test_pdf.pdf

SENA
ENATOR
JACK
REED
ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It should engage Russia in further talks to accelerate
strategic nuclear reductions and verifiably dismantle excess nuclear weapons stockpiles, as well as pursue talks
that lead to the verifiable dismantlement of the thousands of tactical nuclear weapons remaining in Russia.
Today’s threats require a strong and nimble conventional military capability and not the development of new
or modified types of nuclear weapons designed to be used preemptively. The consequences of the detonation of a
nuclear weapon, or other weapons of mass destruction, are so devastating that reliance on military means alone to
deter or preempt such an event is shortsighted. Abandoning serious efforts at arms control will weaken, not
strengthen, our efforts to protect the nation and our allies from the development of nuclear weapons by others. Only
commitment and leadership to advance a comprehensive arms control regime can provide the security which we
all seek.
Thanks very much.
MR. KIMBALL: Senator Reed has agreed to take a few questions. He has time for maybe two or three, perhaps
more—we’ll see. If you could line up as we have all day, and beginning on the right.
Q: Yes. Senator, Senator Biden was telling us at lunch how very difficult it is these days to get the Senate to
focus on issues that it thinks important, or at least he thinks important. One he mentioned in particular was getting
the Senate to look seriously at whether it was the administration’s failure to look at the intelligence or the intelligence
itself that was faulty before the war in Iraq. You’ve laid out a broad agenda which Senator Biden said is no
longer on the front pages and only senators and representatives or the president can get it on the front pages. It
seems very difficult in the minority to get the hearings or the GAO reports that you usually use to advance this
agenda.
If that continues to be the case, would you consider taking it out on the road and having fora other than formal
hearing structures to put these issues back on the agenda again.
SEN. REED: Well, I agree with Joe’s analysis that these issues are not getting the attention they need because
we are preoccupied with some immediate problems, Iraq being the principle international security problem. And
frankly, I think we have to get these issues back in play, back in the forefront, and whether we can do it in
Washington or do it on the road, we should do it everywhere. In many cases it’s not that we’re not speaking up and
debating, it’s that we’re not catching the attention of the media and then consequently the community at large. We
have to be a little more effective doing that.
It certainly would help us if we were in the majority to get our program across. It would help in many ways
too if we were in the majority but, you know, I’m not averse to going out and speaking. And I’m struck sometimes
by our focus and preoccupation in Washington. I think among groups around the country there is discussion of
these issues.
I think—and I don’t want to do an instant analysis of the primary election, but there seems to be a sizable
group of individuals who are registering their displeasure about policies. I’m struck by the fact that New Hampshire
was the state the president carried. New Hampshire is also a state in which independents vote in Democratic
primaries. In fact, exit polls actually identified Republicans, self-declared Republicans, saying they voted in the
primary. So I think this is beginning to build up. But you’re right; it’s not getting the kind of attention we need.
This question might be segue to in terms of the issue of Iraq intelligence because Dr. [David] Kay was before
the Armed Services Committee today and I had a chance to ask him a few questions, and my colleagues had a
chance to ask him a few questions. His testimony today was consistent with his service to the country. He’s a very
dedicated, patriotic individual of great integrity and he was, I think, trying to be as candid and forthright as anyone
could be there. He clearly indicated that from his perspective there are no weapons of mass destruction, no large
stockpiles. There were none before the war. The supposed vans that Vice President Cheney talks about were likely
used for the production of hydrogen, not for biological weapons. But on the other side, he indicated that he
probably would likely have made the same judgments given the information he saw.
But what comes out of that testimony today is, if not a direct, certainly an indirect —an indictment might not
be too strong a word—of our intelligence operations and the ability of our national leaders to successfully integrate
intelligence. So that is the issue of the moment, and that is getting some footing on Capitol Hill.
Q: I’m Bob Barry, once an arms control negotiator. This is really a related question because I’ve been in New
Hampshire; I’ve been to a lot of campaign rallies. The issues you bring up have not been discussed in any detail
there, and I sense that this is not an issue that congressional candidates are going to want to bring up much in the
campaigns this year because it’s an issue that’s an issue of the past. What’s your sense of this? Is this an issue that
people can gain traction with, or is it sort of yesterday’s politics?
70
70