Transcripts For CSPAN2 Interview With Larry Pressler Neighbours In Arms 20171225

[applause] joining us now is senator and that are larry pressler, the request for disarmament in a nuclear sub. What is the Pressler Amendment that you discuss in your book. The Pressler Amendment prohibited aid with pakistan if it developed a Nuclear Weapon or using our money for a Nuclear Weapon and it was enhorsed by president george h. W. Bush, and then bill clinton admin statively lifted it. John glenn and i worked on this as partners. I believe there would not be Nuclear Weapons in the indian s subcontinent today. It was clear that pakistan was being given Nuclear Weapons by our pentagon and so, the United States has been a main proliferator of not only Nuclear Weapons, but of conventional weapons and then pakistan in turn, sold them to north korea with our octopus approval and so we had been a major proliferator of Nuclear Weapons, but so thats part of the passion that i have, and wakes people up to that fact. Okay. Before we get into what this octopus is what you refer to, where did your interest in this develop . I became chairman. Arms control subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and i gotten meshed in this issue way back in the 1970s. I got interested in this when i was in the u. S. House. I served 22 years in congress, but, and so, this was a great interest at that time, Nuclear Nonproliferation because brazil was in the process of developing a Nuclear Weapon and they backed off because of my amendment. Because they thought they would get endangled in this fight. And the Pressler Amendment was debated for years, and formed the basis of the debate we had on asia and still is to some extent, but it was loriargely lifted by bill clinton and i used to talk to al gore, you guys talk like youre Nuclear Nonproliferation guys, but the first thing you do is lift the Pressler Amendment against pack san so they can now have Nuclear Weapons and the om answer i got was we dont know why, but were for letting them have the bomb. So, india had a Nuclear Weapon. No, india didnt have one at the beginning of the Pressler Amendment and india was not going to develop a bomb millions pakistan got one. And the u. S. Gave the technology to india. To pakistan. To pakistan. Okay. In your view, pakistan, should they be declared a terrorist state . Yes, i say that in my book. They should be declared a terrorist state and they are . Why . Because they harbor terrorists and their Nuclear Weapons are controlled by four different sets of generals, its not one thing. The president of the United States cannot launch without the concurrence of 15 other people. The usual suspects, president pro tem of the senate, speaker of the house and so forth. But in pakistan, there are more sets of general, any of whom could sell a Nuclear Weapon. Im trying to write a novel of stopping novel terrorists going and buying four or five bombs and bringing them to my home state of south dakota and storing them and setting them off in different cities at different times and that could be done easily. So its a very dangerous situation that were in. And pakistan, i think, is much more dangerous than north korea. Really . Yes. Then why do you think that the u. S. Has been allied with pakistan for many years . Because we have a military industrial state and we that has formed an octopus of the arms contractors, the law firms and the lobbying firms, all the people who are pro arms exports, they have formed an octopus and they are all over washington. For example, john glenn and i had an amendment preventing the Defense Department and the state department, sending any arms to pakistan and then they go over to the Commerce Department and they get a sophisticated Licensing Agreement to tell them the same thing. It went on and on. Foreign policy is not made in the traditional way any more of congressionalal hearings or the state Department Policy planning. And the very first thing that the indian ambassador has to do. Fire five or six lobby law firms to lobby for them. And thats the truth of the matter and its tragic. Washington d. C. Is the only capital where thats true and so its big money and most of the. Has behind it, Arms Companies or even foundations. The brookings foundation, for example, gets a lot of funding from Arms Companies and theyre very much complicit in giving arms to both india and pakistan. So, this octopus that you refer to, is it a follow the money situation . Yes, it is. By and large. And i describe it. Our whole Foreign Policy is now made by this octopus. I was talking to young students, im a professor at times and they want to be active in Foreign Policy they ought to join a lobbying firms or law firms, theyll have more influence than in the United States senate. Thats a very sad situation. Senator pressler, do you think that india should be a Nuclear Power . Well, it is and it will remain. Once the countries get Nuclear Weapons almost no way to avoid. India would not have Nuclear Weapons if pakistan had not. For example, the other day the brazilian ambassador confirmed whats in my book that brazil almost had a Nuclear Weapon. And they had one and argentina would have one. And we would have had a Nuclear South america. If brazil had one, argentina would have got one under the dictatorship and venezuela would have and castro probably would have. And so these things have a sequential occurrence. Once we, in our pentagon, and arms lobby industry was very much for pakistan getting a Nuclear Weapon and once that happened, then india developed one. Should the u. S. Continue to get closer with india, in your view . Yes, certainly we can, but be very careful about this because the socalled new agreement between india and the United States is mostly an arms Sales Agreement on our part. And an arms assistance act. For example, obamas last trip to india was largely an arms sale trip, it wasnt diplomate. Theres nothing about helping the people of india or spreading better agriculture or getting rid of pollution. They say that its a nuclear thing to use Nuclear Materials peacefully, but they didnt resolve the liability issues so Everybody Knows it will never happen on the peaceful side. So, today, india is buying a lot of arms in the u. S. Its an improverished nation and millions, end up being billions armed conventional and nuclear from the United Statesments Larry Presslers book, the senators request for disarmament in a nuclear subcontinent. Whats your take on the current state of the u. S. Senate . Well, the strange thing about the senate, they do everything by one vote. Now, when it was run by howard baker and all day, for example, the tax bill, theyll wait until everybody agrees and they have one vote. They should be voting on amendments all day, you should know your senators position on the Real Estate Tax and there should be amendments they vote on. Its almost assumptional. The health care and the tax bill, they tried to get it down to one vote and everybody has to agree verbally and so forth and they should be voting on amendments all day, regular order and send it to the president. If he vetoes it, and thats the way it was when i was there. Thats not being done anymore so they have few votes on key issues. The tax would be one vote and should be 40 a day. And keep it there until midnight voting, youd be on regard on everything. They dont want to go on record with anything and thats especially true with Foreign Policy. They just dont want to vote like the war powers act, anything like that and its very unfortunate. And its partially due to the public. The public punishes senators for taking specific positions. So its a very sad i try to teach political science, but im for regular order going back to the old way of legislating amendments, offered on the floor, and several votes a day. Before we got started on this interview, you and i were chatting and we talked about the fact that senator franken is not going to be at this interview or at the book fair because of his current situation. You mentioned that you were in the senate during bob packwoods. Thats correct, and i dont know all the facts or any of the facts about this case, but bob packwood was essentially, well, he did resign on the threat of expulsion, but that was some years ago and i dont know how much how much the analogies are. Not being in the senate, i dont have as much information. Well, larry pressler. Let me say i like both senator franken and senator packwood, and i think that packwood was a brilliant fax lawyer and im sure al was brilliant, also. Neighbors in arms,