[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     superseded upon the date the Convention enters into force 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.

                          ____________________