoid flaunting these portentous weapons or to use them merely for displays of one- upmanship. That's the understanding that France is now undermining. The harassment by Greenpeace is the least of the costs that these misguided tests will exact.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, let me cry out: ``Shame on you the government of France. * * *'' Mr. Speaker, 27 million people in the Pacific cry out: ``Shame on you the government of France * * * for your arrogance to explode eight nuclear bombs in the South Pacific starting this September.'' Mr. Speaker, the 178 countries who signed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty cry out: ``Shame on you France * * *.'' Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to President Jacques Chirac, if he wants to develop France's nuclear bomb trigger device for computer simulation technology, then develop it on a computer--not in the South Pacific, not on people and not on mother Earth. Explode your eight nuclear bombs in Paris and along the rural and farm areas of France, and see if the citizens of France will support you. Mr. Speaker, the Government of France currently has: The world's third largest stockpile of nuclear bombs; The fourth largest navy in the world; and Twenty years of experience in conducting nuclear bomb explosions in the atmosphere and under water in the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about the trigger device that the French Government wants to develop for its nuclear bomb explosions. The nuclear trigger is a nuclear bomb itself and is 100 times more powerful than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the nuclear bomb trigger is 100 times more powerful than what was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the nuclear explosion that will come after that? What madness, Mr. Speaker. Why not drop your eight nuclear bombs under the Arc de Triomphe--a prided possession for the people of France, because, the island nations of the South Pacific are the prided possessions of the 27 million people who live, eat, drink, and swim in that part of the world. I say to the military establishment of France and to the President of France--in the words of Bernard Clavel, the popular novelist, ``You are the shame of France * * * you are the shame of France.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the following newspaper articles for the Record: [From the Samoa News, June 15, 1995] South Pacific Condemns Decision to Resume Nuclear Testing Sydney, Australia.--Countries of the South Pacific today sharply condemned France's decision to resume nuclear weapons testing in the region in September. New Zealand Foreign Minister Don McKinnon bitterly accused French President Jacques Chirac of ``Napoleonic-De Gaulle arrogance.'' An angry Prime Minister Jim Bolger complained that France had directly insulted his country which sent troops to fight two world wars on French soil. ``New Zealanders left the South Pacific to defend France and to help France reclaim its land,'' Bolger said in a vitriolic attack in Parliament. ``Is that our thanks--the fingers sign because the French military want bigger playthings?'' Bolger said France and New Zealand had been ``friends for generations and in one act today France decided to hell with the friendship.'' ``It is not too late for France to reconsider its position. There is a great deal at stake,'' Bolger said. Both Australia and New Zealand said they will downscale or freeze defense links with France in protest. Japan's Foreign Minister Yohei Kono also criticized the French decision to resume testing, saying it violates the trust of the non-nuclear community. Kono expressed his disapproval in a telephone call to his French counterpart. The Philippines and Indonesia joined other Asia-Pacific critics of France's decision.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as a Member from the Pacific Islands, I rise again in strong protest of France's decision to resume detonating nuclear bombs in the South Pacific on French Polynesia's Moruroa Atoll. French President Jacques Chirac claims that the eight atomic bomb explosions planned--about one a month between this September and next May--are completely safe to the environment. I am not persuaded. The people of the Pacific know from firsthand experience the horrors associated with nuclear bomb explosions and testing. As an American, I am not proud of the legacy of the United States testing program of the 1940's, the 1950's, and the 1960's on Bikini and Rongelap Atolls in the Marshall Islands. Even now, a half-century later, that bitter legacy is still being felt in the Marshall Islands. In particular, I have long believed that when the United States detonated the ``Bravo Shot'' on Bikini Atoll--a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb, a 1,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb--the Marshall Islanders residing on nearby Rongelap and Utirik Atolls were deemed expendable. These Pacific islanders justifiably believe they were used as ``guinea pigs'' and test subjects for nuclear radiation experiments conducted by our Nation. People there have not forgotten memories of the offspring of Pacific islander women infected by radiation from the nuclear explosions--where babies were born dead and didn't look human and were sometimes called ``jelly babies.'' Although our country, decades ago, stopped its nuclear testing in the Pacific, our Nation is still mired in the process of facing responsibility and making financial reparations for the devastating impact that our nuclear bomb explosions had on the Pacific people of the Marshall islands. France has detonated over 200 nuclear bombs already, with