[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9958-S9959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, under a previous unanimous consent
agreement, the Senate is scheduled to consider and complete action
before the end of next week on the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The Convention bans the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical
weapons. It includes detailed verification provisions. It was
negotiated in the Reagan and Bush administrations and was based largely
on a text personally presented to the Conference on Disarmament in
Geneva by then Vice President Bush. The convention represents a
significant advance beyond the only existing constraint on chemical
weapons, the 1929 Geneva Protocol, which only bans the use of such
weapons in war.
Earlier today, several Members expressed concern with regard to the
convention. I am sure that those concerns and any others that Members
may have will be raised and addressed in detail next week during the
total of 12 hours agreed upon for consideration of the treaty.
I personally favor very much ratification of the treaty. I reached
that judgment following extensive hearings I chaired in 1994 while
chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Additional
hearings have been held this year under the chairmanship of the Senator
from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and, as a result, the Committee has
been able to consider a broad range of issues and, in my view, resolve
them quite satisfactorily.
The Clinton administration strongly supports the treaty as settled
upon during the Bush administration. In its efforts to inform the
Senate, I am told that the administration has responded to over 300
Senate questions on the treaty and has responded in detail to inquiries
made by members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and others. The
administration's responses include over 1,500 pages of information on
the Chemical Weapons Convention--over 300 pages of testimony, over 500
pages of answers to Senate letters and reports, over 400 pages of
answers to Senate questions for the treaty record, and over 300 pages
of additional documentation. During the August recess the White House
held a series of briefings for Senate staffers.
This coming Monday at 4 p.m. in S-407 senior administration officials
will meet with all Senators in S-407 to discuss the treaty. This will
allow all Members an opportunity to assess first-hand the arguments for
the treaty and to raise any questions they have. I hope that any
Senator with the slightest concern will avail him or herself of the
chance to have concerns addressed directly.
As we prepare for formal consideration I thought it would be helpful
to my fellow Members to consider a letter I received this afternoon
from the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Anthony
Lake, addressing in detail some of the questions that have been raised
regarding the treaty. The letter included an enclosure, a portion of
which is classified, which is available in committee offices for
interested Members. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lake's letter be
printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there is no question that this convention
enjoys the overwhelming support of the Nation's chemical industries. On
August 29, I and other Senators received a letter strongly endorsing
the convention and arguing for Senate consent to ratification. This
letter was authored by senior officials of a number of significant
corporations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter also
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I look forward to the debate on the
convention when it comes before the Senate next week.
Exhibit 1
The White House,
Washington, September 5, 1996.
Dear Senator Pell: As we continue to prepare for the
Senate's floor debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) two weeks from now, I want to share with you the basic
points we have made recently in responding to certain
concerns that have been raised by the Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee.
Senator Helms has questioned whether Russia will ever
ratify the CWC. As you are aware, the Russian Government has
formally stated its commitment to become a party to the CWC,
as recently as July 22 of this year at the Plenary meeting of
the CWC Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) in The Hague. In
this same statement, the Russian Government announced that it
is seeking the speedy submission of the Convention to the
Russian parliament for ratification.
In my view, the recent Russian statement in The Hague,
which mentioned the issue of entry into force, does not
reflect an intention to distance Russia from the CWC, but
rather a concern about being left behind. In these
circumstances, I believe that the best way to promote Russian
ratification is to proceed with our own ratification, as has
been done by all of our major NATO allies and many others,
and to bring the CWC into force as soon as possible while, at
the same time, trying to address Russian concerns in a manner
consistent with our own interests.
We have forthrightly told the Russians that we believe that
prompt entry into force of the Convention is crucial to the
fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction and
the fight against terrorism. Consequently, we have informed
them that we are moving forward with our own ratification and
have urged that they continue to proceed ahead with their
effort as well.
The Russians have clearly stated that the central problem
they face regarding the CWC is financing the cost of their CW
destruction program. While requesting international
assistance, the Russians have also made it clear, most
recently in their Plenary Statement in The Hague, that the
program will be financed primarily by Russia itself. We and
other countries have indicated our willingness to address
this outstanding concern on an expedited basis, but we have
continued to underscore to the Russians that CW destruction
is primarily their responsibility and that any U.S.
assistance is contingent upon approval by the U.S. Congress.
