|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly
[Congressional Record: October 18, 2000 (Senate)]
[Page S10648-S10658]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr18oc00-95]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCY PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4461,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A conference report to accompany H.R. 4461, an act making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food
and Drug Administration, and related agency programs for
fiscal year ending September 30th, 2001, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
capital punishment
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for nearly 200 years from the founding
of our Republic, capital punishment has loomed as the ultimate
punishment for the violation of our laws. This reflected a belief that
such a severe penalty would serve as a deterrent to those who might
think they can take an innocent life or bring injury to our people.
While this Nation has always believed that capital punishment is an
appropriate penalty for those who commit the most heinous of crimes,
our criminal justice system has also been based on the premise that it
is better--and it has been part of American lore to suggest that it is
better that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man ever be put
behind bars or lose his life.
This is all the more true when what is at stake is not just putting a
person in prison--an act that could be rectified or proven wrong--but
the irretrievable taking of a human life. As long as there has been the
American Republic, this has been a founding belief: Taking of a life,
if it can deter a crime, but protecting a mistake of justice.
Throughout our history, concerns have been raised about the fair
application of the death penalty for exactly this concern.
Almost 30 years ago, the Supreme Court, in Furham v. Georgia,
effectively abolished the death penalty when it decided that death
penalty statutes at the time did too little to ensure the equal
application of the law. In doing so, the Court held that the death
penalty, while itself not necessarily unconstitutional, was often
[[Page S10649]]
being applied in a manner that was both arbitrary and too severe for
the crime committed. As such, it constituted, as the death penalty was
then applied, that it was a ``cruel and unusual'' punishment under the
Constitution.
Just 4 years later, in 1976, the Court, in its Gregg decision,
reinstated the death penalty when it ruled that the newly enacted
statutes in Florida, Texas, and Georgia were constitutional. By
providing guidelines to assist the judge and the jury in deciding
whether to impose death, those statutes addressed the arbitrariness
that had previously colored capital sentencing.
It was at this point in my life that I reached my own decision. I
agreed with the Court in what had become the tenets of American history
that the death penalty was fair and appropriate as a deterrent to
crime; it was just when the application of the American Constitution,
as the Court had held, where it was arbitrary, where there were not
guidelines, where there was not a safety to protect the innocent or
arbitrariness of penalty, it was unconstitutional.
As the Court had found by 1976, I believed that with the right
guidelines, a second jury, oversight, appeal, fair representation, the
death penalty was right and it was appropriate.
In the nearly 25 years since I reached my own judgment, and indeed as
our country reached its decision, 666 people have been executed across
the Nation.
I rise today to bring attention to the point that in those 25 years,
more than 80 people on death row have been found to be innocent and
released. Some were hours, minutes, weeks away from their own
execution.
These were not reversals on technical grounds. For the people whose
convictions were overturned, after years of confinement, years on death
row, it was discovered they simply were not guilty of a crime for which
they had been convicted.
The Death Penalty Information Center reports that between 1973 and
October 1993 there were an average of 2.5 convicted persons released
per year. Since the advent of DNA testing, the number has increased to
4.8 people per year. For any American, particularly someone such as
myself who supports the death penalty, believes in the fairness of the
death penalty, one can only imagine the responsibility individually and
collectively we must feel.
The question is begged; If this has happened since DNA testing, 4.8
people released from jail on death row, my God, what has happened in
recent decades? How many people were strapped to gurneys, had their
wrists attached to leather strips in electric chairs, knowing in their
own minds that they were innocent but executed? My God, what must they
have thought of our society, justice, and our people?
There are now 3,600 people on State and Federal death rows.
Despite my own support of the death penalty and our society's general
belief in it, we must face the reality that those 3,600 people some may
be innocent. The events of recent months give little comfort to any of
us who support the death penalty.
Two weeks ago, the Governor of Virginia was forced to pardon a
mentally retarded man who spent 9\1/2\ years on death row for rape and
murder after DNA tests proved he was innocent--9\1/2\ years awaiting
death.
An inmate in Texas served 12 years on death row for the killing of a
police officer before a film maker stumbled across his case and
discovered evidence that established his innocence. An Illinois inmate
was released just 50 hours before his scheduled execution because a
student's journalism class at Northwestern University accepted his case
as a class project and established with certainty his innocence--50
hours before his death.
The evidence, both academic and anecdotal, shows that the death
penalty is not functioning as it must to ensure that innocent people
not be put to death.
What has happened to the conviction of the Founding Fathers and
Jefferson's admonition that it is better 10 guilty men go free than an
innocent man go to jail? It has not been ``an innocent man go to
jail,'' but the evidence is overwhelming that some innocent men are
going to death.
It is not an easy issue. I am not here to ascribe the responsibility
to others. I bear it, too. Through all my public life I have supported
the death penalty, and I do not abandon it today. I believe it can be
fair; I believe it can be just; and I believe it deters crime. I
believe it is appropriate that society take the lives of those who
would take the lives of others. But something is wrong.
The fact is that sometimes these people committed other crimes, and
most of the people who commit these crimes who are put to death are
guilty. None of those things matter. It doesn't matter if it is only 1
in 100. It doesn't matter if it is 1 in 1,000. As a just and fair
society, no one can feel right about the fact that obviously without
question some innocent people may be put to death or, if not put to
death, are spending years of their lives on death row for crimes they
did not commit.
Nowhere is this problem more evident than the State of Texas. I do
not say that because its Governor is a Presidential candidate or
because of the other party. I don't care. It has no relevance to me. I
ascribe nothing to George W. Bush. I am simply discussing the facts in
the State for which this problem appears to be most prevalent.
Since 1982, Texas has executed 231 people--and, in fairness, under
both Republican and Democrat Governors, to take away any partisan
motive.
This year alone, 33 people have been put to death in Texas. Another
446 are on death row.
Because of the frequency of executions in Texas, that State offers us
the best window through which to examine some of these concerns because
in doing so, it quickly becomes clear that if the death penalty in
Texas is representative of the rest of the Nation, we have a real
problem.
In a massive study of 131 executions in the State of Texas, it is
documented that there were widespread and systematic flaws in trials
and in the appeals process.
In a third of the Texas death penalty cases, the defendant was
represented by an attorney who had already been disbarred.
How in God's name is it possible in a just and fair society to take a
man's life or a woman's life in an American court of justice if that
poor person, who is probably inevitably indigent, is represented by an
attorney who has been proven to be incapable and is disbarred before
the courts of the United States?
My God, what kind of people have we become? Are we so interested in
revenge, execution, and punishment of a man or woman that we would not
give them a competent attorney? Several of these attorneys have
themselves been convicted of felonies. Others have been jailed on
contempt charges for sheer incompetence in the performance of their
duties.
The Supreme Court has held--and the Founding Fathers must have
believed--that any man or woman who shares our citizenship has a right
to counsel before the courts and a defense before the Government with
their own attorney.
Is this the standard they held? Is this the standard that every
American would have for themselves--the right to an attorney who was
disbarred, jailed, held in contempt, or found incompetent? Is this the
barrier between an accusation against an American citizen and their
execution?
In one-third of the death penalty cases in the State of Texas,
defense counsel presented no evidence or presented only one witness
during the sentencing phase.
When I made my decision in my life as our country made its judgment
to support the death penalty, it was based on the Supreme Court
requirement that there be a sentencing phase in the death penalty and a
separate jury dealing just with the penalty of death.