almost all of those nuclear explosions taking place in the South Pacific. After sustaining the incomprehensible destructive energy unleashed by these bombs, French Polynesia's Moruroa Atoll has been described by scientific researchers as a ``Swiss cheese of fractured rock.'' Leakage of radioactive waste from the underground test sites to the surrounding waters and air has been predicted and is inevitable; this embodies the environmental nightmare that the people of the South Pacific have long dreaded. According to the international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war, underground nuclear tests, such as those at Moruroa Atoll, cause radioactivity to leak out into the sea and reach human beings through the food chain. Previous nuclear explosives in the South Pacific have resulted in a number of epidemic-like outbreaks in surrounding communities, where symptoms included damage to the nervous system, paralysis, impaired vision, nausea and diarrhoea. I do not find it surprising that reports of increased cancer rates among Tahitians have surfaced. The damage to the marine environment can only be imagined. Political leaders in French Polynesia, including French Polynesia's President Gaston Flosse, have registered strong objection to resume nuclear testing in their homeland. A hostile reaction from the Tahitian public is generating and efforts to discourage violence are being undertaken. Understandably, the people of French Polynesia are greatly disturbed by the rebirth of the nuclear monster in their midst and the nuclear poison to be spawned. I and many other Pacific islanders have the greatest respect for French oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, who over the years came to the shores of many South Pacific islands for research and while there gained a special sensitivity for the pacific lifestyle and our vital dependence on the sea. Jacques Cousteau, in my mind, is the leading international spokesman for protection of the environment and conservation of all forms of marine life. I am gratified to learn that Jacques Cousteau has condemned his Government's decision to resume exploding nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. In a statement from Paris, Cousteau stated his regret that France has given in to outdated arguments, as great wars are of the past. Cousteau declared that today's wisdom makes it necessary to outlaw atomic arms. With French opinion polls documenting Jacques Cousteau as the leading popular figure in France, I would urge him to take up the fight with the good people of France to stop their Government's resumption of nuclear bomb detonations in French Polynesia. Jacques Cousteau, perhaps more than anyone else, has a unique and keen appreciation of how nuclear bomb explosions constitute the ultimate rape of the South Pacific's fragile marine environment. Mr. Speaker, I say to the good people of France, your Government has already exploded over 200 nuclear bombs and yet it seeks to further pollute the South Pacific with eight more nuclear bomb detonations. With the world moving toward agreement that nuclear weapons should be outlawed, France's action encourages the exact opposite. By dismissing criticism of additional tests with the excuse that France has tested less than other nuclear powers, France opens a Pandora's box that may undermine negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. This also leaves the door open to justify China's nuclear testing program and the fact that China has only tested 34 nuclear detonations, so by this reason let us allow China to test 174 times or explode 174 more nuclear bombs, and then in addition to that let us allow China to explode 900 more nuclear bombs to catch up with the United States. What madness, Mr. Speaker. What madness. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following article: [From the New York Times, Mar. 21, 1995] Chirac, the Old Neo-Gaullist, in the Lead (By Craig R. Whitney) Tours, France, March 21.--Jacques Chirac, the Mayor of Paris, who has run for the French presidency and lost twice, now looks set to win on his third attempt, unless every public opinion poll is wrong or some surprise turns up before the runoff on May 7. Mr. Chirac surged past his fellow conservative, Prime Minister Edouard Balladur, a month ago to become the favorite to succeed President Francois Mitterrand, a Socialist, who has been in office 14 years. How Mr. Chirac, a 62-year-old conservative politician, has managed to make himself the image of change incarnate is the phenomenon of the 1995 presidential campaign. His supporters say he has done it by patiently cultivating the grass roots since the summer of 1993 and listening hard to what voters say they want. With unemployment stuck at over 12 percent and French industries struggling under the burdens of an expansive welfare state, what many voters want is change, and Mr. Chirac has convinced a lot of them that he can deliver. Although himself a graduate of the elite School of National Administration, Mr. Chirac says he wants to free France from technocrats and restore the egalitarian values that have given the country vitality for 200 years. He has promised job creation by making it less costly for businesses to hire new employees. By now, Mr. Chirac is greeted by big crowds wherever he goes. Five thousands people--students and pensioners, farmers and workers--packed a fairgrounds hall outside Tours on Tuesday night to hear him explain how he would restore hope and unity to a country that he says is troubled by a lack of self-confidence. ``What I expect from him if he wins is a big reduction in unemployment,'' said Jean-Charles Paronnaud, a 28-year-old