Senator Helms has also raised concerns with regard to the
1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement (BDA). The Russian
Federation, as you know, has long expressed concerns about
certain aspects of this agreement and has not agreed to
detailed implementing procedures and updated provisions to
finalize the BDA. We continue to press the Russians at the
highest levels on the need to resolve the outstanding CW
issues, and they agreed to a meeting with ACDA Director
Holum, which was held on August 10. They also agreed to host
a visit to Volgograd later this fall to address specifically
the issue of conversion of production facilities. While the
Russians have stated that they believe that the bilateral
agreements between Russia and the United States have
fulfilled their useful role, they have also stated that they
will not renege on the agreements they have made.
As for the Chairman's specific concerns about the possible
consequences of Russian withdrawal from the BDA, I would
point out that if the BDA is not in force when the CWC is
implemented, Russian chemical weapons elimination will still
be subject to systematic verification under the CWC, although
that would be performed by the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), instead of the United
States. It is important to remember that, in contrast to the
CWC, the BDA does not require total destruction of CW stocks
nor does it provide a multilateral framework including
challenge inspections for addressing compliance concerns. As
you may recall, the President informed the Senate in 1993 in
transmittal of the CWC that, while the BDA was an important
agreement in its own right, it has become less relevant than
it was in 1990 because the CWC has been completed and that
final agreement on the BDA should not delay submission of the
CWC to the Senate.
Some have the impression that Russia is ``withdrawing''
from the 1989 Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding. This
agreement has been implemented in two phases. During the
first phase, the two sides exchanged general information on
their chemical weapons stockpiles and production and storage
facilities and carried out reciprocal visits to relevant
military and civilian facilities. During the second phase,
the two sides exchanged the detailed information on their
stockpiles and chemical weapons facilities and carried out a
number of inspections at declared chemical weapons
production, storage and development facilities, including
challenge inspections of such facilities.
While Russia has met its obligations to participate in
implementation activities under the Memorandum of
Understanding, questions remain regarding certain aspects of
the Russian data. We are continuing to press the Russians at
the highest levels on the need to resolve these outstanding
CW issues.
In any case, I have stressed to Senator Helms that the
Administration is prepared to actively pursue concerns
regarding the veracity of any State Party's reporting under
[[Page S9959]]
the CWC, since the provision of accurate declaration
information is a fundamental obligation essential to the
effective implementation of the Convention. The
Administration also continues to believe that prompt entry
into force of the CWC will provide the necessary tools to
deal effectively with these issues, including a basis for
punitive measures or sanctions in response to noncompliance.
Finally, we have carefully considered the Chairman's
request for declassification of any documents and cables
pertaining to bilateral discussions with Russia. As you know,
it is our standard practice to make relevant classified
information available to the Senate through classified
briefings and reports. The Administration has provided the
Senate with numerous briefings and reports of this sort since
November 23, 1993, when the President submitted the CWC with
a request for its prompt consideration. I informed Senator
Helms that I regretted that we cannot declassify the
requested documents, because they have been properly
classified pursuant to E.O. 12958 and because disclosure of
the information they contain could seriously undermine
ongoing diplomatic activities. The Administration is eager,
however, to assist the Senate in developing a complete record
for its consideration prior to floor action on the Chemical
Weapons Convention, as stated in the June 28, 1996 unanimous
consent agreement pertaining to the Convention. Therefore, I
made clear to the Chairman that we are prepared to make
appropriate officials available to Senators and cleared staff
to brief on those documents under appropriate classification
at the earliest date.
We look forward to Senate advice and consent to the CWC by
September 14. Enclosed please find the detailed answers we
provided the Chairman in response to the questions he had
recently raised.
Sincerely,
Anthony Lake,
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs.
Exhibit 2
August 29, 1996.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pell: The undersigned senior executives of
chemical companies urge your vote in support of the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC), and quick Senate action on
legislation to implement this important treaty.
The chemical industry has long supported the CWC. Our
industry participated in negotiating the agreement, and in
U.S. and international implementation efforts. The treaty
contains substantial protections for confidential business
information (CBI). We know, because industry helped to draft
the CBI provisions. Chemical companies also help test the
draft CWC reporting system, and we tested the on-site
inspection procedures that will help verify compliance with
the treaty. In short, our industry has thoroughly examined
and tested this Convention. We have concluded that the
benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs.
Indeed, the real price to pay would come from not ratifying
the CWC. The treaty calls for strict restrictions on trade
with nations which are not party to the Convention. The
chemical industry is America's largest export industry,
posting $60 billion in export sales last year. But our
industry's status as the world's preferred supplier of
chemical products may be jeopardized if the U.S. does not
ratify the Convention. If the Senate does not vote in favor
of the CWC, we stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars
in overseas sales, putting at risk thousands of good-paying
American jobs.
The U.S. chemical industry has spent more than 15 years
working on this agreement, and we long ago decided that
ratifying the CWC is the right thing to do.
We urge you to vote in support of the Chemical Weapons
Convention.
Sincerely,
J. Lawrence Wilson, Chairman & CEO, Rohm and Has Company,
Chairman, Board of Directors, Chemical Manufacturers
Association; Alan R. Hirsig, President & CEO, ARCO
Chemical Company, Chairman, Executive Committee,
Chemical Manufacturers Association; H.A. Wagner,
Chairman, President & CEO, Air Products & Chemicals,
Inc.; D.J. D'Antoni, President, Ashland Chemical
Company; Helge H. Wehmeier, President & CEO, Bayer
Corporation; John D. Ong, Chairman & CEO, The
BFGoodrich Company; Robert R. Mesel, President, BP
Chemicals, Inc.; Charles M. Donohue, Vice President,
Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.; J. Dieter Stein, Chairman &
CEO, BASF Corporation; W.R. Cook, Chairman, President &
CEO, Betz Dearborn, Inc.; Joseph M. Saggese, President
& CEO, Borden Chemicals & Plastics, LP; Dr. Aziz I.
Asphahani, President & CEO, Carus Chemical Company;
Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, President & CEO,
Cromption & Knowles Corporation; Richard A. Hazleton,
Chairman & CEO, Dow Corning Corporation; Howard J.
Rudge, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, E.I.
duPont de Nemours & Company; Richard G. Fanelli,
President & CEO, Enthone-OMI Inc.; J.E. Akitt,
Executive Vice President, Exxon Chemical Company;
William S. Stavropoulos, President & CEO, The Dow
Chemical Company; Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman
of the Board & CEO, Eastman Chemical Company; Bernard
Azoulay, President & CEO, Elf Atochem North America;
Bruce C. Gottwald, CEO, Ethyl Corporation; Ron W.
Haddock, President & CEO, FINA, Inc.; Robert N. Burt,
Chairman & CEO, FMC Corporation; Otto Furuta, V.P.
Global Logistics & Materials Management, Great Lakes
Chemical Corporation; R. Keith Elliott, President &
CEO, Hercules, Inc.; Hans C. Noetzli, President & CEO,
Lonza, Inc.; Robert G. Potter, Executive Vice
President, Monsanto Company; Dr. William L. Orton,
Senior Vice President, Chemical Operations, Givaudan-
Roure Corporation; Michael R. Boyce, President & COO,
Harris Chemical Group; Thomas F. Kennedy, President &
CEO, Hoechst Celanese Corporation; Mack G. Nichols,
President & COO, Mallinckrodt Group, Inc.; S. Jay
Steward, Chairman & CEO, Morton International, Inc.
E.J. Mooney, Chairman & CEO, Nalco Chemical Company;
Jeffrey M. Lipton, President, NOVA Corporation; Donald
W. Griffin, Chairman, President & CEO, Olin
Corporation; Peter R. Heinze, Senior Vice President,
Chemicals, PPG Industries, Inc.; Phillip D. Ashkettle,
President & CEO, Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.; Ronald L.
Spraetz, V.P., External Affairs & Quality, National
Starch & Chemical Company; J. Roger Hirl, President &
CEO, Occidental Chemical Corporation; David Wolf,
President, Perstorp Polyols, Inc.; Ronald H. Yocum,
Chairman, President & CEO, Quantum Chemical Company;
Thomas E. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, Reilly Industries,
Inc.; Peter J. Neff, President & CEO, Rhone-Poulenc,
Inc.; Nicholas P. Trainer, President, Sartomer Company;
J. Virgil Waggoner, President & CEO, Sterling
Chemicals, Inc.; W.H. Joyce, Chairman, President & CEO,
Union Carbide Corporation; Arthur R. Sigel, President &
CEO, Velsicol Chemical Corporation; Roger K. Price,
Senior V.P., Mining & Manufacturing, R.T. Vanderbilt
Company, Inc; F. Quinn Stepan, Chairman & President,
Stepan Company; William H. Barlow, Vice President,
Business Development, Texas Brine Corporation; Robert
J. Mayaika, President, CEO & Chairman, Uniroyal
Chemical Company, Inc.; John Wilkinson, Director of
Government Affairs, Vulcan Chemicals; Albert J.
Costello, Chairman, President & CEO, W.R. Grace &
Company.
____________________