[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 29 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2089-S2090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE EXECUTIVE RESOLUTION 62--RELATIVE TO THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
CONVENTION
Mr. FORD submitted the following executive resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Ex. Res. 62
Resolved, That the Senate hereby expresses its intention to
give its advice and consent to the ratification of the
Chemical Weapons Convention at the appropriate time after the
Senate has proceeded to the consideration of the Convention,
subject to the following declaration, which would be binding
upon the President:
(1) Chemical weapons destruction.--Prior to the deposit of
the United States instrument of ratification of the
Convention, the President shall certify to the Congress that
all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) Exploration of alternative technologies.--The President
has agreed to explore alternative technologies for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of chemical
weapons in order to ensure that the United States has the
safest, most effective and environmentally sound plans and
programs for meeting its obligations under the Convention for
the destruction of chemical weapons.
(B) Convention extends destruction deadline.--The
requirement in section 1412 of Public Law 99-145 (50 U.S.C.
1521) for completion of the destruction of the United States
stockpile of chemical weapons by December 31, 2004 will be
superseded upon the date the Convention enters into force
with respect to the United States by the deadline required by
the Convention of April 29, 2007.
(C) Authority to employ a different destruction
technology.--The requirement in Article III(1)(a)(v) of the
Convention for a declaration by each State party to the
Convention, not later than 30 days after the date the
Convention enters into force with respect to that party, on
general plans of the state party for destruction of its
chemical weapons does not preclude the United States from
deciding in the future to employ a technology for the
destruction of chemical weapons different than that declared
under that Article.
(D) Procedures for extension of deadline.--The President
will consult with Congress on whether to submit a request to
the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons for an extension of the deadline for the
destruction of chemical weapons under the Convention, as
provided under part IV(A) of the Annex on Implementation and
Verification to the Convention, if, as a result of the
program of alternative technologies for the destruction of
chemical munitions carried out under section 8065 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained
in Public Law 104-208), the President determines that
alternatives to the incineration of chemical weapons are
available that are safer and more environmentally sound but
whose use would preclude the United States from meeting the
deadlines of the Convention.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an executive
resolution placing conditions on the Chemical Weapons Convention with
respect to this Nation's Chemical Demilitarization Program.
Muhammad Ali used to say that not only could he knock 'em out, but he
could pick the round. There is no doubt in my mind that when the
fight's over, we will knock 'em out on the issue of alternative
technologies. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of picking which
round incineration goes down for good. That means every time we have an
opportunity--or see an instance where the Army might try to bob and
weave--we've got to be ready to get our punches in.
I believe the passage of the Chemical Weapons Convention could
present the Army with just such an opportunity to bob and weave on
searching for alternatives to incineration. Fortunately, the White
House has agreed to placing additional conditions on the treaty which
should stop any of the Army's attempts to duck out on their
responsibility.
The head of the National Security Council, Sandy Berger, has sent me
a letter agreeing to my language placing conditions on the Chemical
Weapons Convention. The letter not only makes it clear to the world and
to the Army the President's commitment to exploring alternatives to
incineration, it further clarifies the relationship between the
Chemical Weapons Convention and our Chemical Weapons Demilitarization
Program. I also have a copy of a letter from the President to Secretary
of Defense William Cohen reiterating his strong support for finding
alternatives to incineration that are safe and environmentally sound.
Why is this language so important?
First, back in 1989, as part of the Defense authorization bill,
Congress set an arbitrary deadline of 2004 for the destruction of all
chemical weapons. That date conflicts with the Chemical Weapons
Convention which calls for destruction 10 years from the date the
treaty is signed, which would be 2007. While it should be clear to
everyone involved that the treaty date supersedes the congressional
mandate, we don't want to give the Army a reason to bob and weave.
Second, 30 days from signing the treaty, signatories are required to
submit their plan for destruction. Because the Army is already
incinerating chemical weapons in the United States and has already
invested billions in this method, this is the plan they will submit 30
days after the treaty has been signed.
Under my language, this treaty requirement will not preclude the
United States from going through with a different method than what is
originally submitted. Without my language, we have no protection
against the Army holding up the official plan as a defense against
looking for alternatives.
Third, many in the Nation were very concerned the Army would see the
10-year deadline as an excuse, claiming
[[Page S2090]]
they simply wouldn't have the time to explore alternatives. In fact,
the treaty allows any country to request a 5-year waiver. Under my
language, the United States would automatically request that extension
if an alternative method can be found.
The condition to the treaty states that if ``the President determines
that alternatives to incineration are available which are safer and
more environmentally sound, but whose use would preclude the United
States from meeting the Convention time lines, the President shall
consult with the Congress on whether to request to the Executive
Council of the OPSW for an extension of the Convention's destruction
deadline.''
Finally, adding this condition to the treaty is crucial to the effort
to find alternative methods because last year's appropriations language
not only has to be renewed every single year, but fails to address the
treaty's deadline. Year after year, we're going to be faced with
fighting the funding aspect out on the House and Senate floor, with no
guarantee of winning.
But with my language attached to the treaty, the search for
alternative methods won't be left entirely up to a yearly floor battle.
That's because I will have effectively closed any loophole related to
treaty deadlines that might allow the Army to avoid searching for
alternative technologies.
In closing, let me say that up until this point I have withheld
support for the Chemical Weapons Convention. But because I have been
able to negotiate these critical protections of the exploration of
safe, affordable, and environmentally sound alternatives to chemical
weapons incineration. I will now put my support behind the treaty.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the
President to Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and a letter sent to
me by the Acting Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, Sandy Berger, be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC, February 27, 1997.
Hon. William S. Cohen,
Secretary of Defense, Washington DC.
Dear Bill: Since the enactment of the FY 1997 Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-208) last fall, Under Secretary
Kaminski has acted quickly and diligently to begin
implementation of Section 8065, establishing a pilot program
to identify and demonstrate alternatives to the Army's
baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of
assembled chemical munitions. As I stated in a letter last
July to Senator Ford, who sponsored a similar provision on
the FY 1997 Defense Authorization Act, I am committed to
going the extra mile to explore whether there may be safer
and more environmentally sound alternatives to incineration.
I would, therefore, request that Defense give this pilot
program high priority in order to ensure that the United
States has the best plans and programs for meeting its
chemical weapons destruction requirements.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
____
The White House,
Washington, DC, February 27, 1997.
Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Wendell: I am pleased that we have reached agreement
with you on the attached Condition to the Chemical Weapons
Convention CWC resolution of ratification, making clear the
President's commitment to exploring alternatives to
incineration for the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons
stockpile and clarifying the relationship between the CWC and
our chemical weapons demilitarization program.
We look forward to entering this historic treaty into force
on April 29 with the U.S. as an original Party. As the
President said in his State of the Union address, ``Make no
mistake about it, it will make our troops safer from chemical
attack. It will help us to fight terrorism. We have no more
important obligations, especially in the wake of what we now
know about the Gulf War.''
Again, we appreciate your support on this crucial issue.
Sincerely,
Samuel R. Berger,
Acting Assistant to the President,
for National Security Affairs.
____________________