unemployed supermarket clerk. Another supporter, Marie-Jeanne Avril, said: ``I'm here because I'm an old Gaullist. For 45 years I've been voting for the general, even though he left us long ago, and this time I'll vote for Chirac.'' Mr. Chirac founded his and Mr. Balladur's party, Rally for the Republic, in 1976 to perpetuate the legacy of President Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the Fifth Republic. He often shares the general's stubborn vision of France's destiny in a Europe of proudly separate countries rather than as part of a federal United States of Europe. Given France's economic and financial problems, if he does win this spring Mr. Chirac may also need de Gaulle's ability to convince people that he knows what they want and then to carry through on it, whether they like it or not. ''Politicians all make promises, but this is the first time I've met one who actually seemed interested in listening to me,'' said Jacques Maurice, a 47-year-old homeless man from Pithiviers whom Mr. Chirac met on the way to Tours. ``He'll get my vote,'' Mr. Maurice said. Part of Mr. Chirac's appeal has been that, unlike the stiff Mr. Balladur, Mr. Chirac seems to enjoy rubbing elbows with voters and to be at ease with himself. On his campaign tour, he wore a dark green top coat over his suit, and his slicked- back hair looked almost as much in need of a trim as Mr. Maurice's. But Mr. Chirac's personal image is carefully thought out, as is the impassioned delivery of his campaign speech--a crooning baritone that always recites a prepared text. Nonetheless, his hourlong stump speech here was often drowned out by cheers. ``I refuse the idea that one France, more and more people all the time, is doomed to be left behind while the other is more and more heavily taxed to come to its aid with welfare instead of jobs,'' he told the crowd. ``We have to break this vicious circle.'' Audiences have also taken to his pro-Main Street, anti-Wall Street style. Capital should be at the service of the people it employs, he tells them, not parked in high-yield bonds. More and more people are obviously convinced that he has the right answers. Two public opinion polls published on Tuesday showed Mr. Chirac pulling farther ahead of both his Socialist opponent, Lionel Jospin, and Mr. Balladur. With at least four other candidates expected to be in the race, Mr. Chirac could win about 29 percent of the vote in the election's first round on April 23, the two surveys indicated, with as much as 22 percent for Mr. Jospin and 17 percent for the Prime Minister. A poll for the weekly magazine Express showed Mr. Chirac could handily defeat either candidate in the runoff between the two top vote- getters on May 7. Though he served as Prime Minister under Mr. Mitterrand between 1986 and 1988, Mr. Chirac seldom mentions him by name. He ran against Mr. Mitterrand in 1988 for the presidency, and lost. When the conservatives won the parliamentary elections in March 1993, Mr. Chirac chose to stay in city hall and let Mr. Balladur find out the hard way what it was like to be Prime Minister and run for President at the same time. If he has been vindicated by that choice, Mr. Chirac also has some things to live down. One of them is what critics characterized as a chauvinist appeal to the nation made at the end of 1978, when he called for a disavowal of Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's pro-European policies, and spoke darkly of the menace of ``the foreigners' party.'' Ever since, some politicians in Germany have questioned what relations with France would be like if Mr. Chirac became President. German prowess remains very much on Mr. Chirac's mind. Speaking of the possibility of establishing a common European currency by the end of the decade, Mr. Chirac said he might call for a referendum to be sure France wanted to merge the franc with the German mark and other bills. ``The core of the problem, as General de Gaulle often said, is not whether we surrender this or that bit of sovereignty, but whether we do so on the same terms as Germany does,'' he said.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, how ironic that one of the world's most celebrated marine scientist, who over the years came to the shores of many of the South Pacific islands and other countries and preached to us the gospel of conservation and to preserve all forms of marine life. He is none other than the Frenchman oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau. Jacques Cousteau told millions of people throughout the world to save the whales; Jacques Cousteau told the world to preserve the precious reefs and corals that surround most of the Pacific islands; Jacques Cousteau told the world how important plankton is which is the life source of all marine life. But now, Mr. Speaker, we have another Frenchman named Jacques Chirac, who happens to be the President of France--and is now telling the world--the heck with you 27 million people and an additional 1.5 million American citizens who live in the Pacific Ocean--we're going to explore eight nuclear bombs starting this September. Mr. Speaker, these are not devices, they are nuclear bombs. I ask the good people of France, have you no conscience toward the lives, the health, and safety of some 28 million men, women, and children who live in the Pacific region? Mr. Speaker, I say to the good people of France--you have already exploded almost 200 nuclear bombs in the South Pacific--now you want to explode 8 more nuclear bombs. Isn't it logical, Mr. Speaker, that the Chinese should now be given an open invitation to explode 174 nuclear bombs to catch up with France; and that countries like India, Pakistan, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran should now be justified for each of these countries to also explode 208 nuclear bombs to catch up with France. And yes, let's let France explode 900 more nuclear bombs in order to catch up with the United States. Mr. Speaker, what madness. Mother Earth is hurting and crying, and man is going to be held accountable for this madness. I submit for the Record the following: Cousteau Regrets Chirac Decision on Nuclear Tests Paris, June 14.