I think that is right. I think that is fair. That is why I support
the death penalty.
But now we find in the State of Texas that when that separate jury
heard the case, these attorneys for these indigent men and women facing
death presented no witnesses--or just one.
This cannot possibly be what the Supreme Court envisioned for the
protection of our citizens from execution.
At least 23 cases featured notoriously unreliable ``hair
comparisons''--visual matching of the defendant's hair to that found at
the crime scene.
This is unbelievable, but I am giving you the facts about this study
of Texas cases.
[[Page S10650]]
One hair ``expert'' in a capital case with a man facing death was
temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify. Another
``expert'' in a hair identification case pleaded no contest to multiple
charges of falsifying and manufacturing evidence. There is the lone
witness in a case that decides whether or not a man would be executed.
Since 1995, the highest criminal appeals court of the State of Texas
has affirmed 270 capital convictions, including some where the
defendants' lawyers were asleep during trial. But in those 270 cases,
new trials were granted on only 8 occasions.
I do not think that I am suggesting to the Senate today an
unreasonably high standard. But is it not appropriate at a minimum that
in any case where a man or a woman is facing execution and the State is
taking their lives, regardless of the evidence, that defense counsel
should be awake during the trial? Where the evidence clearly
establishes that the trial attorney is asleep, as a matter of simple
justice, without contradiction, a new trial should be granted--at least
on the penalty of death, if not of guilt or innocence.
This same court of appeals upheld the conviction and sentencing of a
Hispanic man who was sentenced to death after a psychiatrist testified
that he was more likely to commit future acts of violence because of
his ethnicity. A psychiatrist argues before a court in the United
States of America that a man is more likely to commit a crime because
of his ethnic origin, and a court in the United States of America hears
this evidence without reversal. It is unimaginable.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ordered a new sentencing hearing in
that case because of the evidence.
How many cases get to the U.S. Supreme Court? How many others would
have filed? How many others are silent? How many others never got
attorneys?
As a result of such injustices, it is not unreasonable to conclude,
as Bob Herbert did in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, that the
death penalty in the State of Texas is nothing more than ``legal
lynching.''
This is not the death penalty that I have supported most of my life.
This is not what the Supreme Court had in mind when it issued its
standards. My God, this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind
when they talked about equal justice before the law.
There is a place in the American judicial system for capital
punishment. I have not changed my mind. Certain crimes are so
offensive, so outrageous, they so violate the public consciousness that
capital punishment is the only appropriate response. It is, however, a
remedy so severe that it must be administered with the greatest care,
the greatest reserve, with the highest possible standards of justice,
in representation and review, against arbitrariness, against
discrimination, ensuring guilt, fairness, and uniformity.
These cases in Texas--and while Texas may be the most egregious, it
does not stand alone--simply do not make that standard.
Supporters of the death penalty, like myself and a majority of
Americans, are concerned that innocent people have been, are, or will
be executed. And it is not a theoretical problem, it is real. In fact,
in a recent survey by CNN/USA Today, 80 percent of Americans surveyed
now believe innocent people in the United States have been executed in
the last 5 years. That is quite a statement for us to make about our
own country, our own system of justice. It is imperative that we take
the necessary steps to ensure that it never happens again.
Already we are seeing several States take the lead against just such
a threat. The Governor of Illinois, a Republican, to whom I give great
credit, troubled by the fact that a number of people on the State's
death row had been found innocent, announced earlier this year that he
would block all executions until it had been determined that the death
penalty was being administered fairly and justly, and I applaud him.
Maryland's Governor recently ordered a 2-year study of racial bias
and death penalty procedures in his State, and I applaud him.
The Governor of California recently signed into law a bill that would
guarantee every convicted felon the right to have DNA evidence tested
if it was related to the charges that led to his conviction. Good for
California. But it should be good for every State in the Nation and for
the United States of America.
Although the Federal Government is not the arbiter of most death row
cases, as with most issues, it has a responsibility to set an example.
While the Federal Government has not executed someone since 1963, it
cannot be said that the Federal system is the best it can be.
This Government has an obligation to reform the death penalty to
ensure that innocent people are protected and to ask the States to do
the same. This, in my judgment, requires, at a minimum:
First, ensure that defendants in capital cases have competent legal
representation at every stage of the case. At every stage, there should
be a lawyer who is trained, experienced, and has the ability to ensure,
not just for the protection of the defendant but of the society, that
we are not taking the life of an innocent person. I do not want just
that defense for the defendant; I want that defense for me as an
American, to know I am not responsible for the taking of the life of an
innocent person.
Second, provide defendants with access to DNA testing. If science has
given us the ability to know with certainty whether a person is
innocent or guilty, I want that evidence known before a person is
executed, no matter what stage, no matter how many trials, no matter
how many appeals. I want to know before execution whether that DNA
evidence has been made available. States are doing it, and this
Government should do it, too.
I am a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act that was introduced
by my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy of Vermont, to ensure that
DNA evidence is provided, and I urge the Senate to consider it.
I recognize that all of my colleagues may not support the death
penalty as I have supported it and continue to support it, but as a
matter of conscience, in fidelity with our founding principles, in a
belief in all of our sense of fairness and equal protection before the
law, for the reputation of our country, for confidence in our system of
justice no matter how we may divide on the question of the death
penalty, surely on this we can be of one voice and clearly we can
demand no less.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
ending the 106th congress
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I want to talk about a series of
issues that are related to the final things with which we have to deal
in ending this Congress. It is not a long list, but it is a list of
things that are important. I hope my colleagues will indulge me while I
talk about these issues.
I read this morning in the New York Times, under the headline
``Leaders in Congress Agree to Debt Relief for Poor Nations,'' that an
agreement has been worked out on debt relief. I want to make it clear
that I am not part of any such agreement. I hope an agreement will be
worked out, and I would like to be part of an agreement. But I am not
part of any agreement today.
It is important, since so much has been said and written on this
issue, that someone on the other side stand up and explain what this
issue is about, why it is important, and why people all over America
ought to be concerned about it and be concerned that it be done right.
I remind my colleagues and those who might be listening to this
discussion that routinely in America people borrow money and are
required to repay it. Where I am from, College Station, TX, it is a
pretty hard sell to talk about forgiving billions of dollars of debt to
countries that borrowed money from us and, in too many cases, simply
squandered or stole it, and now they do not want to repay it. They
riot, they protest, they demand, but those things do not work in
College Station, TX. In College Station, TX, when you borrow money from
the bank or finance company or from your brother-in-law, you are
expected to pay it back.
Let me make it clear that I am not here to make the most negative
case that can be made about debt forgiveness. The flip side of the coin
is that
[[Page S10651]]
many of these countries are desperately poor, and much of this debt can
never be repaid. So the debate I want to engage in today is not against
debt relief, as hard a sell as that is back home--and I am willing to
make that sale or try to--but I am not willing to support debt relief
unless we are going to have some reforms to assure that the money is
not wasted.
I remind my colleagues, while we talk about debt relief, we are
actually appropriating over $450 million because we are paying off this
debt. Our money was lent and was largely squandered, and now it is
going to be used to pay off this debt.
So, I am concerned because of the lack of accountability in how the
money is being spent. Any Member of Congress knows this is an issue in
which a great deal of interest has been taken.
