Senate Floor Speech
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
October 8, 1999 -- Page: S12273

MRS. HUTCHISON. This is such an important debate. It is an important issue for our country but also for the world. There is no question the cold war ended with communism in full retreat and democracy on the rise throughout the world largely because the United States maintained an awesome military capability that deterred war.

No American should forget that our stockpile of safe and reliable nuclear weapons has deterred nuclear conflict for these past 50 years. When Saddam Hussein threatened to use weapons of mass destruction prior to Desert Storm, it was the certain knowledge that the United States would respond overwhelmingly that prevented Saddam Hussein from unleashing his own chemical and biological weapons.

This is a question of whether or not we, as a nation, intend to maintain our nuclear deterrent capability--so vitally important to us over the last 50 years in maintaining peace in the world--or if we intend to unilaterally disarm. Make no mistake, that is the question before us.

Our founders purposely made it hard to enter into treaties and required a two-thirds majority in the Senate for ratification. Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'We had better have no treaty than a bad one.'

I am afraid this test ban treaty is a bad one and it would be better not to have it. A treaty is permanent. It requires great vision and caution. Ratification of this test ban treaty would ultimately endanger our national security. I hope our citizens are paying close and careful attention.

There are really two questions before us: First, if we ratify this treaty, will the United States be able to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear capability? Second, will we be able to verify that this treaty is being enforced by other countries that have joined us? Unless both questions can be answered 'yes,' then we cannot possibly ratify this treaty.

On the issue of reliability, nuclear tests are the only proven method to assure confidence in the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons. We have heard testimony to this effect from scientists and other experts. They worry that as we make advances in material science and component technology for these very complex weapons, the inability to test these advances through actual detonations will leave us with doubt about whether they will work if used.

This treaty prohibits all nuclear tests, even of the lowest yield. The new diagnostic tools are still unbuilt and unproven. Scientists admit with humility that actual tests have often radically altered their chalkboard theories drawn out in the laboratory. At this point, anything short of testing is not sufficient to assure reliability and safety. Reliability of our weapons means they will work as intended. So it is clear that reliability is key to our national strategy.

My second concern is that once the United States ratifies this treaty, we will stop testing our weapons because we abide by treaties, but rogue nations will not. Several countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons, violated the treaty. They built the nuclear weapons anyway. Now we are expecting them to sign this treaty and agree not to test.

I agree with Dr. Kathleen Bailey of Lawrence Livermore Labs, who noted in testimony before the Armed Services Committee that this treaty expects nations to 'agree not to test weapons they previously agreed not to acquire.'

The Secretary of Defense has acknowledged in his own testimony that 'we would not be able to detect every evasively conducted test.'

In fact, I pursued this direct line of questioning with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, in Defense appropriations hearings on March 5, 1997. He was the Joint Chiefs Chairman at the time, and he did his best. But even then, he could not say he would guarantee the safety.

General Shalikashvili said, 'With each year that goes by and we are further and further away from having done the last test, it will become more and more difficult. That is why it is very important that we do not allow the energy budget to slip, but continue working on this science-based stockpile verification program and that we get this thing operating. But even then, Senator, we won't know whether that will be sufficient not to have to test. What we are talking about is the best judgment by scientists that they will be able to determine the reliability through these technical methods.'

I then asked him, 'Do you think we should have some time at which we would do some testing just to see if all of these great assumptions are, in fact, true?'

General Shalikashvili responded, 'I don't know. I won't pretend to understand the physics of this enough. But I did meet with the nuclear laboratory directors and we talked about it at great length. They are all convinced that you can do that. But when I ask them for a guarantee, they cannot give it to you until all of the pieces are stood up.'

He continued, 'Obviously if we stand it up and we cannot do that, then we will have to back the President and say we will have to test. Hopefully it will work out. But we are still a number of years away before we will have that put together so that we can tell you for sure it will not work or it will.'

I said, 'Well, mark one Senator down as skeptical.'

General Shalikashvili responded, 'Mark one Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff joining in that skepticism. I just don't know.'

Mr. President, 'just don't know' is being unsure. Close is not good enough. It is not good enough when you are talking about a permanent treaty and when it comes to nuclear safety.

