07 October 1999
(Ratification vote still scheduled for October 12) (1340) Members of the U.S. Senate have expressed sharply divergent views on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been awaiting Senate ratification ever since President Clinton signed it in 1996. Senate Majority (Republican) Leader Trent Lott has set a vote on the treaty -- one in which a two-thirds majority would be required for ratification -- for October 12. With some leading legislators in both parties now calling for a delay, however, it remains uncertain whether the vote will come that day -- or even before congressional elections in 2000. Here is a sampling of what some senators have said about the treaty: Senator Byron Dorgan (Democrat, North Dakota) "Will this country be a world leader in trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons?....We have a responsibility to lead, we have the capability to lead. Do we have the will to provide the leadership necessary?....The Senate has a requirement, it has a duty, to debate and then take a vote on the ratification of this important test ban treaty....If this country can't demonstrate (leadership)...then there is little hope in my judgment for progress on limiting the spread of nuclear weapons." (Press conference, July 20, 1999.) Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi) "(Columnist Charles Krauthammer) basically says that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is disarmament, unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States, because we would not be testing our aging nuclear weapons and saying to the rest of the world: We have been good guys, so we're going to have faith that you're going to be good. I am not prepared to put my grandson's future at risk in this way.... I do think it is the wrong thing to do." (Congressional Record, September 10, 1999.) Senator Tom Daschle (Democrat, South Dakota) "We cannot allow this important treaty to be ignored any longer, and we will not....We owe it to our children to do everything we can to leave them a world that is better and safer than the one we found...." (Press conference, July 20, 1999.) Senator John Warner (Republican, Virginia) "It is going to require the most careful consideration by all senators to reach this vote. Much of the relative material that convinces this senator to oppose the treaty simply cannot be disclosed in open. I am going to urge our colleagues, and I am sure with the assistance of our leadership, we can provide more than one opportunity for each senator to learn the full range of facts regarding this treaty and its implications for this nation." (Congressional Record, September 30, 1999.) Senator Russell Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) "The United States must lead the world in reducing the nuclear threat, and to do that we must become a full participant in the treaty we helped to craft. (Failure to ratify the treaty to date means that)... the United States will not be able to participate actively in the upcoming conference, which is reserved for only those countries who have deposited their instruments of ratification....Because we cannot participate, the United States will be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to influencing the future of the treaty and encouraging other countries to sign or ratify." (Congressional Record, September 30, 1999.) Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina) " I do not share your enthusiasm for this (CTBT) treaty for a variety of reasons, and I must point out that it has been 801 days since President Clinton agreed to legally-binding language requiring that he submit to the Senate amendments to the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty for its advice and consent. The continued adherence by the U.S. to the legally-defunct ABM Treaty is a perilous obstacle to the United States' building and deploying a missile defense to protect the American people from a nuclear holocaust. Yet, the administration continues to hold the ABM Treaty hostage, refusing to allow the Senate to vote on it." (Letter to Democratic Senators, July 26, 1999.) Senator Arlen Specter (Republican, Pennsylvania) Ratification of the CTBT has become "basically a matter of survival" in light of Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests and the fighting in Kashmir. "It is very hard for the United States to step in and advocate a peaceful resolution or to arbitrate or negotiate those differences, when the United States has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty." (Press conference, July 20, 1999) Senate Republican Policy Committee (Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, Chairman) "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will jeopardize rather than enhance U.S. national security. A permanent halt to testing would prevent us from making safety improvements to our arsenal or from responding to new threats, eventually undermining the credibility of America's nuclear deterrent. It will prevent the United States from detecting possible problems with weapon safety, effectiveness, and survivability, and from developing appropriate corrective measures. The administration's proposed alternative to testing is based on yet-to-be-proven scientific methods which won't even be available for a decade. And the CTBT will not prevent any country from building nuclear weapons." (Policy statement issued October 5, 1999.) Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat, Delaware) "I think the public may be surprised to know this treaty calls for no more nuclear testing by the United States and other nations. We haven't been testing. There is a moratorium on nuclear testing. That occurred in 1992 in the Bush administration....Now, we have the rest of the world ready to sign up, and we are saying we are not going to ratify, or up to now we are saying we are not even going to have a hearing on this subject....Failure to ratify this treaty, I firmly believe, paves the road to hell -- to nuclear hell." (Congressional Record, September 30, 1999) Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska) "...I would recommend that we hold off any vote on this treaty until 2001 when a new administration will have the opportunity to rethink our entire arms control and national security strategy and make it relevant to the challenges of the 21st century. This treaty cannot be considered in isolation from other arms control issues -- including a national missile defense, the ABM treaty, and the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) II and START III treaties....We are talking about the future of the United States. This is not a discussion that should be hurried for political or partisan gain." (Press release issued October 5, 1999.) Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a key piece of the broader picture of nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Consider this: When non-nuclear countries -- those that don't have nuclear weapons -- agree they are not going to have a nuclear arsenal and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an essential part of that bargain for the smaller nations, the non-nuclear powers, and those that have it, was that nuclear countries were going to control and reduce the number of nuclear weapons. An integral part of that effort is this treaty." (Congressional Record, September 30, 1999.) Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) "This misguided treaty... is not in the national security interest. It will undermine confidence in the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It will not prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is not verifiable. It will unnecessarily and unavoidably promote a false sense of security. It should be rejected now by the Senate." (Press release issued October 6, 1999.) Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) "We have a unique opportunity in the Senate to help end nuclear testing once and for all. Other nations look to the United States for international leadership. President Clinton has done his part, in signing the treaty and submitting it to the Senate for ratification, as the Constitution requires. Now the Senate should do its part, and ratify the treaty. Ratification is the single most important step we can take today to reduce the danger of nuclear war." (Congressional Record, September 30, 1999.)