S6498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

They may have a right to make that 

statement, but that does not make it 

right to make that kind of a statement. It should be retracted. 

I commend President Bush and I hope 

other members of the NRA, in one way 

or another, would let their leadership 

know that kind of rhetoric is unacceptable about an American administration. Like any other administration, it, 

I am sure, has agents who make mistakes from time to time. There is a 

place to rectify them. It is called a 

court. But to make that allegation 

from an organization the size of the 

NRA I think is unacceptable, it is irresponsible, and it still should be retracted. 

I thank my friend from Arkansas for 

his continuing effort to try to bring 

some kind of calmer normalcy into the 

general climate in this country. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President I just want 

to observe that the managers of the 

pending legislation I understand are 

working on some agreements hopefully 

that will make it possible to wrap up 

this legislation before the day is out. 

Therefore, at this time, I suggest the 

absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. COATS. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. COATS. Mr. President, I would 

like to ask the Chair what the pending 

business is. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

pending business of the Senate is the 

Hatch amendment numbered 755. 

Mr. COATS. I suggest the absence of 

a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

GREGG). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, just a couple of hours ago, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—the single most important component of the international 

effort to prevent the spread of nuclear 

weapons—was enshrined for all time by 

an overwhelming decision made by 

more than 170 countries party to the 

treaty. The decision to make the NPT 

permanent was accomplished without 

any conditions or qualifications. 

This is a truly historic day in our ongoing efforts to make ours a safer and 

more peaceful world. The security of 

all countries, weapons States and nonweapons States alike, has been 

strengthened. 

The NPT has established the norm 

prohibiting the further acquisition of 

nuclear weapons. Indefinite extension 

of the NPT will help improve the climate of trust conducive to more restrictive controls over weapons-grade 

nuclear materials and related technologies and activities. It also provides 

momentum for addressing the dangers 

posed by other weapons of mass destruction. 

Making the NPT permanent, of 

course, will not end the global nuclear 

proliferation threat. Treaty membership is never a guarantee of compliance. Yet, when backed by strong national policies, the NPT advances the 

security interests of all countries. Indeed, it has helped to keep the number 

of declared nuclear weapons States and 

so-called ‘‘threshold’’ States at five 

and three respectively. 

Clearly, the world remains a dangerous place. Iran, North Korea, and 

the theft of fissile materials present 

immediate nuclear proliferation perils. 

Much progress on controls over other 

weapons of mass destruction remains 

to be made. Moreover, as the tragic 

bombing in Oklahoma has shown, determined terrorists can accomplish 

their contemptible intentions with 

even the crudest of weapons. 

But today is a time for celebration. 

We have achieved a critical victory in 

making the post-cold-war period safer 

and more secure. This is a victory for 

all the world’s people. I believe this 

body deserves a measure of credit for 

the unanimous adoption of a resolution 

in March calling for permanent, unconditional extension of the NPT. It is 

also a testament to the hard work of 

Tom Graham who took the lead in the 

negotiations. The chairman of the conference held in New York, the Honorable Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, 

also deserves our thanks for his particularly skilled leadership. Happily, 

Mr. Dhanapala will be returning to 

Washington within a few days to resume his post as Ambassador of his 

country to the United States. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY 

AND U.S. SECURITY 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 26 

years ago, the Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification of the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 

[NPT]. In considering the treaty, 

Chairman Fulbright prevailed on the 

Members of the Senate to ratify the 

NPT, because without it, the world 

would face a wide array of potential 

nuclear horrors—such as developing 

nations acquiring nuclear weapons to 

elevate their status or national power; 

regional powers resorting to the use of 

nuclear weapons to settle their differences; or ethnic or religious differences being settled with nuclear 

weapons. He foresaw a world where 

major powers like the United States 

might be held hostage by small, poor 

countries who possess a few nuclear 

weapons and the means to deliver 

them, or, become drawn into a nuclear 

confrontation brought about by these 

small nations through a miscalculation 

or an accident. 

At the time the NPT was negotiated 

there were relatively few countries who 

had tested or possessed nuclear weapons. Those countries were the United 

States, the United Kingdom, Russia, 

France, and China. They became 

known as the nuclear weapons states. 

All other states who did not possess or 

had not tested nuclear weapons became 

known as non-nuclear weapons states. 