--French oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau voiced regret on Wednesday over President Jacques Chirac's decision to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean and said atomic weapons should be outlawed. ``It is regrettable that France has given in to out-dated arguments,'' Cousteau, 85, said in a statement. ``Great wars are of the past. The struggle for peace is carried out first and foremost through education and the restoration of morality,'' he said. ``Today's wisdom makes it necessary to outlaw atomic arms.'' Chirac announced in Paris on Tuesday that France would hold eight tests at its South Pacific site, ending them next May in time to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty. Cousteau, who regularly tops opinion polls as France's most popular personality, has been a vigorous campaigner against the French nuclear industry and marine pollution. He once considered running for president on a radical ecology ticket.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strongest opposition to France's announced resumption of exploding nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. After decades of work, and through the efforts of peoples of divergent countries throughout the world, we are, or at least we were, moving toward a common goal of removing nuclear weapons from the face of this planet. Last month, the United States, France, and the major nuclear powers promised over 170 non-nuclear nations that the nuclear powers would exercise ``utmost restraint'' with regard to nuclear testing and work toward a comprehensive test ban treaty. Despite reservations, these commitments were accepted at face value by the non- nuclear nations, which are the vast majority of the countries of the world, and it was only with their support that permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] was gained. Following in the footsteps of China's nuclear detonation right after the NPT's renewal, a testing resumption by France would confirm the ugliest fears of the non- nuclear nations. The implications are quite obvious, and what the French Government is now saying to the international community and especially countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran is--the nuclear powers in the name of national interest are more than willing to undermine the NPT, and their commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament is suspect. The French Government is also sending the message that it does not care about the concerns of some 27 million people who live in the South Pacific region--and we should also add some 1.5 million Americans who live in the State of Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, what the French Government is saying is we're going to explode eight nuclear bombs in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean-- and there is nothing you can do about it. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe for a minute that the citizens and the good people of France want its government to explode nuclear bombs that will have tremendous negative impact upon the marine environment of the Pacific Ocean. I cannot believe the good people of France will permit their government to exercise poor judgment on such an important and critical international issue as nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, what a reprehensible display of arrogance of power by a major European country that loves to expound upon moral principles of human rights, protection of the environment, and due fairness and equity to all of humanity. Instead of complying with the spirit of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, France has said, in effect, we still want to ban nuclear testing, we really do, but not just yet. We want to get every possible advantage we can from our testing program before we stop our tests. So please just ignore these eight nuclear bomb explosions, then next year we will sign a treaty to stop further testing. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the military establishment of every nuclear power wants to perform more tests of weapons from their nuclear arsenals to ensure the reliability of their systems. But the fact is all of the nuclear powers, except China, have given up this benefit and stopped testing programs in the interest of making the world a safer place to live. The United States has stopped its testing program because it could derive no more benefit from further tests; it stopped testing to encourage other countries to cease their testing. It is only through leadership such as this that we can hope to rid our planet of the most dangerous weapon mankind has devised--the only weapon we have created that can destroy every form of life as we know it. