ABOVE ONE KILOTON. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, A ONE-KILOTON LIMIT BAN
           -- SENATOR GORE, STANDING RIGHT OVER THERE SAID AT THE TIME,
           WAS UNVERIFYABLE. THE SAME THING THE C.I.A. SAYS TODAY. AT
           SENATOR GORE'S INSISTENCE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS MODIFIED
           TO RAISE THE LIMIT FOR NUCLEAR TESTING FROM ONE- ONE-KILOTON
           LIMIT TO A FIVE-KILOTON LIMIT. NOW, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT

           SENATOR GORE'S POSITION HAS TAKEN ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN -- AS
           TAKEN ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN 1988 WAS. HE SAID, "MR. PRESIDENT,
           I WANT TO EXPRESS A LINGERING CONCERN ABOUT THE THRESHOLD
           CONTAINED IN THE AMENDMENT." THEN HE CONTINUED, "WITHOUT REGARD
           TO THE MILITARY USEFULNESS OF LACK OF USEFULNESS OF A
           ONE-KILOTON VERSUS THE FIVE-KILOTON TEST, PURELY WITH REGARD TO
           VERIFICATION, I," HE SAID, "AM CONCERNED THAT A ONE-KILOTON

           TEST REALLY PUSHES VERIFICATION TO THE LIMIT, EVEN WITH
           EXTENSIVE COOPERATIVE MEASURES. I EXPRESS," AL GORE SAID,
           SENATOR AL GORE, "I EXPRESS THE DESIRE THAT THIS THRESHOLD BE
           CHANGED FROM ONE TO FIVE." NOW, IF SENATOR GORE ARGUED ON THE
           SENATE FLOOR THAT A ONE-KILOTON TEST BAN WAS UNVERIFIABLE,
           SURELY THE ZERO- ZERO-YIELD BAN -- THAT IS, TO SAY A BAN ON ALL

           NUCLEAR TESTS -- WOULD BE EQUALLY UNVERIFIABLE, DON'T YOU SEE.
           NOW THEN, PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS ARGUED THAT SEVERAL FORMER
           CHAIRMEN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF STRONGLY BACK HIS CALL
           FOR A COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY BANNING ANY AND ALL NUCLEAR
           TESTS. NOW, IT'S INTERESTING. LET'S LOOK AT THAT FOR A MINUTE.
           NOW, THEIR STATEMENTS WHEN THEY WERE STILL IN UNIFORM, WE NEED
           TO LOOK AT WHAT THESE MEN SAID AND FELT. THE STATEMENTS RAISE

           DOUBTS ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLAIMS THAT THESE MEN
           VIGOROUSLY SUPPORT THE CTBT. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT GENERAL COLIN
           POWELL, THEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, SAID ON
           DECEMBER 1, 1992. AND I AM QUOTING DIRECTLY COLIN POWELL,
           DECEMBER 1, 1992 1992. "WITH RESPECT TO A COMPREHENSIVE TEST
           BAN THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FUNDAMENTAL POLICY GOAL OF OURS, BUT
           AS LONG AS WE HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS WEAPONS, WE HAVE A

           RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING SURE THAT OUR STOCKPILE REMAINS SAFE
           SAFE." COLIN POWELL SPEAKING, REMEMBER. "AND TO KEEP THAT
           STOCKPILE SAFE, WE HAVE TO CONDUCT A LIMIT NUMBER OF NUCLEAR
           TESTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHAT A NUCLEAR WEAPON WILL
           ACTUALLY DO AND HOW IT IS AGING AND TO FIND OUT A LOT OF OTHER
           PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH RESPECT TO THE NUCLEAR
           PHENOMENON. AS LONG AS WE HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS," COLIN POWELL
           SAID, "I THINK AS GOOD STEWARDS OF THEM, WE HAVE TO CONDUCT