I had a group of holy people come to my office the other day to lobby
for this debt forgiveness. I do not think since Constantine the Great
called his ecumenical council in Nicaea has there been a larger
gathering of holy people in one place than the people who came to see
me about supporting debt forgiveness.
And let me quickly add that everybody who came was well intentioned.
Their hearts were in the right place. But the problem is not with our
hearts; the problem is with our heads. Obviously, in this 2000th year
of Christianity--this 2000th year of the birth of Christ--there is a
movement all over the world to try to help the poor. But the question
is, In forgiving this debt, are we really assuring that the money that
we are giving is getting through to the people we are trying to help?
And I think that is basically where the problem lies.
Let me now talk about a couple of examples that illustrates this
problem. I want to read from four newspaper articles that outline a
story, in my opinion, of how this debt forgiveness is abused and how
our taxpayer ends up holding the bag.
The first story is from Africa News, July 23, 2000, and is from
Kampala, Uganda--one of the initial countries targeted for debt relief.
In March Parliament there approved the direct procurement
of a new 12-seat presidential Gulf Stream GIV Special
Performance SP jet at a cost of $31.5 million. Aviation
experts said that the final cost of the plane could well be
$47 million.
The current presidential jet is a 9-seater Gulf Stream III
acquired just a few years ago.
Now, from the August 2, 2000, issue of the Financial Times in London,
I quote:
The Group of Seven leading industrialized countries is
pressing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development to stop export credits being used to help poor
countries buy arms and other ``nonproductive'' items.
Although the OECD cannot impose binding rules, the U.S. and
Britain, leaders of the G7 initiative, believe ``naming and
shaming'' dubious policies could create pressure to get them
changed and prevent poor countries from squandering debt
relief.
This article is from August 2, and on July 23 we learned that the
Ugandan President has bought a new $47 million plane for his use. And
we are naming and shaming, along with the British in the Financial
Times.
And now on September 13, 2000, in Africa News, Kampala:
The Paris Club of creditor countries yesterday cancelled
$145 million of Uganda's debt under the Highly Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) initiative.
Tuesday's Paris Club announcement brings Uganda's total
debt relief from the lending countries so far to $656
million. Uganda has also received $1.3 billion debt relief
pledges from the IMF and World Bank in debt relief over the
next 25 years.
So on July 23, which turns out to be the day that debt forgiveness
was announced for Uganda, the President of Uganda buys himself a new
$47 million luxury jet. And on August 2 we are naming and shaming
people who are abusing debt forgiveness dollars that come from American
taxpayers. And then on September 13 it is announced that we have
forgiven this debt, raising the total to $656 million for Uganda, the
same country whose President on the day the debt forgiveness package
was announced ordered a $47 million jet.
Now, the final quote on this point is from the Wall Street Journal,
dated October 12, 2000:
On the day that Uganda qualified for debt forgiveness under
the Clinton initiative, the president of that struggling
African nation signed a $32 million lease-purchase agreement
for a brand-new Gulf Stream jet.
It goes on to say that we have been assured by the administration
that he got a pretty good buy on the jet.
Now, I ask my colleagues, when we are talking about this debt
forgiveness, should we be forgiving debt with the idea that it is going
to help poor people in Uganda when the President of Uganda, on the day
the debt relief is announced, buys a $47 million jet? Maybe you can go
to College Station and sell that, but I cannot. And I am not going to.
Let me go to the next point. All of the people who have written or
called me, launched letters and sent calls and prayers and e-mails on
this issue, say: We are trying to help people in these poor countries;
don't stand in the way; forgive this debt, which I remind my colleagues
means appropriating money to pay off the debt on their behalf.
The next country I want to talk about is Chad. This is a country that
is next on the list to receive debt forgiveness. The argument is that
by forgiving Chad's debt, we are going to help poor people who live
there. But let me read from this year's U.S. State Department ``Report
on Human Rights Violations'' in Chad, a country that the administration
is pressuring us to appropriate tax money for so he can forgive their
debt. This is from the State Department issued under the name of the
Secretary of State, who was appointed by President Clinton, not by me.
This is what she says about Chad, a country on the list of countries
that would receive debt forgiveness if we provide this $450 million. I
quote:
The security forces---
This is in Chad---
continue to commit serious human rights abuses. State
security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings.
They torture, beat, abuse and rape.
Now, I ask my colleagues--and I ask public opinion--does it make
sense for us to appropriate $450 million to forgive debt to a country
when our own State Department, headed by the Secretary appointed by the
same President who champions this debt forgiveness, tells us, ``State
security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings; they
torture, beat, abuse, and rape''?
Maybe you can go to College Station or Little Rock or Jackson Hole,
WY, and sell that. I cannot.
What we are facing is this: Based on good intentions, we want to
forgive this debt, but what happens when there is clear and convincing
evidence that the proceeds of the debt forgiveness are going to buy
luxury jets for Government officials? And in Chad, remember that the
ordinary citizens there did not borrow this money, this was a loan to
the Government. So are we going to forgive debts to a government that,
according to our very own State Department, continues to murder,
brutalize, and rape its own people? I don't think so.
Having said all of that, what is the solution to this problem? It
seems to me that if this administration is serious about doing
something other than what it believes will be good politics in this
election, or something that will make us all feel good--forgiving all
of this debt--what we have to do is try to replicate what happens in
every American family when people have financial problems.
So, what happens in Arkansas, Texas or anywhere in America, when the
bill collector comes knocking at the door? What happens is that
families get together around the kitchen table, they get out a pencil
and try to figure out on the back of an envelope how much they are
making and how much they are spending. They get out their credit cards,
they get out the butcher knife, and they cut up their credit cards, and
they try to reorganize. They change their habits and their behavior.
It seems to me, when we are talking about forgiving billions of
dollars of debt to governments--these loans were made to governments,
not to people--when we are forgiving that debt, we have a right--in
fact, I would say an obligation--to see that that debt forgiveness
benefits the people who live in that country. These countries are not
poor because of this debt. They are poor because they have oppressive
governments, because they have economic policies that do not work,
because they are denied freedom. The sad story is
[[Page S10652]]
that if we forgive this debt, and we do not demand real reforms,
nothing will change. This great opportunity to do something good for
poor people in the world will be lost.
In trying to work with the administration--and I would have to say
that, in theory, there is a lot of agreement with the administration--
but when it comes time to put the requirements into place, that is
where we cannot seem to work this issue out. The administration does
not contradict its own State Department report on rampant human rights
abuses. But when we're trying to set requirements for getting this debt
forgiveness, that is where the administration says no.
I have tried to reduce the requirements that I think the conscience
of the Senate should require to some very simple things. And I just ask
people who might be listening to what I am saying to ask yourself: Are
these unreasonable requirements in return for billions of dollars of
taxpayer money?
Let me remind my colleagues, I know there is a drunkenness that has
come from this big surplus. Never in my political career have I seen
money squandered as it is in our Government this very minute, even as I
am speaking right now. It is frightening to me. But even in this moment
of a huge surplus, surely everybody realizes and remembers that, for
every dollar we get, every dollar we spend, somebody worked hard to
earn that money.
I believe that money ought to be respected. So in return for billions
of dollars of the American taxpayers' money, here are the conditions to
which I have asked the administration to agree.
No. 1, we cannot forgive debt for a country that we find in our most
recent human rights evaluation engages in a gross violation of human
rights against its own people. In other words, what we would say to the
government of Chad is: If you want this debt forgiven, then you have to
quit killing, abusing, and raping your people. And if you do not do
that, we are not going to forgive the debt. That is condition No. 1.