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment President Clinton and his administration for standing by its commitment to continue this country's ban on nuclear bomb testing, and I also want to commend the United Kingdom for its statement committing to maintain its ban also. Other governments which have already spoken in opposition to France's resumption of testing include Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Fiji, Austria, and Norway. The 15 island nations which comprise the South Pacific Forum have also stated their objection to resumed testing, noting that it would be a major setback to relations between France and the region. These South Pacific nations are members of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty [SPNFZ] and have consistently supported all international efforts to prevent and terminate nuclear proliferation. The people of the South Pacific want nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They know firsthand of the horrors of nuclear testing and have agreed amongst themselves to keep their part of the planet nuclear-free. Isn't it ironic that the region is about to become not nuclear-free, but a nuclear hazard. This is not happening by the choice of the 27 million people of the South Pacific, but through the arrogance of a European world power, again playing the role of a colonial master to the detriment of peaceful citizens on the other side of the world. In announcing France's intent to resume nuclear bomb testing, President Chirac has asserted that exploding the series of nuclear bombs is environmentally safe. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the results of the nuclear explosions during World War II and the devastation they wreaked. Today's bombs are many times more powerful. France's testing program is to involve the detonation of eight nuclear bombs, almost one a month, all under one small, coral atoll. How many tons of dead fish and countless other marine life are going to be sacrificed this time? What about the safety and health conditions of the Polynesians living in the surrounding islands? My question to President Chirac is, if the testing is so safe, why are the bombs being exploded in the South Pacific--so far away from France? Why were France's early nuclear bomb explosions conducted in Algeria? Why not detonate these bombs under French soil? If they are so safe, why not explode these bombs under Paris? Mr. Speaker, the explosions of thermonuclear bombs are not safe. It is not safe for people, it's not safe for animals or plants, and it's not safe for the environment. Nuclear bombs have only one purpose, they were created to slaughter people, but the result is to annihilate everything. We all know they are extremely hazardous. We all know the reason France explodes its bombs in French Polynesia and not in France. It's the same reason the United States early on conducted its tests in the Pacific--the bombs are extremely dangerous, and no one wants to subject their homeland to this danger, if they have a choice. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the people of France to tell their government and their President to stop this insanity, stop this renewal of the threat of global destruction. President [[Page H6028]] Chirac does not have to prove France is a world military power. Everyone acknowledges that. France already has the third largest nuclear weapons stockpile and the fourth largest Navy in the world. In the post-cold- war era, who does France fear or seek to deter by further testing and additions to its nuclear arsenal? Now is the time for France to use its strength to show real world leadership, not national insecurity. The true leaders of the world are leading the way toward peace and stability by not testing or using nuclear bombs. China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are leading the way also. Their direction is toward a more unstable, violent, and dangerous world. I do not want to include France in the list with these countries, but if it resumes its testing, I am afraid I must. Mr. Speaker, our future lies not in thermonuclear bombs; our future lies in peace. I urge President Chirac and the people of France--do not renew your nuclear testing program--do not explode any more thermonuclear bombs--join with the rest of the world by putting pressure on China to stop its testing and putting pressure on North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Israel to stop development of these horrible weapons. Mr. Speaker, the welfare of the South Pacific's 27 million people and its fragile marine environment should not be the sacrifice paid in the name of France's paranoia about nuclear deterrence. [From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 1995] Known Nuclear Tests Worldwide, 1945-1994 China was the only nation that tested nuclear devices during 1994. China conducted its first test on June 10, and another on October 7. The United States last tested on September 23, 1992; the Soviet Union on October 24, 1990; Britain on November 26, 1991; and France on July 15, 1991. During the 34-month November 1958-September 1961 moratorium, the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union did not test, but the French conducted their first four tests during this period. As of April 1, 1995, the current moratorium has lasted 30 months (except for four Chinese tests). Since last year's update (May/June 1994 Bulletin), the release of more information about the nuclear testing programs of the United States and Russia continues to re- categorize and refine the global testing record. On December 7, 1993, U.S. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary divulged that there had been 204 ``secret'' (unannounced) tests from 1968 to 1990. On June 27, 1994, O'Leary released further information, adding three more to the list and bringing the total number of tests to 1,054. (The two combat uses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not included, but 24 joint tests with Britain are.) The reason for the additions had to do with the definition of a nuclear ``test.'' The United States defines a test--for purposes of the above count--as either a single explosion, or two or more explosions fired within 0.1 second of each other within a circular area 2 kilometers in diameter. On further analysis of the record, the Energy Department found that three explosions had been detonated more than 0.1 second apart from a nearly simultaneous explosion, and therefore should be counted as separate tests. More light was shed on the practice of simultaneous explosions as well. Sixty-three tests involved more than one explosive device, and were fired within 0.1 second or less of each other. These 63 tests involved 158 detonations resulting in 95 additional explosions that are not counted as tests. One test used six nuclear explosive devices, two used five, four used four, 14 used three, and 42 used two devices. Those conducted in a single vertical shaft are sometimes referred to as the ``string of pearls.'' In other tests there were two or more drilled shafts separated by a considerable distance with one device in each hole. The new official total of 1,054 ``tests'' thus involved the detonation of 1,149 discrete nuclear explosive devices. Another refinement of the data was a clarification of the number of safety experiments. For many years the number had been listed as 34. After review, 54 tests that had previously been described as weapons-related were added to the safety category, bringing the new total to 88. An additional number of hydronuclear tests were conducted during the 1958-1961 testing moratorium. Los Alamos acknowledges that they conducted 35 such tests at Los Alamos beginning in January 1960. Livermore conducted a smaller number of hydronuclear tests (we estimate about 15) at the Nevada Test Site. This data is more than merely a historical curiosity. The question of safety experiments and hydronuclear tests are a contentious issue at the comprehensive test ban negotiations in Geneva. Some would prefer a ban on all types of nuclear experimental activity, while others want some kinds to be permitted--and they differ as to what size yield to allow. The U.S. position is to limit the experiments to four pounds of nuclear yield. Britain--for reasons not altogether clear--favors 100 pounds. The Russians want to test at yields of at least 10 tons, the French to levels of 100-200 tons, and the Chinese reportedly up to 1 kiloton. There is general consensus among scientists that tests with yields of a few tons or more would be of substantial value to proliferators, and would begin to be of value to nuclear weapon states in developing new weapons. Russia has yet to publish a definitive list of all of its tests, but some new information has been supplied to the authors about aspects of their test program. According to this private information, the Soviet Union/Russia has conducted approximately 1,100 discrete device detonations. Of these, nearly 1,000 produced yields greater than one ton. In line with the threshold definition used by the United States, Russia counts these 1,000 as 718 ``tests.'' Most of the other 100 or so--those below one ton--were hydronuclear experiments with yields under 100 kilograms. Until we have a fuller accounting of these, and an agreed-upon definition of a test, the accompanying table remains incomplete. test locations The five declared nuclear powers have acknowledged conducting a total of 2,036 nuclear tests since 1945; 942 of these have taken place within the continental United States, making it by far the most common testing location. The tests in Kazakhstan include those at the Semipelatrek test site and 26 Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE's). The tests in Russia include 132 at Novaya Zemlya, 81 PNE's, and one at Totak. Islands and atolls in the Pacific were the location of 306 tests conducted by the United States, Britain, and France. Nevada..............................................................935 Kazakhstan..........................................................496 Russia..............................................................214 Mururoa Atoll....................................................\1\175 Enewetak.............................................................43 China (Lop Nur)......................................................41 Christmas Island.....................................................30 Bikini...............................................................23 Algeria..............................................................17 Johnston Island......................................................12 Australia............................................................12 Fangataufa Atoll.....................................................12 Pacific Ocean.........................................................4 Malden Island.........................................................3 South Atlantic Ocean..................................................3 Alaska................................................................3 New Mexico............................................................3 Mississippi...........................................................2 Colorado..............................................................2 Ukraine...............................................................2 Uzbekistan............................................................2 Turkmenistan..........................................................1 India.................................................................1 \1\Assumes the 12 French safety tests were conducted at Mururoa. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- United States Soviet Union Britain France China Year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total