[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S9898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            CHEMICAL WEAPONS

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the Senate will soon be asked to ratify 
the Chemical Weapons Convention. The intent of this treaty is to 
implement a worldwide ban on the production, possession, and use of 
chemical weapons, which is something we would all agree to; if it were 
something that was enforceable or verifiable, that we would be a party 
to. However, most of the experts I have talked to--people like Caspar 
Weinberger, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William Clark, I even had a 
conversation with Dick Cheney--have serious questions as to whether or 
not this is in the best interests of the United States.
  The problem we have, one of many problems, but the major problem we 
have with the CWC, the Chemical Weapons Convention, is that it does not 
include those countries that pose the greatest threat to our Nation's 
security. I am talking about Libya and Iraq, North Korea, Syria. They 
are not a part of this. Even if they were a part, I would not believe 
they would actually live up to their commitment. But, again, they are 
not. Some countries have signed onto the treaty but they have not 
ratified it. We seem to be acting as if all those countries that have 
signed the treaty ultimately will ratify it. I do not believe that is 
the case.
  Even in the case of Russia, if they did, the Senator from North 
Carolina here can remember, back in 1990, when the Russians and the 
United States, then the Soviet Union and the United States, had a 
bilateral destruction agreement, yet the Russians have not lived up to 
it--not because they do not want to, necessarily; because they say they 
cannot afford to. In fact, they said if you in the United States expect 
us in Russia to live up to the bilateral destruction agreement of 1990, 
it will cost you approximately $3.3 billion. I do not anticipate there 
will be a lot of support for that.
  They keep saying 160 countries have signed the treaty. This is fine, 
but they are the wrong countries. We do not have a problem, a threat of 
chemical warfare with Great Britain, with France, with Sweden, with 
these countries. It is the countries who are not a part of this that 
pose the threat.
  The compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention is not 
verifiable. Countries like China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia 
have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, but our ability to verify 
their compliance is doubtful at best. I think the best quote I can give 
is from the former CIA Director James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director 
under Democratic Presidents. He said:

       The chemical weapons problem is so difficult from an 
     intelligence perspective that I cannot state that we have 
     high confidence in our ability to detect noncompliance, 
     especially on a small scale.

  The U.N. inspectors, after the agreement was reached with Iraq back 
in 1991, have had all kinds of opportunities to look for chemical 
weapons in Iraq, yet many have gone undetected. So we will be asked to 
ratify this. I serve notice now I will be among the leaders in 
opposition to that ratification. I feel it is very similar to the 
ratification of the START II agreement. The START II agreement was an 
agreement that would force us back into a posture that we found 
ourselves in in 1972 with the ABM Treaty, which was with, at that time, 
the Soviet Union. It does not do any good for us to downgrade our 
nuclear capability, as was the case there, if we have 25 to 30 nations 
who are building a nuclear capability, who have weapons of mass 
destruction, who are working on the missile means of delivering them. I 
see a parallel here, an analogous situation.

  What good does it do for us to agree to destroy all of our chemical 
capability if we are allowing those rogue nations that pose the 
greatest threat to the United States to still be able to have theirs?
  I think one of the phoniest arguments, though, is on terrorism. I 
hope no one will give much credence to that. The President and his 
administration contradicted themselves the other day when the President 
was trying to lead us into this notion that, if we ratify the Chemical 
Weapons Convention, somehow it will make it more difficult for 
terrorists. He said:

       If the Chemical Weapons Convention were in force today, it 
     would be much more difficult for terrorists to acquire 
     chemical weapons.

  Then a short while after that, in a response, Warren Christopher 
said:

       It is difficult to predict what impact the CWC will have on 
     actual terrorist use of chemical weapons, as the CWC was not 
     designed to deal with this threat.

  He was exactly right.
  So I hope we are not lulled into a false sense of security by 
ratifying a convention that is not verifiable and that is not 
participated in by those parties and those countries that pose the 
greatest threat to the United States.
  I come from Oklahoma, and if a terrorist was able to get enough 
explosive power to blow up the Murrah Federal Office Building to the 
extent it happened there, I can assure you that the terrorists will 
also be able to get chemical weapons.
  So, Madam President, I hope my colleagues share my concern about 
this, the harmful impact of the chemical weapons convention on our 
Nation's security, and will join me in opposing the ratification of 
this flawed agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. I especially appreciate the Senator's comments, because 
there is so much confusion, so many extravagant statements have been 
made, Madam President, about how much good this convention will do, 
this treaty.
  As I mentioned yesterday, Senator Sam Ervin, my first colleague from 
North Carolina when I came to the Senate--a pretty good constitutional 
lawyer--used to comment that the United States had never lost a war or 
won a treaty, meaning that we got short shrift by accepting so many 
treaties that didn't do the country any good.
  But the thing that bothers me, I say to my colleague, and I am sure 
it does to him, is that so many--even in this Chamber, I am sorry to 
say--are willing to disregard the fact that the White House has 
stonewalled about allowing the Senate to have documents that the Senate 
is entitled to have with respect to this treaty. They refused, in some 
cases, they have obfuscated, they have made all sorts of excuses, and I 
am happy that the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, has talked 
to Mr. Panetta, and there is some indication that these documents are 
going to be made available to the Senate.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that as chairman of the 
appropriate committee, you made a request sometime ago for all of these 
documents in order for us to deliberate this, to debate this, to 
determine whether or not this was in the best interest of our Nation's 
security. Have you received any response so far to your request?
  Mr. HELMS. Half hearted responses in a few cases. In large measure, 
the administration has stonewalled the matter and refused to release 
the actual documents.
  The intelligence community of our Government unanimously say that 
this treaty has many aspects that are perilous to the security of the 
United States.
  But in any case, I thank the Senator for his comments and for his 
role in trying to protect the people of this country from a treaty or a 
convention that is unwise, as in this case. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator, too.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
  
                            ____________________