I do not view that as unreasonable. Quite frankly, I would be ashamed
to have my name affixed on a voting list to the forgiveness of this
debt if we gave it to murderers, thugs, and rapists.
The second condition has to do with the fact that these countries are
poor because they are basically practicing socialism. They deny
property rights and economic freedom, and, as a result, they are poor.
We sometimes get the idea that because socialism does not work
economically, that it is dying. But socialism works politically, which
is why it is alive all over the world and why it is debated in
Washington, DC.
Now, here are three economic conditions that, at a minimum, I believe
we need. First of all, if countries are going to take our money, they
should be required to open their markets to meet the requirements of
the World Trade Organization so that we have an opportunity to sell
American goods in their economy, and so that their workers have a right
to buy goods competitively, instead of being forced to buy expensive,
inferior goods from a government-run monopoly.
We have one of the most open economies in the world. We are the
richest, freest, happiest people in this world. Asking those who are
getting debt relief to do something that will help them is, I think,
something that is required. It is something that must be done.
Secondly, they would be required to set up a series of benchmarks,
not just on opening up their economy, but also in those countries where
government dominates the market, where huge numbers of people work for
the government, and, in essence, the government runs everything, we
would require, in return for the loan forgiveness, that they set up
benchmarks for phasing out subsidies to these government-run
enterprises.
The third requirement is simply that in printing their financial and
government records on how much money they are spending, how much they
are taking in in taxes, how much they are borrowing, that we have
transparency so that we and investors can know what is going on in the
country and so that we can see whether they are taking actions that
will actually improve the life of their people. And that would include
transparency in their financial institutions and their banks.
What this would say is, we do not forgive money until these
conditions are in place. And if at any point along the way countries do
not live up to these commitments, then we stop the debt forgiveness.
Some people think these are outrageous conditions. But I just simply
go back to College Station. When you have a line of credit with a bank,
and you have told them you are using this line of credit to invest in
your restaurant, and it turns out you bought a car for private use,
they cut off your line of credit. When you do not tell the truth, you
end up losing your line of credit.
So I just want to urge, publicly, the administration to help Congress
put together a program that will take this debt forgiveness and put it
to work to help ordinary working people. If we do not do something like
this, we are going to end up seeing this money spent on jet planes for
government leaders; we are going to see the benefits of debt
forgiveness go to the leadership elite; and 10 or 15 years from now,
when these same countries have the same debt crisis, we will have
someone like President Clinton who will be arguing that we could just
fix all this if we just forgive this debt.
I am willing to go along with the debt forgiveness. I am willing to
go home and try to explain to people why these governments are treated
better than citizens here are treated if I know the money is not going
to be squandered or stolen or used to abuse the very people we are
trying to help. But I intend to fight--and fight hard--to see that we
do not take billions of dollars from American taxpayers to give to buy
fancy airplanes for government officials, and that we do not use it to
basically subsidize corruption and the abuse of the very people we are
trying to help.
Amnesty
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, a second topic I rise to talk briefly about
is the issue of amnesty. The White House sent a letter dated October
12, 2000 to Congress which in many ways is one of the most
extraordinary letters I have ever seen a President send to Congress.
This letter, basically says the President will veto the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill unless we grant amnesty to people who
have violated our laws by coming to this country illegally. In other
words, the President is threatening that he will veto a bill that funds
DEA--the Drug Enforcement Administration--the FBI, the Federal prison
system, our system of criminal and civil justice, he will veto that
bill unless we in Congress grant amnesty to people who have broken the
law by coming to the United States of America illegally.
It is one thing for the President, functioning under the
Constitution, to say: You have your idea about how much money should be
spent. I have my idea. I don't think you are spending enough. That is
what the President is saying every day. The President is threatening to
veto appropriation after appropriation because he doesn't think we are
spending enough. We are spending faster than we have ever spent since
Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States, yet we are not
spending enough money to suit President Clinton.
You can argue that he is wrong, that it is dangerous, that one of the
reasons the stock market is in shock today is this runaway Federal
spending that endangers our economy and our prosperity, but it is a
legitimate issue to be debating on an appropriations bill, how much
money we spend.
The President just happens to be wrong--dangerously wrong, in my
opinion--and I am not going to support him. But that is one thing.
But to say that unless we pass a law that has nothing to do with
spending money, that forgives lawbreakers who came into this country
illegally, he is going to veto a bill that funds the FBI, the DEA, and
the criminal justice system is an outrageous assertion of Presidential
power. Our President has been so successful in manipulating the
Congress, he has forgotten that we have a separation of powers in
America. He is going to get reminded in this debate.
I don't want to get too deeply into the amnesty issue, but I will say
a couple things about it. First of all, as the Presiding Officer knows,
as anyone in
[[Page S10653]]
the Senate knows, if there has been one Member who has been a champion
of legal immigration, it is I. I have stood on the floor many times
arguing for letting people with a desire to work hard, with talent,
genius, creativity, and big dreams into America and to let them come
legally. I am proud of the fact that my wife's grandfather came to
America as an indentured laborer to work in the sugarcane fields in
Hawaii.
I have spoken previously on this issue at great length. One of the
most successful employees I ever had was a young man named Rohit Kumar.
The Senate was debating an increase in the quota for legal immigration,
if I remember correctly. I talked about the Kumars. His daddy is a
research doctor. His mama is a physician. His uncle is an engineer, an
architect. The point I made was, America needs more Kumars.
I am sure when you are talking about amnesty, there are going to be
those who will say this has something to do with being against
foreigners. Well, I don't believe America is full. I was the cosponsor
of the H-1B program that will let 200,000 highly skilled technical
people--most of them in graduate school in America right now, being
funded by our taxpayers--stay temporarily to help us keep the economy
strong. But I draw the line on illegal immigration. I draw the line
when it comes to breaking the laws of this country.
I believe if we keep granting amnesty to people who came to the
country illegally, we are in essence putting up a neon sign on all of
our borders saying: Violate our law; come into the country illegally.
Then we will later pass laws making it all right and you will be able
to stay.
I am not for that. I am adamantly opposed to it. Millions of people
today are on waiting lists to come to America legally. They are often
the wives or husbands of people who have come here and become permanent
resident aliens. I am in favor of family unification where someone has
come here, they are self-sustaining, they haven't received public
assistance within a year, and they show the financial ability to take
care of their spouse and children. I say let them come to America. But
I draw the line on illegal immigration.
We have somewhere between 5 and 7 million people who have come to
America illegally. When we passed the immigration bill in 1986, we
granted amnesty to people who were here illegally. That was supposed to
be it. Yet now the Clinton administration says they are going to shut
down the DEA and FBI and the criminal justice system unless we grant
amnesty to more people. We are getting this sort of bait and switch,
for which the administration is famous.
I am sure you have heard the argument. There is a claim that there
were some aliens here in 1986 who claim they were unfairly denied
amnesty and we should now go back and let them qualify. These are the
facts: Most didn't qualify for amnesty because the original law, which
was going to be the first and last amnesty ever granted to lawbreakers
in American history--that was the commitment made here on the floor of
the Senate--was for people who could document that they resided here
prior to 1982. Now the Clinton administration is saying there were
people here when we passed amnesty, who did not get amnesty, and that
is unfair, and let's do it for everyone here prior to 1986. I suppose
then we can do it up to 1996. We can do this rolling amnesty which,
again, simply puts a neon sign along our border which says: Violate
America's law; come here illegally.