           TESTING." NOW, GENERAL POWELL PREVIOUSLY HAD MADE MUCH THE SAME
           DECLARATION DURING A SENATE HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1991.
           LET'S QUOTE HIM AGAIN -- COLIN POWELL -- "WE NEED NUCLEAR
           TESTING TO ENSURE THE SAFETY, THE SURETY OF OUR NUCLEAR
           STOCKPILE. AND AS LONG AS ONE HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS, YOU HAVE TO
           KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY WILL DO, AND SO I WOULD RECOMMEND" WHAT?
           -- "NUCLEAR TESTING." NOW, WHAT GENERAL POWELL SAID BACK THEN

           WAS AS TRUE AS IT IS TODAY. SIMILARLY, ADMIRAL WILLIAM CROWE,
           WHO OPPOSED THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY WHEN HE WAS
           CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, IN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
           SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON MAY 5, 1986, ADMIRAL
           CROWE, THE CHAIRMAN, SAID, "A COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN WOULD
           INTRODUCE ELEMENTS OF UNCERTAINTY THAT WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR
           ALL CONCERNED." HE FURTHER DECLARED, "I, FRANKLY, DO NOT
           UNDERSTAND WHY CONGRESS WOULD WANT TO SUSPEND TESTING ON ONE OF

           THE MOST CRITICAL AND SOPHISTICATED ELEMENTS OF OUR NUCLEAR
           DETERRENT; NAMELY, THE WARHEAD WARHEAD." HOW ABOUT GENERAL
           DAVID JONES?
           LIKEWISE, HE SAID DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING BEFORE THE
           SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE, "I WOULD HAVE GREAT
           DIFFICULTY REMMENDING A ZERO TEST BAN FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD
           PERIOD. AND AMONG THE GENERAL'S REASONS FOR OPPOSITION WERE,
           ACCORDING TO A MAY 29, 1978, PRESS RELEASE, THAT THE CTBT --
           QUOTE -- "IS NOT VERIFIABLE AND THAT U.S. STOCKPILE RELIABITY

           COULD NOT BE ASSURED." NOW, TO MAKE NUMEROUS PRESS ACCOUNTS
           FROM 1994 AND 1995 INDICATED THAT GENERAL JOHN SHALIKASHVILI --
           I NEVER WAS ABLE TO PRONOUNCE THAT GENTLEMAN'S NAME --
           MAINTAINED STRONG RESERVATIONS REGARDING A ZERO-YIELD TEST BAN
           AND MADE CLEAR THAT HE FAVORED MAINTENANCE ON THE ABILITY TO
           CONDUCT LOW-YIELD TESTS ANY UNDER -- UNDER ANY NEGOTIATED
           TREATY. INDEED, THESE COMMENTS BY THESE FORMER CHAIRMEN OF THE

           JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, WHILE THEY WERE IN UNIFORM, STRONGLY
           ECHO THE CURRENT VIEWS OF OTHER FORMER CHAIRMEN OF THE JOINT
           CHIEFS, SUCH AS ADMIRAL TOM MOORE AND GENERAL JOHN VESSEY JR.,
           BOTH OF WHOM TODAY STRONGLY OPPOSE THE CTBT. NOW AGAIN, I MUST
           EMPHASIZE THAT ALL OF THESE MEN ARE DISTINGUISHED AMERICANS
           WITH WHOM I GREATLY ADMIRE AND RESPECT. AND MY POINT TODAY, MR.
           PRESIDENT, IS SIMPLY TO SHOW THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF SENATORS

           COHEN AND GORE AND CHAIRMAN POWELL, CROWE, JONES AND OTHERS
           WERE RIGHT THEN AND THEY ARE RIGHT TODAY. NUCLEAR TESTING IS
           VITAL TO MAINTAINING THE SAFETY OF OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE
           RELIABILITY OF OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT. A ZERO-YIELD -- THAT IS,
           TO SAY A TOTAL AND COMPLETE NUCLEAR TEST BAN -- IS
           UNVERIFIABLE. AND A COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY THAT BARS ANY

