[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2238-S2239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RATIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time--long past time--for the 
Senate to end the embarrassing delay and ratify the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. The convention is the most significant nonproliferation 
agreement to come before the Senate since the 1968 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. It is a major step toward eliminating this entire 
class of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. ratification of the 
convention, before it takes effect on April 29 of this year, is vital 
to our national security. U.S. support for the convention will 
demonstrate our continued commitment to halting the spread of these 
weapons of mass destruction. This is far too important a subject for 
further delays. It is time to end the stalling and bring the convention 
to a vote. There is no justification for a handful of Senate opponents 
of the convention to bottle it up in the Foreign Relations Committee.
  This treaty is clearly bipartisan. It was negotiated under President 
Reagan, concluded and signed by President Bush, and submitted to the 
Senate for advice and consent by President Clinton. It has broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate, and it should be voted on by the 
Senate, now.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention deserves this broad support, because 
it makes sense for America's national security. We have the opportunity 
now to move forward and rid the world of these senseless weapons.
  The United States initially led by example, by unilaterally 
destroying our stockpile of chemical weapons. The Chemical Weapons 
Convention will extend this requirement to all other nations that 
approve the convention.
  The convention also provides for monitoring and controls to reduce 
the proliferation of the chemicals and technology used to make such 
weapons. These restrictions will make it much more difficult for 
terrorists and rogue nations to develop these weapons of mass 
destruction. The convention also contains provisions to investigate and 
punish violators, including short-notice inspections of chemical 
manufacturing sites and other facilities.
  Opponents of the convention argue that since it is not being ratified 
by all nations, it will not stop rogue countries from acquiring these 
deadly weapons. But no international treaty starts with worldwide 
support. Countries suspected of chemical arms violations will be 
subjected to broad economic and arms embargoes. In fact, the convention 
specifically restricts the export or transfer of controlled chemicals 
to nonparticipating nations, a clear deterrent to rogue countries.
  American leadership is essential to halt the proliferation of these 
deadly weapons. It is already a serious international embarrassment 
that the United States, the leading country in the development of the 
convention, has taken over 4 years to ratify it. If not us, who? If not 
now, when? As of today, 71 nations have ratified the treaty, including 
the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Canada. We stand with Iraq, 
North Korea, Libya, and Syria as nonsigners. The Senate needs to act 
now to end the unconscionable delay in ratifying this urgently needed 
convention. The longer we delay, the greater the danger of the 
proliferation of these devastating weapons.

  Protecting our own soldiers and civilians from chemical attack is and 
will continue to be a high priority. Without U.S. support for this 
convention, rogue nations will have a greater incentive to acquire 
chemical weapons, and our military and civilian populations will face 
greater risk of chemical attack. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, those 
directly responsible for the men and women who are most at risk from 
chemical attack, fully support this convention.
  It is clearly in our national interest to ratify the convention 
before April 29, so that this country can be involved in the initial 
implementation legislation, the budget negotiations, and the 
verification provisions for tracking chemical weapons worldwide.
  Critics of the convention say that it will impose high costs on the 
U.S. chemical industry. But our industry and defense representatives 
have been involved in the development of the convention from the 
beginning. They helped draft the convention's language to ensure that 
their interests will not be compromised. The chemical industry supports 
ratification, because they know that if the convention enters into 
force without U.S. support, they will lose hundreds of millions of 
dollars in annual trade. This economic burden more than offsets the 
marginal costs that compliance with the convention will impose on the 
industry.
  Opponents also argue that the convention will reveal U.S. trade 
secrets to foreign inspectors. But the United States will always be the 
target of industrial espionage, with or without this agreement. Issues 
relating to the confidentiality of product and processes received a 
great deal of attention

[[Page S2239]]

during the negotiations, and they are addressed in detail in the 
convention.
  In addition, the Commerce Department's expertise in protecting the 
proprietary interests of U.S. companies will continue to assist our 
chemical industry. The strong support for the convention by the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers 
Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business is a 
tribute to the fact that the concerns of these industries are fully 
protected.
  Ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is vital to America's 
national security. I commend all those who have done so much to make 
this achievement possible. It represents arms control at its best, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote for ratification.

                          ____________________