Space

[Page: S2509]

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today I want to say a few words about one of the most important agencies in our Government: The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA].

Establishment of ACDA was one of the highest achievements of President John F. Kennedy. He created it to make a dangerous world less dangerous; to control, reduce, and eliminate the spread and existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Today, the world is at least as dangerous as it was then, though for different reasons. Technology has made the design and construction of mass destruction weapons more easily available to more people. International terrorism runs rampant on an unprecedented scale. And the massive nuclear power of the former Soviet Union is now in the hands of not one but several countries, all of them under severe economic and political stress.

Mr. President, if ACDA did not exist, we would be here today trying to invent it.

Arms control is like neurosurgery. It is no place for beginners. It is one of the most complicated things you can imagine.

ACDA is the only body in this Government that stands up as an independent voice for arms control.

There are those who say ACDA should be disbanded, merged into the State Department. I believe they are wrong. Let me explain why.

The purpose of the State Department is to help create and maintain good relations with foreign governments. That is fine; that is their job and they do it well. But sometimes this clashes with the need to control weapons of mass destruction.

Here's an example: When the Non-Proliferation Treaty was proposed in the Kennedy administration, the State Department opposed it because it might offend some of our allies who might want their own nuclear weapons. ACDA said no, the fewer nations with nukes the better. ACDA prevailed, and has been vindicated by history. If there had been no ACDA, today we would see the nuclear weapons club many times larger than it is.

Here is another example: When it became clear that Pakistan was going for nuclear weapons, the State Department said, we do not want to offend the Pakistani Government, so let us find ways around the Pressler amendment, let us find ways to keep giving them aid anyway. ACDA said no, the law says Pakistani nukes and United States aid do not mix. ACDA prevailed, and was again vindicated by history.

Here is a third example: When the Reagan administration tried to violate the ABM Treaty by distorting what it said, the general counsel of ACDA was the only one with the guts to say no, you cannot do that; you cannot violate a treaty just because you do not like it. This became the position taken by Congress--and again, history has proven ACDA right.

This kind of situation is going to come up again. President Clinton is going to be dealing with START, the chemical weapons convention, and the nonproliferation review. He is going to begin negotiations toward a comprehensive nuclear test ban. He is going to have the most difficult high-technology export control decisions to make.

In all of these, the State Department will be tempted to give first priority to smooth Government-to-Government relations. The Commerce Department is going to give first priority to profitable exports. As I said, that is fine. That is what we pay them to do.

But there has to be some other voice at the table to stand up and say, `Mr. President, if you do that, you'll risk putting country X closer to nuclear weapons capability, and here's why. We think that's a bad idea, and here's why.'

President Clinton may or may not give priority to arms control in any particular case. But he needs to hear all sides so he can make an informed choice. With ACDA at the table, he will hear the case for arms control. Without ACDA, he will not. No State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary is going to tell the President the Secretary of State is mistaken.

I have heard the claim that we can save money by folding ACDA into State. That is nonsense. ACDA's experts are not duplicated in any other agency and we will have to keep them. All that will do is take the same people put a different label on them. But they will be part of a larger, less efficient, less dedicated organizational structure. We will be paying at least as much and getting a lot less.

Mr. President, ACDA needs rejuvenation and revitalization. During the Reagan administration, it was undermined by those who just did not think arms control was a good idea. But now that undermining is gone, and those who did it are gone. Our job is to continue the work begun by President Kennedy. It is not to finish the work of those whom the American people rejected in November.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I do not like spending money. But the $46 million we spend on ACDA this year will come back to us many times over in the form of weapons not proliferated, weapons limited, weapons destroyed. We are talking about an annual budget less than one-tenth the cost of one B-2 bomber. That is good value.

The State Department inspector general has recommended that ACDA be revitalized. So has a very detailed report by the Stimson Center. I agree.

I urge the White House to begin ACDA revitalization on the most expedited basis. The first step is to appoint a director with the status and access needed for the very difficult challenges that lie ahead. If congressional action is needed in support of ACDA revitalization, I stand ready to offer my full cooperation.

In closing, Mr. President, ACDA is one of our best tools for making these perilous times less perilous. We need it as never before, and I for one intend to support it.