           AND ALL NUCLEAR TESTING IS DANGEROUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
           AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE UNITED STATES SENATE WILL NOT
           RATIFY SUCH A DAWNINGOUS AND UNWISE -- SUCH A DANGEROUS AND
           UNWISE TREATY. MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK YOU, AND I YIELD THE
           FLOOR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY IS
           RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. LAUTENBERG: MR. PRESIDENT, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK
           AND ASK FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY, MR. LAUTENBERG,
           PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 2267 TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 1851.
           AT THE END OF THE AMENDMENT,
           
           ADD THE FOLLOWING: SECTION, PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY
           SURPLUSES. A, FINDINGS. THE SENATE FINDS THE FOLLOWING
           FOLLOWING. ONE, THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE HAS PROJECTED
           THAT CONGRESS IS HEADING TOWARDS USING AT LEAST $19 BILLION OF
           THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS IN FISCAL YEAR 2000. TWO, AMENDMENT

           NUMBER 1851 CALLS FOR ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS WHICH COULD RESULT
           IN A BROAD-BASED REDUCTION OF 10%, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
           APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND OTHER COSTS LIKELY TO BE
           INCURRED IN THE FUTURE, SUCH AS RELIEF FOR HURRICANE VICTIMS,
           KOSOVO, AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. THREE, THESE
           ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS WOULD SHARPLY REDUCE MILITARY READINESS
           AND LONG-TERM DEFENSE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS, CUT EMERGENCY AID
           TO FARMERS, AND HURRICANE VICTIMS VICTIMS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
           CHILDREN SERVED BY HEAD START, CUT BACK AID TO SCHOOLS TO HELP
           REDUCE THE CLASS SIZE, SEVERELY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF VETERANS

           SERVED IN V.A. HOSPITALS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF F.B.I. AND
           BORDER PATROL AGENTS --
           

           MR. LAUTENBERG: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
           FURTHER READING OF THE AMENDMENT BE DISPENSED WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. LAUTENBERG: MR. PRESIDENT, I OBVIOUSLY WENT IN A SLIGHTLY
           DIFFERENT DIRECTION AS WE INTRODUCED OUR SECOND-DEGREE
           AMENDMENT HERE BECAUSE I WANTED PARTICULARLY THE CLERK TO READ
           SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE FACING IF WE
           ADOPT THE NICKLES AMENDMENT. MY AMENDMENT IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
           THE NICKLES AMENDMENT, AND IT'S VERY SIMPLE. IT EXPRESSES THE
           SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE CONGRESS MUST NOT PERMIT RAIDING

           SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES NOR INDISCRIMINATELY CUT DEFENSE,
           EMERGENCY RELIEF, EDUCATION, VETERANS' HEALTH CARE, LAW
           ENFORCEMENT, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP, AND OTHER
           DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS ACROSS THE BOARD. INSTEAD, WE
           SHOULD FUND FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS. AND I POINT OUT
           THAT THE YEAR HAS BEGUN OCTOBER 1. WITHOUT USING BUDGETARY
           GIMMICKS. BY CLOSING SPECIAL INTEREST TAX LOOPHOLES AND USE --

           USING OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFSETS. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, IN MY
           VIEW, THERE IS A MUCH MORE RATIONAL AND APPROPRIATE WAY TO
           APPROACH THE BUDGET. DEEP ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS ARE A BAD WAY
           TO DO BUSINESS, AND THEY'LL PROVE EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR.
           AMERICANS DIDN'T SEND US TO WASHINGTON TOUSE -- TO SIMPLY USE A
           MEAT AX APPROACH TO GOVERNING. THEY WANT US TO DO IT
           THOUGHTFULLY. THEY WANT US TO GO AFTER WASTE. THEY WANT US TO
           SEARCH OUT INEFFICIENCY. THEY WANT US TO USE OUR JUDGMENT AND

           SUPPORT ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS LIKE EDUCATION. THE NICKLES
           AMENDMENT, BY CONTRAST, PUTS THE BUDGET PROCESS ON AUTOMATIC
           PILOT. IT WOULD CUT INDISCRIMINATELY, AND I READ FROM THE TEXT
           OF THE NICKLES AMENDMENT. WHERE THEY SAY IN THE SENSE OF THE
           SENATE AMENDMENT THAT, "CONGRESS SHOULD ENSURE THE FISCAL YEAR