I don't know what the President is going to do. Maybe he is going to
veto Commerce-Justice-State. Maybe he is going to try to shut down the
DEA and the FBI, and maybe he is going to try to find somebody to
blame. Let me give him a name: Phil Gramm.
It may well be that the President can pass this amnesty provision. It
may very well be that he has the political power to force us to grant
amnesty to lawbreakers in return for funding Commerce-State-Justice. I
want to go on record here and say, I will not make it easy. Any
conference report that comes up that has amnesty in it, I am going to
offer motions to postpone, to delay, and attempt to force cloture. That
is going to take 3 days. Then we are going to have 30 hours of debate,
which is going to take another day and a half. Then you are going to do
cloture on the conference report itself, and that is going to take
another 3 days. Then we are going to have 30 hours of debate on that
conference report which is going to take another day.
Bill Clinton is the one moving to New York or Arkansas--I guess the
location to be determined by the outcome of the election. I am not
going anywhere. I am going to be here next year. Amnesty may pass. We
may basically say: Forget about American laws. You come here, violate
them; we will just forget it. But it is not going to pass without
determined resistance.
I want my colleagues to know that when we are sitting here on
election day and there is an effort to pass amnesty, it is not as if
people hadn't been told that this was going to be resisted. This is
profoundly wrong. This is dangerous for the future of our country. It
needs to be stopped.
Medicare Give-Back
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I had the responsibility in working with
the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee to try to work out
our differences with the House on the Medicare give-back.
We passed a bill in 1997 that was aimed at trying to balance the
budget and trying to save Medicare. We succeeded in balancing the
budget. We have been in the process since that day of trying to undo
everything we did. We have put together a package that costs over $27
billion in Medicare give-backs. About half the package is totally
deserved and desperately needed. About half the package in my opinion--
I am speaking just for myself--represents things that are bad public
policy, and it is being done for one simple reason: We have the money.
Why not spend it?
I am not going to go down a long list. But let me give you one
example--bad debt forgiveness.
Believe it or not, this bill has a provision that says to hospitals,
if you don't collect your bad debt--remember, Medicaid pays for health
care for poor people. We have two provisions of Medicare that provide
taxpayer assistance above Medicaid for very marginal income people who
are not poor but they have difficulty paying their bills.
When we are talking about bad debt, we are talking about bad-debt
incurred by people who didn't qualify for Medicaid.
We have a provision in this bill where the taxpayer will simply come
in and pick up 70 percent-plus of bad debt costs for hospitals.
Collecting debt is difficult. Ask any retail merchant, or ask anybody
who is in business in America. They will tell you it is hard to collect
debt.
What do you think is going to happen when the taxpayer pays 70
percent of the debt that hospitals don't want to collect and that
people do not want to pay? They are going to stop collecting. People
are going to stop paying, and the taxpayer is going to pay.
To get to the bottom line on this issue, the President says: Look,
you didn't spend enough money on the things I wanted it spent on, and I
am going to veto this $27 billion give-back.
I hope the President does veto it. I think about half of it is
justified. I think we could have done it for $15 billion, and could
have done a reasonably good job.
But my own view is that if the President vetoes it--we are just
moments now from an election. We are going to have a new President. My
suggestion is, if the President vetoes this bill, that we simply wait
until January for a new President--hopefully, someone who will be more
responsible than this President--and we will take a very serious look
at Medicare.
In this bill, with spending of $27 billion, we could not find one
penny of savings to put in the bill. There is not one thing currently
being done in America in health care, including a new scam by States
where they simply overcharge the Federal Government and pocket part of
the difference--we could not find one thing on which we could save
money. I find that difficult to sell.
Finally, there was an article in today's Washington Post by David
Broder. I don't always agree with David Broder, but I always think
about what he has to say. I guess if you want to define a serious
commentator and set it out in a column, you would have to put David
Broder's name at the top
[[Page S10654]]
of that list. You may not like what he says about you. You may not like
what he says about your view. But he doesn't say anything that he
doesn't think about. I admire that.
He points out today in an article that says ``So Long, Surplus'' that
we are currently--this year--on the verge of spending $100 billion more
than we said we would spend this year when we adopted the much touted
Balanced Budget Act in 1997, which Bill Clinton signed. This wasn't
just Congress, this was Congress and the President. We are on the verge
of spending $100 billion this year more than we said we were going to
spend.
I just want to say that someday people are going to ask: What
happened to this surplus? They are going to ask: Why didn't we rebuild
Medicare? Why didn't we rebuild Social Security by putting real assets
into Social Security--not taking anything out of Social Security but
putting real assets into Social Security--by taking this money and
investing it in stocks, bonds, and real assets so we have something to
pay benefits with in the future?
Someday someone is going to ask: What happened to that surplus? Why
couldn't we, when tax rates were at the highest level in American
history, have some tax relief for working families? Why did we have to
keep forcing people to sell the farm or business in order to pay the
Government a death tax? Why did we have to tax marriage and love in the
marriage tax penalty?
Someday somebody is going to ask those questions. I just want to be
on record saying I think it is outrageous that we are doing this. I
think we need to stop doing this.
I read in the paper where the President said he is like the Buddha.
He is like Buddha. He just sits and waits and waits, and Congress wants
to go home, and the only way they are going to go home is to spend all
of this money.
I repeat that I am not going anywhere. President Clinton's number of
days as President is now short.
My point is that we have a right to say no. We have a right to say in
education when we have spent every penny the President said he wanted
but we want to let States decide how to spend the money--we want to
give them the same money, but we want them to decide how to spend it,
and President Clinton says: No. I am going to veto your bill because I
want to tell States how to spend it.
I think we have an obligation to say no. If people need schools, they
can take the money and build schools. If they need more teachers, they
can take the money and hire more teachers. But if they need other
things, they can take the money and do that, because they know their
needs better than Bill Clinton.
But that is not what the President wants. We spent every penny he
asked for--too much money, in my opinion. But he said he is going to
veto that bill because we give the States the ability to decide what
they need to spend the money on.
My answer to that is, let him veto it, and then we can pass a
continuing resolution. Let's have an election. If people want to spend
this surplus, if they want to spend it on program after program after
program, if they want more government and less freedom, they know how
to vote in this election. If you want the Government to spend more, and
if you want this surplus to be spent on government programs, you know
how to vote.
But we ought not to let Bill Clinton spend the money before the
American people vote for more spending. First, I don't think they are
going to do it; but, second, that is what elections are about.
I think we have to quit kowtowing to the President. If he wants to
force us to stay here and pass these bills day after day after day, if
I were running for reelection and were in a close race, I would go home
and campaign. But for the 60-some-plus of us who are not up for
reelection, let's just stay here in town. And if the President suddenly
becomes reasonable, we will reach an agreement. But if he is going to
play Budhha, to quote him, and sit there and see if it will work one
more time--that is, if by threatening to hold us in session he can get
us to spend more money than our budget and more money than his budget--
he wants to see if it will work one more time, I want to say no. I
think the American people would rejoice in it.
I am hopeful my fellow colleagues will come to the conclusion that
the President is asking too high a price to see this session of
Congress end. Too much money. Too much change in permanent law that
does not represent the will of the American people. I think we need to
say no. The sooner we say no, the sooner the President will come to his
senses. And he will for a simple reason: He is not holding a strong
hand here. He is the one moving off. We are not moving anywhere.