The recent letter to the majority and minority leaders from six former Secretaries of Defense of both parties was even more chilling. This letter from six former Secretaries of Defense from both parties:

As the Senate weighs whether to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), we believe Senators will be obliged to focus on one dominant, inescapable result were it to be ratified: over the decades ahead, confidence in the reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile would inevitably decline, thereby reducing the credibility of America's nuclear deterrent.

They go on to say:

The nuclear weapons in our nation's arsenal are sophisticated devices, whose thousands of components must function together with split-second timing and scant margin for error. A nuclear weapon contains radioactive material, which in itself decays, and also changes the properties of other materials within the weapon. Over time, the components of our weapons corrode and deteriorate, and we lack experience predicting the effects of such aging on the safety and reliability of the weapons. The shelf life of U.S. nuclear weapons was expected to be some 20 years. In the past, the constant process of replacement and testing of new designs gave some assurance that weapons in the arsenal would be both new and reliable. But under the CTBT, we would be vulnerable to the effects of aging because we could not test 'fixes' of problems with existing warheads.

I think it is clear from the experts, from former Secretaries of Defense and from former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs that they cannot give us a guarantee.

We are talking about nuclear safety. We are talking about the major tool we have for deterrence. We are talking about the security of the United States of America, and we have a treaty before us that is permanent.

How could we go forward with a treaty such as this with these kinds of questions? Close is not good enough when we are talking about permanence, and when we are talking about our own national security.

In fact, when it came to a test-ban treaty, President Reagan and other Cold War Presidents supported a ban only on high-yield nuclear tests. These tests would be of sufficient explosive power to be detected and identified by the sophisticated equipment designed to monitor underground explosions.

Under that proposal, lower yield tests would be permitted, to help ensure that our weapons were reliable. It makes sense not to ban low-yield tests because they're too small to detect and identify with the monitoring equipment. That was a sensible approach that has unfortunately been discarded by the Clinton Administration.

In fact, just last month, it appears the Russians may have conducted low-level nuclear tests at an Arctic test site. I say 'may have' because the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that seismic sensors and other monitoring equipment simply can not provide the data needed to know for sure.

Supporters of the treaty say it will result in a more extensive monitoring program, including inspections by experts. But a more extensive inspection system is not going to increase our capability to detect violations in advance. And having the right to request on-site inspections of test facilities doesn't give any added assurance of verification either. Let's face it: We've had that right in Iraq for the last eight years, and it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Look at recent events in North Korea as an example of this Administration's policy of buying compliance with treaties and agreements. That policy has actually promoted nuclear and missile proliferation.

When the administration became convinced North Korea was building a nuclear device, in violation of their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it threatened a variety of sanctions.

The North Koreans responded that sanctions were tantamount to a declaration of war and soon we were at the negotiating table with this rogue nation. Prior to their possession of a nuclear weapon, it had been a tenet of our foreign policy for over 40 years that the United States would not negotiate directly with the North Koreans without our South Korean allies at the table.

However, once it became clear that North Korea was trying to enter the nuclear club, we began to negotiate. We set a lavish buffet of incentives--cash transfers, fuel, helping them build safer nuclear reactors. This began a dangerous cycle in which the North Koreans threaten to act badly and we bribe them not to.

After that pattern, despite our warnings and threats, Pakistan soon thereafter tested a nuclear weapon and claimed membership in the nuclear club.

As former Majority Leader Bob Dole has pointed out, 'We refer to states as rogue regimes because they regularly violate international law and refuse to be held accountable to international norms. The best way to deal with them is to deter them.'

This treaty will not end nuclear testing. A 'feel good treaty' doesn't make the world a safer place. The world is safer only when America is strong. A critical element of our military strength is a credible nuclear capability. This treaty will not result in a nuclear weapons free world. It will only result in a nuclear weapons free America, and that would be a much more dangerous world.

I urge my colleagues not to go forward with this treaty that we will have to abide by, on a permanent basis, not knowing if we will be able to keep our arsenal up to date and safe. This is a chance we cannot afford to take as the stewards of the national defense of our country.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this treaty if it does come forward.

Once again, Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard from Colorado, Senator Levin, Senator Dorgan, and all who have allowed me to speak.