Back in 1969, when the Senate voted 

to provide its advice and consent to 

ratification of the NPT, I was one of 

the 15 members who voted against ratification of the treaty. I voted against 

it because I had grave reservations 

about the treaty’s goals and whether 

they could be achieved. I was concerned that if the United States ratified the NPT, it would be unable to fulfill its NATO responsibilities and commitments. I feared that the NPT would 

also foreclose the ability of NATO 

members to participate fully in the operations of the Alliance. Lastly, I was 

concerned that the nuclear weapons 

states, and in particular, the United 

States, would bear the huge costs of 

transferring nuclear technology for 

peaceful uses to the non-nuclear weapons states. 

Mr. President, the overall goal and 

purpose of the NPT is to stop the 

spread of nuclear weapons, and to prohibit the transfer, or acquisition and 

manufacture of nuclear weapons by 

non-nuclear weapons states. However, 

there are no enforcement mechanisms 

to prevent a non-nuclear weapons state 

from becoming a nuclear weapons state 

in the NPT. There are no sanctions for 

violations of the treaty. While the NPT 

requires the parties to pursue negotiations to end the nuclear arms race and 

bring about nuclear disarmament, the 

NPT cannot force an end to the race 

for nuclear weapons, nor can it force 

the destruction of all nuclear weapons. 

For that matter, the NPT cannot ensure that parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear weapons states or non-nuclear weapons states, do not withdraw 

from the Treaty if they decide they 

wish to acquire or develop a nuclear arsenal for their own national security 

reasons. In fact, the NPT has a withdrawal clause. 

The NPT only covers countries that 

have ratified the Treaty. For example, 

take the so-called threshold states 

which have developed nuclear weapons, 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6499 

or nuclear weapons technology. These 

countries, India, Pakistan, and Israel, 

are not parties to the Treaty. Even if 

these countries signed the NPT as nonnuclear weapons states, there is no way 

to ensure that these countries will ever 

stop development of, or destroy, their 

nuclear arsenals. 

Mr. President, in the 26 years of its 

existence, the NPT did not free the 

world from the threat of nuclear weapons, and it will not do so in the future. 

It did, however, establish a global norm 

for nations to limit the proliferation of 

nuclear weapons and it has enjoyed the 

widest adherence of any arms control 

agreement. It is for this reason, that I 

rise today in support of extending the 

NPT. Let me qualify my statement of 

support of the Treaty by saying that I 

take no position on whether the Treaty 

should be indefinitely extended, or, extended only for a fixed period of time. 

I am concerned that the United States 

did not make any efforts to improve 

the NPT and make it a more viable 

agreement by strengthening its enforcement and inspection mechanisms. 

I went back and reviewed the Senate 

floor debate on the ratification of the 

NPT. Mr. President, despite wide adherence to the NPT, the world still 

faces the potential horrors of a nuclear 

exchange between regional states. The 

risk of the use of nuclear weapons by 

countries to suppress governmental 

factions, or settle old ethnic and religious disputes still exists today, as it 

did 26 years ago. 

Representatives of the international 

community have been gathered in New 

York City at the United Nations for 

the past month to determine the future 

of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Clinton administration supports indefinite and unconditional extension of the Treaty, while representatives from the non-aligned member 

states, led by Indonesia, Iran and 

Egypt, oppose indefinite extension. 

On March 16, a majority of Members 

of the Senate expressed their support 

for the administration’s position of indefinite and unconditional extension of 

the NPT. They also expressed concerns 

that the NPT would be seriously undercut if it is not indefinitely extended, 

dealing a major below to global nuclear 

nonproliferation regimes. Mr. President, the treaty can be undermined at 

any time regardless of its duration because there are no enforcement mechanisms or automatic sanctions. 

I remind my colleagues that as a 

non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT 

and member in good standing, Iraq, developed an illegal nuclear weapons program under the guise of a peaceful nuclear program, and it has been determined that Iran, under the guise of 

peaceful use of nuclear technology is 

pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons 

program. Likewise, North Korea, a 

non-nuclear weapons state to the NPT 

was determined to have violated the 

NPT. Of course, it was never determined to be a member in good standing 

of the treaty. Lastly, even though not 

members of the NPT, India, Pakistan, 

and Israel, were able to secretly develop nuclear weapons programs. 