           2000 APPROPRIATION MEASURES DO NOT RESULT IN AN ON-BUDGET
           DEFICIT." ON-BUDGET IS -- INCLUDES SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS,
           BUT THEY PUT PER RENT SEES AROUND THAT, BY ADOPTING THE -- THIS
           IS THE SOLUTION THAT THEY OFFER -- ADOPT AN AKS-THE
           AKS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION IN ALL DISCRETIONARY -- AN
           ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION IN ALL DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS
           SUFFICIENT TO ELIMINATE SUCH DEFICIT, IF NECESSARY. THE
           LANGUAGE IS QUITE CLEAR. BUT TO FURTHER CLARIFY, IT SAYS CUT

           THESE PROGRAMS, THE ONES THAT I TALKED ABOUT. CUT VETERANS'
           HEALTH BENEFIT, CUT EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS, CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT,
           CUT F.B.I., CUT BORDER GUARDS, EVEN THOUGH OUR BORDER IS
           SATURATED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, AND WE OUGHT TO MAKE AN
           ORDERLY PROCESS ABOUT IT. THE NICKLES AMENDMENT MAKES NO
           DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRITICAL PRIORITIES LIKE EDUCATION,
           DEFENSE, AND LOWER PRIORITIES LIKE CORPORATE SUBSIDIES OR

           PORK-BARREL SPENDING. THERE IS NO NEED, MR. PRESIDENT
           PRESIDENT, FOR A MEAT-AX APPROACH. THE REPUBLICANS' OWN TAX
           BILL PROPOSED TO CLOSE VARIOUS TAX LOOPHOLES, AND NOW THAT THAT
           BILL'S BEEN VETOED, WHY NOT USE SOME OF THE SAME LOOPHOLES TO
           HELP PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY SECURITY?
           AND PREVENT POTENTIALLY PAINFUL CUTS IN EDUCATION AND OTHER
           PRIORITIES?
           OR WHY NOT SEARCH FOR WASTE IN OTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS?
           HOW MANY OF US HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT WASTE AS WE'VE CAMPAIGNED FOR OFFICE?

           SHOULDN'T WE GO AFTER THAT BEFORE WE TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM OUR
           SCHOOLS OR OUR ARMED FORCES?
           MY -- MR. PRESIDENT, MY AMENDMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE OFFSETS
           THAT WE SHOULD ADOPT AND IT IN NO WAY ENDORSES RAISING INCOME
           TAXES ON ORDINARY FAMILIES. BUT IT DOES SAY THAT WE HAVE TO
           TREAT THE BUDGET CANDIDLY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD

           ALL BE ALERT TO -- THE PUBLIC IN PARTICULAR, BUT CERTAINLY WE
           HERE WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS -- IT SAYS, "G.O.P. USING
           'TWO SETS OF BOOKS.'" COMMENTARY BY THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL,"
           JULY 27. "REPUBLICANS ARE DOUBLE-COUNTING A BIG PART OF NEXT
           YEAR'S SURPLUS, PAPERING OVER THE FACT THAT THEIR PROPOSED TAX
           CUTS AND SPENDING BILLS ALREADY HAVE EXHAUSTED AVAILABLE

           FUNDS." IF IT WERE UP TO ME, AS I SAID EARLIER TODAY, I'D ASK
           THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TO COMPENSATE THE TAXPAYERS FOR THE DAMAGE
           THEY CAUSE AND HELP US REPAY -- OR HELP PAY FOR TOBACCO-RELATED
           DISEASES THAT COST US SOME $20 BILLION A YEAR. IF WE COULD GET
           THAT $20 BILLION A YEAR, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE FACED WITH THE

           PROSPECT OF CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES BY SOME $19
           BILLION. BUT ONCE AGAIN, THIS AMENDMENT -- MY AMENDMENT DOESN'T
           ENDORSE THAT PARTICULAR APPROACH OR ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION. IT
           JUST SAYS, LET'S BE HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND
{END: 1999/10/06 TIME: 13-15 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}