I think we can come to a compromise with the President, but I think
we ought to be tired of being run over. I say we should not spend more
money simply to get out of town. To do that would basically betray
everything we claim to believe in and betrays the people who are going
to pay our salary, whether we are in town or not.
I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
CLEAR CHOICES
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I certainly join my friend from Texas. He
spells out some things that are quite clear but obviously are not
talked about very much.
I was listening earlier to my friend from North Dakota, who talked
about the differences between the parties, between the Presidential
candidates. Certainly there are differences. They talk about them being
the same; they are not the same. I think there are some very clear
philosophical choices to make.
Of course, that is why we are here. There is nothing unusual about
having different points of view. Those points of view are very clear.
Often we get involved in details and get bogged down in the choices in
terms of direction and where we want to go, in terms of where we want
the country to be in 10, 20, 50 years. That gets lost. They are the
most important issues that we have.
One of them, in general terms is, what is the role of the Federal
Government? How extensively does the Federal Government get involved in
all the activities in our lives? What is the role of local government?
Of course, most important is the role you and I, as individuals, have
experienced over the past decade.
For nearly a decade, the idea was that whatever the problem was, it
was up to the Federal Government to resolve it. Of course, much of that
comes from politics. That is a great way to get votes. There is a
saying: You can teach a person to fish and they always have a fish;
give them a fish and you will always have his vote. That is the
political aspect.
There are some great differences: whether we have higher taxes;
whether we have less taxes; what we do with the surplus that exists
now. I think one of the real key issues is the division of authority,
the division of responsibility between local governments and the
Federal Government, State governments, county governments. These are
the issues I believe are extremely important. This is, after all, a
``United'' States, a union of States, that each constitutionally has
some very clear responsibilities.
One of the issues that has been most interesting, and as the Senator
from Texas pointed out, has caused us to have a slower resolve in this
Congress than usual, is the idea that there will be a surplus, a $5
trillion surplus over the next 10 years, $1.8 of that being non-Social
Security.
There are several plans. One is to clearly put the Social Security
money in the Social Security lockbox so it is used for Social Security,
so that people who look forward to benefits, particularly young people,
will have some feeling that there will be benefits; they are entitled
to those benefits. Of course, as the demographics change--and they do
change very much. I think originally there were 20 people working for
every one drawing benefits, and now it is three working for every one
drawing benefits--there will have to be changes in Social Security.
There are proposals for raising taxes. That is unpopular and not a
good idea, in my view. There is some talk about reducing benefits.
Again, I don't think that is the solution. One view is to give
[[Page S10655]]
an opportunity, a choice, particularly for young people, to have an
opportunity to put a portion of the money they pay into their own
account, to have it invested for the private sector and increase their
return. Over a period of time, an increase in return from 2\1/2\
percent to 5\1/2\ percent is very significant. That is one view.
The opposite view is, no, we don't want to touch that. We are not
going to touch Social Security. We don't want to change it. At the same
time, we have had seven votes here about a lockbox and we have had
resistance each time. There is a great deal of discussion and debate
about philosophical differences in the approach.
We heard the candidates talk last night for the third time. Clearly,
one point of view is to have a government health care program for
everyone. I don't happen to agree with that. I think we talked about
that. We tried to do that early on. We have seen the difficulties. So
we ought to find an alternative solution. The alternative is to give
people two choices to ensure health care, those particularly who cannot
afford it. Those who want to have some choices are going to pay for
them.
Similarly, with pharmaceuticals, an issue is to put it on every
Medicare program, whether people really want it, whether people can
afford it, as opposed to choices. There are real differences.
Taxes: Of course, we talked a great deal and will continue to talk
about the idea of tax reduction, whether spending ought to be what we
do with the surplus, which is basically the point of view of Al Gore--
the largest spending since Lyndon Johnson and his proposals--or, on the
other hand, we ought to take a look at being sure we fund and finance
those things that are there. We do education; we do Medicare; we do
pharmaceuticals. When we are through with that, there will still be
substantial amounts of money. It ought to go back to the people; it
belongs to them; they paid in the money. We hear talk about it going to
1 percent of the population. The fact is, the 1 percent would be paying
a higher percentage of the total taxes than they are now. I don't think
there is much of an argument that people are entitled to some return.
The marriage penalty tax: Why should two married people pay more
taxes, earning the same amount of money as when they were single,
collectively? That is wrong. It was vetoed.
Estate tax: People spend their lives putting together estates, farms,
ranches, businesses. It is not a question of not paying taxes. Capital
gains taxes are paid on the increased value of those estates. But the
idea that death should trigger a 52-percent tax on an estate that is
already being taxed is a choice.
Those are different directions we take. I certainly agree with the
idea that there are choices and there will be choices in this election,
whether it be the Presidential election, whether it be the
congressional election. And I hope each of us, as we exercise our
responsibility as citizens in a government of the people and for the
people and by the people, will take a look at those choices. Often it
is difficult when we get off on a very specific issue and overlook the
general direction and philosophy we want to take. That, it seems to me,
is one of the most important things we have before the Senate.
I hope we can move forward and do our work. We have an obligation to
do that and do it as quickly as we can. Certainly we want to stay here
until we have completed the work in the manner in which we think it
should be completed. The idea that we continue to stall, will continue
to hold up appropriations bills so they can be joined with things that
are unrelated, seems wrong to me.
I hope we move forward. More than anything as we move through this
very important election cycle, I hope each of us takes a look at the
direction we believe we should move toward. Should we have more Federal
Government, more spending, more taxes? Should we have a Federal
Government that deals with those essential items and funds them
properly, reduces taxes so we don't have excess amounts of money
here, returns to local and State governments the kinds of
responsibilities they have and, more importantly than that, returns to
individuals the choices they can make in their lives and avoid having
the Federal Government become the decisionmaker for each of them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nuclear Arms Reduction
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as we near the end of this Congress, one
of the profound disappointments for me and for a number of others
serving in the Senate is the inattention paid to the issue of arms
control, especially the issue of nuclear arms reduction.
As we debate a range of public policy issues in this country during
the campaigns for the House and the Senate and the Presidency, we will
hear a lot about health care, education, taxes, and economic growth,
but we hear almost nothing about the issue of nuclear arms reduction.
It is important to understand what kind of nuclear weapons exist in
our world and why nuclear arms reductions are important for us, our
children, and our future.
The nuclear arsenal in this world totals about 32,000 nuclear
weapons--32,000 nuclear weapons. The Russians have about 20,000 of
them, many of them tactical nuclear weapons, some strategic. The United
States has about 10,500 nuclear weapons. France, China, Israel, the
United Kingdom, India, Pakistan also have nuclear weapons. We know
India and Pakistan have a few nuclear weapons because they have
exploded those nuclear weapons right under each other's chin by their
borders. These are countries that do not like each other, and they have
tested nuclear weapons recently, much to the consternation of the rest
of the world.
We have a nuclear arsenal in this world that is frightening. What
does this mean, 32,000 nuclear weapons? Let me put it in some
perspective. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed 100,000
people. The bomb was named ``Little Boy.'' It was 15 kilotons. It was
6,500 times more effective and more efficient, as they say--only people
who are involved in this could use that word, I suppose--than ordinary
high-explosive bombs.
The amount of nuclear weapons that exist today in this world is
equivalent to 1 million Hiroshima bombs. Think of that. The bomb that
was dropped on Hiroshima killed 100,000 people. We have the equivalent
of 1 million of those bombs among the countries that possess nuclear
weapons.
It is hard for anyone to understand fully what this means. The
world's nuclear arsenal today has a total yield of about 15 billion
tons of TNT. That is equivalent to the power of 1 million Hiroshima-
type bombs.
This Congress has done very little on the issue of arms control and
arms reduction. It took a giant step backward, in my judgment, in the
debate over the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. A little over
one year ago, on October 13, 1999, this Senate rejected ratification of
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The Senate did not hold
hearings for 2 years on that issue. Then there were 2 days of hearings
cobbled together quickly, and then the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty was brought before the Senate. There were 2\1/2\ days of floor
debate, and then it was defeated.
I guess it was defeated by those who say they do not want us involved
in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. However, 160 other
countries have already signed the treaty. It was interesting. Just
before the vote a year ago, Mr. Blair, Mr. Chirac, and Mr. Schroeder
from England, France, and Germany, wrote the following in an op-ed
piece that was rather unprecedented, published in the Washington Post:
Failure to ratify the CTBT will be a failure in our
struggle against proliferation. The stabilizing effect of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty . . . would be undermined.
Disarmament negotiations would suffer.
This is from three of our closest allies. Their point was we have
this
[[Page S10656]]
struggle to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Who else will
gain possession of nuclear weapons? Many want them. Can we stop the
spread of nuclear weapons and stop the spread of delivery vehicles for
those nuclear weapons? It is a question this Congress needs to answer.
Regrettably, when it voted on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty, it answered no; that is not the priority.
I wonder how many of our colleagues are aware of an incident that
occurred December 3, 1997, in the dark hours of the early morning in
the Barents Sea off the coast of Norway. That morning of December 3,
1997, several Russian ballistic missile submarines surfaced in the cold
water and prepared to fire SS-20 missiles. SS-20 missiles have the
capability of carrying 10 nuclear warheads. They travel 5,000 miles--
far enough to reach the United States from the Barents Sea.
On that morning, those Russian submarines surfaced and launched 20
ballistic missiles. Roaring skyward, they rose to 30,000 feet. They
were tracked by our space command in NORAD, and at 30,000 feet, all of
those Russian missiles exploded.
Why did those Russian missiles explode? Those missiles did not have
nuclear warheads on them. Those missiles were not part of a Russian
missile attack on the United States. In fact, seven American weapons
inspectors were there, watching from a ship a few miles away as the
Russian missiles were launched. These self-destruct launches were a
quick and a cheap way for the Russians to destroy submarine-launched
missiles that they were required to destroy under the START I arms
control treaty they have with the United States.
What an interesting thing to see, the firing of missiles to destroy
them--no, not to terrorize or attack an enemy, but to destroy the
missiles because arms control agreements require that the missiles be
destroyed.
With consent, I hold up a piece of metal that comes from a Backfire
bomber. This is from a wing strut on an old Soviet Union--now Russian--
bomber called the Backfire bomber. This bomber would fly in this world
carrying nuclear weapons from the cold war with the United States,
threatening our country. How would I have the piece of a wing strut of
a Russian Backfire bomber? Did we shoot it down? No, we did not shoot
this bomber down. I would like to show a picture of what we did with
this bomber. This is the Backfire bomber. As you can see, we cut it in
half. Why are we cutting up Russian bombers? Because our arms control
agreements require a reduction in nuclear arms and vehicles to deliver
nuclear weapons.
I have here ground up copper wire from a Typhoon Russian submarine.
This used to be wiring on a Russian submarine that would stealthily
move under the waters of this world with missiles and multiple
warheads, nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. How
is it that I hold in my hand copper wire from a Typhoon-class Russian
submarine? Did we sink that submarine? Did we attack it and sink it and
destroy it? No. What happened to the Typhoon submarine was it was
brought to a shipyard, under the arms control agreement, and it was
chopped up. I do not have a picture of what was left of it when this
was brought to drydock and destroyed, but the fact is we cut these
weapons systems up as part of our arms control agreements.
This is what the submarine looks like in drydock as it is being
destroyed.
In the Ukraine, there is a little spot where you can travel and see
some sunflowers growing. Do you know what used to be where the
sunflowers now exist? A Russian missile with multiple nuclear warheads
aimed at the United States of America. The missile is now gone. Under
arms control agreements, it was pulled out and destroyed because our
agreements with the Russians require that to happen. Where there was
once a missile aimed at the United States of America, there is now a
field of sunflowers. What a wonderful metaphor for progress.
I raise all these issues simply to say we have made significant
progress in arms control and arms reduction, but not nearly as much as
we must. Here is a chart of some of the examples of what we have done:
5,314 nuclear warheads have been removed, 507 ICBMs, 65 silos, 15
ballistic missile submarines, and 62 heavy long range bombers are
gone--because we, through what is called the Nunn-Lugar program, have
provided taxpayer funding to destroy the weapons that existed in the
old Soviet Union, and now in Russia, to say, in concert with our
agreements, we will reduce nuclear weapons. We have reduced nuclear
weapons and they have reduced nuclear weapons. It makes a lot more
sense to destroy these airplanes, missiles and warheads before they are
used in hostile actions. It makes a lot more sense to destroy them by
arms control agreements and arms reduction agreements. That is exactly
what has been happening.
Going back to the chart I put up, despite all the progress and all
the reductions in nuclear arms, here is what is left. It is troublesome
because there are a lot of countries that want to get into these
arsenals, especially this one. There are a lot of countries, a lot of
people, a lot of terrorist groups that want to grab hold of a nuclear
weapon here or there, and have nuclear capability for themselves. That
is very dangerous. That makes for a very dangerous world and a very
dangerous future.
Some days ago we witnessed a cowardly terrorist act of a couple of
people in a boat, pulling up by the side of an American Navy ship, the
U.S.S. Cole, creating an explosion that took the life of many of our
young sailors who were serving their country. I indicated before, I
send my thoughts and prayers to all of those families who are now
grieving the loss of their loved ones. They should know the service and
dedication of their loved ones in serving this country is something a
grateful nation will never forget.
But it is a dangerous world. The attack on the Cole reminds us again
that there are those who want to commit acts of terrorism. It is a
dangerous world. What if that small boat had contained a nuclear
weapon? Don't you think those terrorists would love to get their hands
on a nuclear weapon? Of course they would.
There are many countries that do not yet have the capability of
building nuclear weapons that desperately want it. They are struggling,
even now, to try to get their hands on the arsenal, and on the
mechanics and capabilities of making a nuclear weapon. We must
understand how dangerous it will be for our future and for our children
if we do not make arms reduction, and the development of new agreements
and new treaties to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons job No.
1; we must understand how dangerous that is for our future.
This Congress, as I indicated, decided it would not support the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Lord only knows why they would
make that decision. It is beyond me. The test ban treaty has formally
been ratified by 66 states, signed by 160 states. The major holdouts,
incidentally, are the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
Six countries have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and
14 have ratified it since our vote to turn it down last October. All of
the NATO states, all of our NATO allies, have ratified the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty except the United States.
We are told by the critics that we not only should threaten our arms
reduction agreements, including START I and START II, and the prospect
of a Start III, we should also threaten all our arms control
agreements--including the anti-ballistic missile agreement, which is so
important, the center pole of the tent on arms reduction--we should
threaten all of those for the sake of building a national missile
defense program. We should threaten all of those for the sake of
defeating the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
It is interesting that this country has already decided of its own
volition we will not test nuclear weapons. We decided 7 years ago we
would not test nuclear weapons. So we have unilaterally said we will
not test nuclear weapons, but we are then the country that says we will
refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. That is not
a step forward; that is a huge step backwards.
I cannot describe my disappointment at a Congress that turns down the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and the responsibility that
should
[[Page S10657]]
come with this country considering the nuclear weapons it has. I cannot
describe how profound my disappointment is. We have a responsibility to
provide leadership. It is our responsibility. We are the world's leader
in this area. We must say that we and our allies and all other
countries must work every day, all day, to make sure the spread of
nuclear weapons stops; to make sure those who want to achieve the
capability of making nuclear weapons will not be able to achieve that
capability. We must do that. That is our responsibility. It is on our
watch.
We have a Senate that turns down a Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty but says: Let us build a national missile defense no matter what
it costs; let's build a national missile defense system no matter what
its consequences to our relationship with others in the nuclear club;
let's build a national missile defense system no matter what it does to
our arms control agreements. Build it, just build it; all the other
things are irrelevant, they say.
I disagree with that. We have a lot of threats to which this country
must respond. Some of them are nuclear threats. Some of them are
nuclear threats that result from a rogue state acquiring a ballistic
missile, and attaching to that missile a nuclear warhead, and aiming it
at the United States. That truly is a threat. However, it is one of the
least likely threats, I might suggest, and all experts have suggested
that as well.
The most likely threat, by far, is not to have a rogue nation acquire
an intercontinental ballistic missile and fire it at the United States
with a nuclear warhead; the most likely threat, by far, is for a rogue
nation or a terrorist group to achieve some sort of suitcase nuclear
bomb and plant it in the trunk of a rusty Yugo car, set that car on a
dock in New York City, and hold the city hostage. That has nothing to
do with an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Far more likely is a small glass vial of deadly biological or
chemical agents that can kill 100 million people. Or far more likely,
in my judgment--if the threat is a missile threat--is from a cruise
missile, not an intercontinental ballistic missile. A cruise missile,
which would be more readily available, is a missile which travels at
500 feet above the ground at 500 miles an hour, roughly, and is not
detectable or defensible from a national missile defense system once it
is built.
So we have our colleagues who turn down the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty and then say, by the way, we want to build a national
missile defense system, and it will protect against one small sliver of
the threat, and almost all the rest of the threat will be unresolved
because we have spent all the money on this one small sliver, which is
the least likely threat.
If the attack on the U.S.S. Cole teaches us--and it should --it ought
to teach us that the more likely threat to this country is a terrorist
threat by two people on a boat or by someone driving a rental truck
that is filled with a fertilizer bomb, as happened in Oklahoma City, or
dozens of other approaches in which terrorists, or others, use their
skill to try to wreak havoc through terrorist acts.
My hope is that while this Congress seems oblivious to the value of
arms control and arms reductions, we will at least have some kind of a
discussion in this campaign going on in this country about how we feel,
as Members of Congress and as Presidential candidates, about our
responsibility to provide leadership to reduce the stockpile of nuclear
arms and reduce the threat of nuclear war, and especially to stop the
spread of nuclear weapons to those who want them but do not yet have
them.
What is our leadership responsibility? Some say: It is not our job.
Not now. Not us. It is not time. I do not agree with that. We are kind
of waltzing along as a country. Everything seems pretty good. The
economy is doing pretty well.
We have a great deal of uncertainty in the world. We have a country
such as Russia with 20,000 nuclear weapons. We have a lot of others
that aspire to get access to the delivery vehicles and to nuclear
weapons. We have terrorist groups who are in terrorist training camps,
as I speak, who would love to acquire small, low-yield nuclear weapons.
We have command and control issues in Russia on both strategic and
tactical nuclear weapons. Yet there is almost no discussion here in
this Chamber--almost no discussion in the Senate--about these issues.
To the extent there is discussion, it is discussion with a set of
very special blinders, saying: Let's do the following. Let's build a
national missile defense system. And let's build it now. And
notwithstanding the consequences, we don't care what it costs, and we
don't care what its consequences might be with respect to arms control
agreements that now exist.
That is not, in my judgment, the best of what we ought to be doing
for future generations. It is our responsibility to lead on the issue
of arms reduction and arms control. It is our responsibility to say to
the world that 20,000 nuclear weapons in the Russian stockpile is too
much, and 10,500 nuclear weapons in our stockpile is too much, and we
need to begin systematic reduction.
We know what does not work, and we know what does work. What does
work is the Nunn-Lugar program, in which this country engages in
treaties and, with the verification of those treaties, helps pay for
the systematic destruction of nuclear weapons and delivery systems for
those nuclear weapons. We know that works. We have been doing it now
for several years.
I held in my hand, as I said earlier, a part of a Russian bomber
wing. We did not shoot it down, we sawed it up. I held something from a
nuclear submarine. We did not sink it, we dismantled it. One day, on
the floor of the Senate, I held a hinge from an ICBM silo that was
located in the Ukraine. I had that metal hinge not because we destroyed
that silo with a nuclear weapon but because we sent bulldozers and
heavy equipment over there and took the silo out. What a remarkable
success. Nunn-Lugar, that is what the program is called; Republican-
Democrat; Lugar a Republican, Nunn a Democrat. Nunn-Lugar: These two
people provided leadership in the Senate saying, this is the program we
ought to have to try to steer an area of arms reductions compliance
with treaties that actually reduce the nuclear threat.
But it is just a step. It is just a step in what ought to be a
journey for us, a long journey, but one we must stick to and must
reflect as a priority for our country.
So I just wanted to come, as we finish this session of Congress, to
say I have been profoundly disappointed that in this Congress we have
made no progress on the issue of stopping the spread of nuclear
weapons. We have a requirement to provide the leadership in this world
on that issue. We have made no progress on the two major issues: The
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, we took a huge step backward in
terms of our world leadership responsibilities; and, second, on the
issue of national missile defense, we have sent a signal to others that
our arms control agreements really do not matter very much. That is, in
my judgment, exactly the wrong signal to be sending.
I heard the Senator from Texas, my colleague, Mr. Gramm, talk about
another issue. I can't do his Texas twang, but he said: I am going to
be here next year. Well, he is. I am going to be here next year as
well. We have terms in the Senate. I was elected by my State to come
and serve my State's interests here in the Senate and serve the
interests of this country. I am going to be here.
It is my intention, with whatever strength I have, to try to provide
some constructive leadership, with my colleagues, to say: This country
has a significant responsibility to address the issue of stopping the
spread of nuclear weapons. To the extent that we don't care much about
it, don't do much about it, don't discuss it, don't talk about it,
don't debate it, in my judgment, our country's future is severely
injured.
I hope that as we turn the corner and come to January and swear in
the 107th Congress, the issue of arms control and arms reductions--
dealing with the stopping of the spread of nuclear weapons and the
proliferation of both nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles for them--
can become part of a significant debate in Congress because all Members
of Congress will understand our responsibility and its importance.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S10658]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
 Share this page | Bookmark this page | Print this page |  Add to del.icio.us
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995-2008 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |