INTERVIWER: Let's go. So let's kick this off with a bit of talk about legislation that is pending or existing. Can you tell us what's going on legislatively?

Sen. LEAHY: We currently have on, on the books the Leahy Moratorium, which is that you can't use most types of antipersonnel land mines for one year beginning February first. The United States cannot next year.

Now I expect that there may be some changes on that, but if there are any they have to be changes that would drive us toward the ultimate goal of signing the International Land Mine Treaty. That would direct any kind of legislation that I propose, or any new kind of legislation I propose will have to be designed with the goal of getting us to the point where the United States, one of the last major holdouts, will sign the land mine treaty.

INTERVIEWER: Tell us then why is the United States' signature on the land mine treaty so important, and why the, why is the treaty as a whole so critical?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, the United States is not creating the problems that some in Cambodia and parts of Central America and other places have. But the United States carries the greatest moral force, really, of any country. Without us signing it allows a lot of other countries not to sign, countries we really want to sign.

With us signing the treaty, we help in the enforcement and we help in the ability to get countries together to not only ban the use of land mines but to start removing the land mines that are in the ground. I think it's extremely important the United States gets involved.

INTERVIEWER: Great. Would you please address the, the very strong argument that the President's policy is in keeping with the advice of every active four-star general, and that is a policy of not signing and not involving--

Sen. LEAHY: The, the President's position does reflect that of the Department of Defense and those who are in the, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It flies in the face of most of the retired four-star generals. There are, general after general after general upon retiring have said we ought to ban land mines, that they look at it, they don't have to follow the official line, and they say let's get rid of the land mines. A dozen or more of the key generals in our country now retired signed an open letter to the President asking him to ban land mines.

The, the difficulty we have is that the Pentagon institutionally doesn't, never wants to give up a, a weapon. Back at the time of the Geneva Convention in the early part of the century, the Pentagon didn't want to give up poison gas because they said, well, there are some instances where we might use it. And they say today we don't want to give up land mines because there are some instances where we can use them. Well, of course there are. There are instances where we can use chemical weapons. There is instances where we can use tactical nuclear weapons. But we have certain types of weapons that we agree we ought to give up.

And most people, one of the reasons why every Senator who was in combat in Vietnam have joined in my legislation 'cause most of 'em realize that these land mines are a double-edged sword. Our own land mines could hurt us as much as help us. And usually, when the United States goes in, the best-equipped, best-trained, strongest military force in an area, the thing that we have to fear the most is somebody's five-dollar land mine.

INTERVIEWER: Tell us this. How is it that, that other countries that signed the ban, such as Germany, South Africa, France, and so on, were over, able to overcome resistant militaries when America's not able to do that. What--

Sen. LEAHY: Well, we're at, we're at two things. One, these other countries do look at us and say we can't understand how you can be the most powerful nation on earth and say you want us to give up our land mines, but you're not powerful enough to give up yours. And there really is no good answer to that. Now we, do I (inaudible) that ours are somewhat different than our antitank mines, have a different type of protective antipersonnel mines. And that's true, technically and theoretically. But it still comes back to the most powerful nation history's ever known saying we can't give up our land mines; you give up yours.

What we ought to be saying is, listen. We will do the same things you did. We will find better ways of defending ourselves, but ways that do not harm and intimidate civilian populations.

INTERVIEWER: The President ordered the Pentagon to find alternatives to land mines, including the SMART and the (inaudible) system land mines. How, how do you think that is proceeding? Has the Pentagon done so or are they dragging their feet?

Sen. LEAHY: Well, I, I get the impression that the President's order came in the front door at the Pentagon and went to the first office along the way, and then went to the next one, and the next one. And I, I forget how many tens of thousands of offices there are in the Pentagon, but they look at the calendar and say well, you know, the President can only be here four more years, and so we'll just keep talking about it.

The Pentagon has made no real effort to follow the President's order, and I think that's disappointing 'cause it does two things. We lose the ability to start getting ahead of the curve because sooner or later there's gonna be legislation to make us do it anyway. So we lose that technical time that we need, or the time we need to develop technical means. But secondly, the United States loses the moral leadership it should have on this. I mean the United States, which has been the leader in most arms control issues, to lose out on this one, to stand behind other countries on land mines when land mines are killing more people than nuclear weapons have, that we're, we're losing, we're losing our leadership.

That shouldn't be just because the bureaucracy at the Pentagon doesn't want to obey the President. But frankly the President's gotta stand up and say, listen. You guys are going to have to get with the program. You're going to have to obey your orders.

INTERVIEWER: Right. I think you're going to have to run. And--

Sen. LEAHY: We have alternatives that actually look very promising but the Pentagon has dragged its feet in trying to develop them. They act like they don't want to put the money in there. They have a large inventory. They're old land mines. They like the old land mines. They don't want to spend money replacing them. They don't want to spend money putting new ones in or taking old ones out of the inventory.

That doesn't make much sense. If we were talking to them about a new fighter jet or some new missile, they'd be all for it. But here is something, because it's more prosaic, they--I guess they don't want to change.

It is a mistake but it reflects a consistency in the Pentagon. They thought this land mine treaty straight through. They missed the boat in Geneva, they missed the boat is Oslo, they fought it until the United States, in sheer embarrassment, is the one country not signing up. And then in Ottawa the U.S. had to sit on the sidelines and watch as country after country lined up to sign the treaty----120 of 'em signed it, the United States behind. And the policy's been set by the Pentagon, not by the White House, not by the Department of State.

The Pentagon ought to declare a truce within its own government. Go forward on the alternatives that are there, develop them. I mean we, we can run a little rover on Mars with a toggle switch from here. If we can do that, we could certainly build defensive mechanisms, antitank mines and other things that we need, that do not endanger civilian populations. And we could be back being the leaders of this instead of the followers. And the Pentagon really has not served the country well in that regard.