Online NewsHour: Tabling the Treaty -- October 12, 1999



	TABLING THE TREATY

October 12, 1999

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has asked the Senate to delay a vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After this background report, four senators debate the uncertain future of the treaty.

Oct. 12, 1999:
Four senators discuss the test ban treaty.

Oct. 11, 1999:
Experts discuss the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Oct. 11, 1999:
A background report on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Oct. 6, 1999:
The Senate holds its first hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

June 1, 1999:
Tensions flare between India and Pakistan over Kashmir

June 11, 1998:
A Newsmaker interview with Jaswant Singh on India's nuclear capabilities

June 4, 1998:
A discussion on nuclear testing in India and Pakistan

May 12, 1998:
Tensions grow around India's nuclear tests

Nov. 18, 1996:
An Online forum on nuclear proliferation

More NewsHour Asia and United Nations coverage.

Department of Defense

KWAME HOLMAN: There were indications early on today that a Senate vote on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, a vote certain to kill the treaty, might be delayed.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I mean, we're looking at a crossroads in history, which affects this nation for decades to come. What possible rush to judgment compels a vote tonight or tomorrow?

KWAME HOLMAN: Virginia Republican John Warner is a key player in the debate over the test ban treaty. He's chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee and last week held three days of hearings to consider the merits and pitfalls of signing onto a treaty that would ban tests of nuclear weapons. Warner took testimony from current and former defense and energy secretaries, national weapons laboratory directors and other career professionals in the field of nuclear weapons. And although he is personally opposed to the treaty, Warner this morning said the evidence gathered left room for doubt, enough doubt to warrant postponing the vote.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Indeed, this treaty has not -- in my judgment -- in its present form -- but in the minds of others -- a potential to be another milestone of progress towards arms control and the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons. In fairness to all sides, would it not be wiser to delay the vote?

Continued debates on the treaty ban

KWAME HOLMAN: Warner announced that he and New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a treaty supporter, would send a letter to Senate colleagues urging them to agree to a delay. Yesterday, President Clinton sent a letter of his own to Majority Leader Trent Lott, claiming a vote now would severely harm "the national security."

SEN. JOHN KERRY: It seems to me this is closely divided enough and that there are legitimate enough concerns of national interest and national security that when the President of the United States makes a request in the interest of our nation -- to the Senate -- to delay the vote, it is only politics that would drive us to have that vote, notwithstanding that request. And my plea would be to my colleagues in the United States Senate that we find the capacity here to cool down a little bit, to have a vote that delays the consideration of this treaty, so that we may proceed to answer properly each of the questions raised by those who oppose it, and if needs be, make changes that would not send the message that the United States of America is rejecting outright this opportunity to embrace a policy that from Eisenhower on we have fought to try to adopt.

KWAME HOLMAN: Treaty supporters in the Senators, overwhelmingly Democrats, today were far from attracting the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty, but they needed only 51 votes to postpone the matter on a procedural motion. However, as the day wore on, Democrats lost hope that any Republican would support a procedural motion to delay.

Requesting a delay on the vote

SEN. TIM HUTCHINSON: Mr. President, I believe it is flawed; I believe it's defective; I believe it is not in our national security interests, and I believe it is our constitutional responsibility not to put it off but to vote our conscience, and I urge the defeat of what I believe is a flawed treaty.

KWAME HOLMAN: Majority Leader Lott emerged from an afternoon meeting with his Republican colleagues, saying he was ready and willing to vote, but Lott left open the possibility a vote could be prevented.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: I am ready to vote, I will vote against the treaty, and I expect it to be defeated. The other alternative is to set aside the vote and not have it voted on in this Congress. That means the balance of this year or next year, so that it will not be used to further rhetoric and politics. This is far too serious an issue to be treated in a cavalier way next year in the middle of a presidential election. But I've always said if we could be guaranteed that it would be set aside and not come up in this Congress, that we could accept that.

KWAME HOLMAN: Lott outlined what assurance Republicans would need.

SEN. TRENT LOTT: As long as we have an absolute commitment that cannot be violated with any kind of an escape hatch -- like barring unforeseen circumstances -- then I think we can work something out.

KWAME HOLMAN: And late this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle assured Lott in a letter that Senate Democrats would not seek to bring up the test ban treaty again this year or next.