Clinton Willing to Delay Vote on Test Ban Treaty

President Clinton signaled Wednesday that he would accept a postponement of next week’s scheduled vote on a global nuclear test ban treaty rather than risk near-certain defeat.

But Senate conservatives, led by outspoken treaty foe Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), demanded the president request the delay in writing and that he also promise not to seek action on it through the remainder of his presidency.

The White House quickly brushed aside that demand.

“The issue of debating [the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] should be dictated by the national security interests of the United States, not the political calendar,” said White House spokesman David Leavy.

“I’m not aware of any plans for the president to send a letter, whatsoever,” he added.

Although Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) indicated they still hoped to work out some kind of deal, both sides made preparations for the coming battle.

“I thank the senators who are here with us today and pray that they can swell their ranks by next week,” Clinton said in an East Room ceremony where he collected endorsements of the treaty from 32 Nobel laureates in physics and a collection of retired military leaders.

Clinton, who has made the treaty a top foreign policy priority, earlier hinted he might accept a delay if one were offered by Senate leaders. “After two long years of inaction, one week is very little time for considered action,” he said.

The treaty would extend the present international ban on nuclear tests in the atmosphere to underground testing as well, resulting in a total ban on all nuclear explosions, no matter how small.

Democrats have balked at being seen as initiating such a delay, or being denied a chance to bring up the treaty in the 2000 presidential election year.

But Helms, who had kept it bottled up in his Foreign Relations Committee for two years, told a news conference, “We’re ready to vote.”

Democrats, seeing they lack the votes to ratify the treaty, “are trying to dictate the terms of their own surrender,” Helms said.

Helms’ objection is significant because under Senate rules any move to cancel next week’s vote would require unanimous consent of the Senate.