test_pdf.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>test</strong>imony 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 <strong>test</strong>imony 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
SENA ENATOR JACK REED SEN. REED: It’s not yesterday’s politics. It’s today’s politics but it’s not an issue of salience to most voters. Most folks worry about: Do I have a job? Is my healthcare there or have I lost it? Are my kids going to college and how can I pay for it? They worry in general about the national security issues that are taking center stage. Iraq, they worry a lot about that. There’s a lot of concern about that. But as far as the details of arms control, I don’t think you’d ever see that as a 30-second commercial on television in any campaign. But that doesn’t obligate leaders to pay attention, to work at it, to be cognizant of it, and it certainly doesn’t eliminate the need, as an elected official, to pay attention to it, and particularly in the context of the president, to assemble around you people and policies that are supportive of arms control, not that undermine arms control. So you’ll never see a commercial, I think, in terms of my position on the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But any serious person here in Washington, any serious person in the White House has to have such a policy and has to work every day to make sure they have some traction in the world. MR. KIMBALL: One final question before we conclude. We heard General Habiger in the previous session talk about how the U.S. nuclear posture has not appreciably changed over the last 15 to 20 years in terms of certain assumptions regarding the Russian stockpile and arsenal. The Department of Defense is due to deliver a new stockpile memorandum to Capitol Hill yet many of your colleagues have had a difficult time encouraging a debate about this because this is a classified document. Former Senator Bob Kerrey has talked about this. I’m wondering if you foresee an opportunity on the Armed Services Committee this year to discuss what the stockpile memorandum might suggest about the weapons complex, U.S. policy, and how might you work with your fellow Republicans to forge a process by which there can be a better dialogue about this very secret and opaque document. SEN. REED: Well, Daryl, you put your finger on one of the difficulties, which is it is secret. So there is a natural, not only reluctance, but a natural legal tendency not to be discussing these things in open sessions. But that, again, does not relieve us of the obligation to look carefully, not just in private but to discuss those aspects we can discuss and debate it. I wasn’t here for General Habiger’s speech but if you took a snapshot in the 1980s and took a snapshot today of our stockpile, it wouldn’t look much different. We might have moved some of the cards that designate whether it’s active or inactive, but that’s all we’ve done. And certainly it would seem to me to be a situation where we have the opportunity, particularly with the improved relationship with Russia, as evidenced by discussions this week between Secretary Powell and President Putin, to take real steps in terms of reducing significantly our stockpiles. I hope we do. We’re going to try to discuss these issues, both in committee and also on the floor, and I hope we are able to break through and get a good debate going. 71 71
Page 1 and 2:
1 The Paul C. Warnke Conference on
Page 3 and 4:
AUL C. W PAUL AUL C. WARNKE Ambassa
Page 5 and 6:
global arms control measures, and b
Page 7 and 8:
will be here. And we also have Paul
Page 9 and 10:
PANEL ONE NE Assessing the Record o
Page 11 and 12:
ASSESSING THE RECORD OF ARMS CONTRO
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: ASSESSING THE RECORD OF ARMS CONTRO
Page 21 and 22: ASSESSING THE RECORD OF ARMS CONTRO
Page 23 and 24: CHAIR • John Steinbruner ASSESSIN
Page 25 and 26: PANEL TWO Meeting Today’s Prolife
Page 27 and 28: MEETING TODA ODAY’S PROLIFERA ROL
Page 41 and 42: KEYNOTE SPEAKER JOHN ISAACS [Presid
Page 43 and 44: SENA ENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN that Sandi
Page 45 and 46: SENA ENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN If you had
Page 47 and 48: SENA ENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN not it was
Page 49 and 50: S enator Joseph Biden is the senior
Page 51 and 52: PANEL THREE Addressing Future Arms
Page 53 and 54: ADDRESSING FUTURE ARMS CONTROL AND
Page 67 and 68: SENA ENATOR JACK REED power will li
Page 69: SENA ENATOR JACK REED Cold War worl
Page 73 and 74: GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Georgetown Un
Page 75: ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIA SSOCIATION The
show all

test_pdf.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?