On the recordSeptember 9, 1998
I want to commend to my colleagues the exceptionally thoughtful lead editorial in yesterday morning's Washington Post. It is entitled ``The Test Ban and Arms Control,'' and it makes some cogent points about the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and a Senate where few objections are raised to the Treaty itself, but most Republicans still cast symbolic votes against it. The Post notes correctly that leading Senate Republicans seem to assume that a national missile defense is the only answer to the problems of nuclear proliferation and the risk of nuclear war. As the Post concludes, however, treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty ``are capable of serving American requirements well.'' Whatever one's views on national missile defense, those treaties ``would strengthen the American position in the world.'' I would note two areas in which I disagree with the Post editorial. First of all, the Test-Ban Treaty was signed 2 years ago, rather than ``earlier this year.'' The Treaty was submitted to the Senate nearly a full year ago, and has languished because the Republican leadership is afraid to let it come up. I do not accept the Post's pessimistic view, moreover, of the Test-Ban Treaty's chances on the floor. In last week's vote, moderate Republicans could support their Leader without doing any tangible harm.
Source
govinfo.gov