Representatives and leaders of a 

number of developing countries, or 

nonaligned member states, do not support indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty. They cite as reasons for their lack of support for the 

U.S. position, the lack of progress in 

concluding a comprehensive test ban. 

They claim that the nuclear weapons 

states have not fulfilled their nuclear 

disarmament obligations. They believe 

that the Treaty is discriminatory and 

that it sanctions the five nuclear powers’ rights to hold on to their nuclear 

weapons and keep the non-nuclear 

weapon states as nuclear weapons 

‘‘have-nots’’. 

Mr. President, I reject the rationale 

offered by the non-aligned states for 

not supporting extension of the Treaty. 

For the past decade, the United States 

and Russia have made unprecedented 

reductions in their nuclear forces—beginning in 1985 with the Intermediate 

Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and more 

recently reducing strategic forces 

under START. Both President Clinton 

and President Yeltsin have agreed to 

discuss even further reductions to their 

nuclear weapons programs once 

START II is implemented. Prior to 

START entering into force, President 

Bush and President Gorbachev implemented unilateral reductions of United 

States and Russian tactical weapons. 

Since 1992, a testing moratorium has 

been in place in the United States, and 

the United States along with the other 

nuclear weapons states and members of 

the Conference on Disarmament have 

been negotiating a comprehensive test 

ban treaty. 

Last month, the United States and 

the other four nuclear weapons states 

restated their support of negative security assurances in the United Nations. 

Additionally, negotiations will begin 

soon on a global ban on the production 

of fissile material for military purposes 

in the Conference on Disarmament. If 

these steps do not indicate a good faith 

effort on the part of the United States 

and other nuclear weapons states toward nuclear disarmament, I am not 

sure what else can be done. 

Representatives of the non-nuclear 

weapons states who want to poke the 

United States in the eye by not supporting indefinite extension of the 

Treaty, because they believe we have 

not reduced our nuclear arsenals to 

zero, or completed the negotiations on 

a comprehensive test ban, would do 

well to focus attention on their own efforts at reducing the threat posed by 

nuclear weapons. How have they 

worked with their neighbors, and other 

countries, to build more positive relationships and confidence so that threat 

of attack and annihilation are reduced 

and countries do not feel compelled to 

acquire nuclear weapons for protection? 

The Clinton administration and 

other NPT signatories should stop 

wringing their hands over the period of 

time for which the Treaty should be extended. Instead they should be focused 

on using this month-long conference to 

enhance the viability of the NPT by 

making it a living document which enables and ensures multilateral enforcement of the Treaty’s provisions. Parties to the NPT should have confidence 

that its members will comply with the 

provisions of the Treaty, be supportive 

of its goals and that the proliferation 

of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology is eliminated. And, when a determination of a violation has been 

made by the international monitoring 

agency through its inspections and the 

United Nations Security Council has 

been notified, meaningful and appropriate actions or sanctions should be 

undertaken immediately. 

Mr President, once again, I rise to 

say that I support extension of the 

NPT. I only regret that the administration did not believe the NPT was important enough to strengthen it to 

make it a more viable and effective 

arms control agreement. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANTORUM). The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

GRAMS). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a vote 

has been scheduled at 6 o’clock by the 

managers on an amendment which has 

been offered by Senator CRAIG, Senator 

GRASSLEY, Senator BROWN, Senator 

KEMPTHORNE, and myself which would 

establish a sense of the Senate that 

hearings should be held on Ruby Ridge, 

ID, and Waco, TX, on or before June 30. 

The purpose of the amendment is to 

set a date where there may be an inquiry by the full Judiciary Committee 

on those events because of the widespread reports of public unrest as to 

what occurred there. 

I have attempted to get a hearing on 

the Waco incident since mid-1993. The 

incident there happened on April 19, 

1993. It has always seemed to me that it 

is not sufficient to have the executive 

branch investigate itself when there is 

so much concern as to the propriety of 

the action which was taken there, with 

the assaults and with the rush and with 

the gases which were used. 

There have been numerous reports 

and there is very substantial evidence 

of public unrest on what has happened 

there. It is speculative to an extent, or 

it may not be speculative, as to a connection between the Oklahoma City 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS