[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 29 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2056-S2057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        VETERANS SAY ``RATIFY THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION''

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words today 
about the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC], which has been submitted 
to the Senate for advice and consent.
  Various aspects of this historic treaty are now being debated. 
However, I would maintain that one of the most important considerations 
for the Senate is how the CWC will affect our military forces in the 
field. Will it or will it not help reduce the threat of a poison gas 
attack against U.S. troops? As the Persian Gulf war demonstrated, this 
threat is real and must be addressed.
  After reviewing the accord, I have concluded that the CWC will indeed 
help to protect U.S. fighting forces from chemical attack. But don't 
just take my word for it, consider the opinion of several respected 
veterans groups and military associations who have come out in favor of 
the CWC, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans 
of America, the American Ex-Prisoners of War, AMVETS, the American G.I. 
Forum, the Korean War Veterans Association, the Jewish War Veterans of 
the U.S.A., and the National Association of Black Veterans.
  VFW Commander in Chief James E. Nier, in calling for Senate 
ratification of the CWC, said: ``This treaty will reduce world 
stockpiles of [chemical] weapons and will hopefully prevent our troops 
from being exposed to poison gases as we believe happened in the Gulf 
War.''
  The Vietnam Veterans of America lists ratification of the CWC among 
its top legislative priorities, noting that the treaty would be ``a 
substantive step toward preventing chemical weapons exposure problems 
for veterans in the future similar to those experienced by Persian Gulf 
War veterans and the veterans of prior wars.''
  As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I can vouch for the 
fact that these groups are among the most unflinching supporters of 
American national security interests and would not support the CWC if 
they believed that it put America's fighting forces at greater risk.
  Several of our Nation's best-known and most decorated veterans have 
spoken out in their own right in support of the CWC, including Gen. 
Colin Powell, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, and Adm. Elmo Zumwalt.
  In a hearing before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in 
January, General Schwarzkopf made no bones about his views on the 
matter. ``We don't need chemical weapons to fight our future 
warfares,'' he told the committee, adding ``By not ratifying the [CWC] 
we align ourselves with nations like Iran, Libya, and North Korea, and 
I'd just as soon not be associated with those thugs in this particular 
matter.''
  Admiral Zumwalt, in an editorial in the Washington Post, stated that 
those who oppose the CWC ``do a grave disservice to America's men and 
women in uniform.'' ``Militarily,'' he wrote, ``this treaty will make 
us stronger.''
  Those who now lead our troops have also registered their unequivocal 
support for the treaty. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General 
Shalikashvili testified last year that the CWC is ``clearly in our 
national interest'' and ``would reduce the probability that U.S. forces 
would encounter poison gas in future conflicts.'' The influential 
Reserve Officers Association of the United States, representing over 
100,000 active-duty, Reserve, and retired military officers, declared 
in a February 19 resolution that ``ratification of the CWC will enable 
[the U.S.] to play a major role in the development and implementation 
of CWC policy, as well as providing strong moral leverage to help 
convince Russia of the desirability of ratifying the convention.''
  Mr. President, even the treaty's supporters admit that the CWC is an 
imperfect treaty. However, all international agreements, by their very 
nature, involve some compromises. This particular treaty has been 
signed by 161 countries and involves the most comprehensive 
verification regime of any international arms control accord to date. 
Moreover, 68 countries have already ratified the CWC, which means that 
the treaty will come into effect on April 29 whether or not the United 
States ratifies it. In view of this, the only issue at hand is whether 
the United States is better off within the treaty regime, working with 
others to reduce the threat, or on the outside, with a handful of rogue 
states like Libya and North Korea.
  Almost 6 years ago, then-President Bush foreswore the use of chemical 
weapons under any circumstances and began efforts, supported by 
Congress, to destroy our existing stockpiles of chemical arms. That 
remains U.S. policy. Doesn't it make sense, as long as we're destroying 
our own chemical weapons, to do everything we can to make sure that 
others follow suit? The CWC is our most effective tool for 
accomplishing this task.
  Those who oppose the treaty have come up with no better alternative 
than to have us sit on our hands. Negotiating another treaty is out of 
the question--there is no international interest in a new treaty and, 
even if there were, such a treaty would take

[[Page S2057]]

years to negotiate. So why not embrace the strong treaty we have now 
and make the best use of it?
  Failure to ratify this treaty will have serious negative consequences 
for the United States. We would cede our longstanding international 
leadership on multilateral arms control issues and lose influence over 
the way the CWC is implemented. And, ironically, the U.S. chemical 
industry, which strongly supports the treaty and which participated in 
the negotiations leading up to it, would be subject to trade 
restrictions that could cost it up to $600 million a year in sales.
  However, the greatest consequence of failure to ratify the CWC would 
be that U.S. military forces would be placed at increased risk of 
poison gas attack.
  In fiscal year 1997, the United States will spend over $800 million 
on chemical and biological weapons defenses. This is money well spent. 
Our troops must be prepared to deal with this horrible threat. However, 
it would be folly to spend these funds without doing something concrete 
to reduce the long-term threat posed by chemical weapons.
  Mr. President, veterans groups and military associations have spoken 
with a clear voice. They want the scourge of chemical weapons 
eliminated and agree that the Chemical Weapons Convention advances this 
goal. Let's not ignore their pleas. Let's ratify the Chemical Weapons 
Convention as soon as possible so that we can get down to the business 
of rolling back chemical arms programs worldwide.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________