[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2501-S2504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION TREATY

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to speak with 
respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. I notice the 
majority leader is here. I wanted to try to get the majority leader's 
attention for a moment, if I can. Mr. President, I know that Senator 
Biden, who is the ranking member of the committee, has been in 
discussions and negotiations with a number of parties, and many of us 
who have been deeply involved in this issue for a long period of time 
are growing increasingly concerned.
  I raised the subject of the Chemical Weapons Convention on the floor 
a couple weeks ago and signaled that a great many of us were growing 
sufficiently concerned that we are running out of legislative time on 
this important treaty that we were poised to consider coming to the 
floor and exercising whatever rights we have as Senators in order to 
try to guarantee a debate on it. For years, we have been making an 
effort to pass this convention or to pass a convention that regulates 
chemical weapons. The United States of America has made a policy 
decision not to produce them. So we are watching 161 nations who signed 
off on this, and 68 of whom have ratified it, come together without the 
United States to set up the protocol that will govern the verification 
and regulatory process for chemical weapons and their precursors for 
years to come. If we are not allowed in the U.S. Senate to debate this 
and have a vote, we will not have performed our constitutional 
responsibilities.
  I know the majority leader--he and I have had a number of 
conversations on this personally. I would like to begin now at least to 
ascertain publicly, and on the record, where we may be going so that we 
don't lose this critical time. I would like to know if the majority 
leader can guarantee us that we are going to have an opportunity to 
vote up or down on this convention, or whether we have to begin to be a 
little more creative.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts will yield, I would be glad to respond.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield, without giving up my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. As the Senator from Massachusetts recalls, this issue was 
reported by the committee in the last Congress, and I made a commitment 
in connection with other bills that we would bring it to a vote. In 
fact, I believe it was scheduled for a vote, or we were moving toward a 
vote. But for a variety of reasons--and there is no use rehashing the 
history of it--the Secretary of State called and asked that we pull it 
back and not force it to a vote last year. We honored that request.
  This year, there have been a number of discussions. The President did 
call and ask that we meet with his Director of the NSC, Sandy Berger, 
to talk about how we could bring it to a conclusion. At his request, I 
did meet with him, and Senator Helms met with him. Other Senators that 
are interested have been talking with the President's representative. 
And we continue to work on that. I think some good progress has been 
made as a result of those meetings. Some conditionalities have been 
more or less agreed to. Of course, until it is final, it is never 
final. Some have been agreed to, some are still being discussed, and 
some probably will have to have amendments or votes on them when it 
comes to the floor of the Senate.
  The Senator is absolutely right. We have made a decision to destroy 
our chemical weapons. That is a fact. We are doing that. He is also 
right that a number of countries have ratified that

[[Page S2502]]

treaty; some very important ones have not. Not only the United States 
has not, but neither has Russia. The indications are that they may or 
may not. Of course, neither has Iran.
  There are some real questions that are legitimate questions on both 
sides of this issue. One of them is, of course, the verification 
question. How do you verify what some of the rogue countries may or may 
not be doing? How do you deal with some of the questions about things 
like the poison gas that we have seen in Japan? How do you deal with an 
issue like tear gas being used in our country? Also, there are very 
important questions like constitutional questions with regard to search 
and seizure in our country. The administration representative 
indicated, yes, that is an area where there is concern, and we need to 
work on that. Work has been done, and we continue to work on it.
  This week, I met with the chairman of the committee and talked 
through where we are and how we can continue to proceed on this matter. 
I have talked to other Senators on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of the issue, as to how we can move it forward. I talked to Mr. 
Berger again and I urged him to do a couple things. One of those things 
is to seriously address, with the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, some very important parallel issues. Although they are not 
necessarily tied together on a parallel basis, they are related and of 
great concern. The State Department reauthorization. In the previous 
year, I think the State Department kind of indicated, no, we don't want 
to do anything. That is not a tenable position. I don't think that is 
the administration's position.
  I think the new Secretary of State has indicated that she understands 
and wants to do some of these things and has been talking to the 
chairman about that. I am hoping that additional conversations are 
occurring on that today between the Secretary of State and the chairman 
of the committee. In another parallel issue, for this very afternoon I 
have been able to call together a meeting of the key players, Democrats 
and Republicans, House and Senate, on the U.N. reform matters. We met 
once with the Secretary of State. We are meeting today with the new 
U.N. Ambassador, and we are getting a process to see how we deal with 
the United Nations reforms and, of course, the money that the U.N. 
would like to have from the United States.
  So, again, that is a parallel. A lot of people are involved. None of 
these issues are easily resolved. All of them are very important--what 
we do about chemical weapons, about the State Department 
reauthorization, U.N. reform, and with regard to what happens 
processwise. I know what you are asking there.
  It is our hope that we will be able to get this issue up in April. It 
probably would involve some hearings in the committee. But action early 
on, when we come back, to get it to the floor in a way where everybody 
will be comfortable with what amendments will be offered. There is a 
possibility that a statute may be offered, or a regular bill, to be 
considered in conjunction with the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  I have given a long answer, but I am saying this to make it clear to 
you that I am working aggressively to address the concerns on all sides 
of this issue. I will continue to do so. I know you are concerned, and 
other concerns are concerned. You may feel that you have to do more. 
But I have learned over the years that as long as everybody is talking, 
you are probably making progress, and we are talking. I have also 
learned that when you have a chairman that has legitimate concerns, you 
have to give that chairman time to deal with those concerns.
  We are trying to do that.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished majority 
leader that, first of all, I thank him for taking the time to have this 
colloquy. I think it is very important.
  But let me say to the distinguished majority leader that during the 
years that I was the ranking member negotiating this with the 
distinguished chairman of committee, we traveled over all of this 
ground. We have had these hearings. The Foreign Relations Committee has 
had them. The Intelligence Committee has had them. The Armed Services 
Committee has had them. And we all know sort of what the clouds are 
that are there. There is no new sort of definition with respect to 
those clouds.
  For this Senator--and I know I speak for several other Senators, and 
I think two or three of them are on the floor right now--we do not want 
to wind up in the situation which I have seen previously. I negotiated 
the agreement that brought us to the floor last year with a vote. We 
all know we got caught up in the politics of the Presidential campaign, 
and that predicated that it may not have been the best moment.
  The problem is that we run out of time. The clock tolls on us 
automatically on April 29. We do not want to wind up in a situation 
where there is an ability on the floor to have so little time left that 
we can't work through the problems. Recognizing the road we have 
traveled here, I do not want to come back to a situation where we have 
kind of sat here while the negotiations are going on and then there is 
no window of opportunity to sufficiently let the legislative process 
work its will.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I will in just a moment.
  I would like to say to the majority leader that we would like to help 
the majority leader and others to leverage the reality here. What we 
would like to suggest is that there be sort of an internal date certain 
within the Senate--we would suggest that date be when we return--that, 
between now and when we return, the administration, the chairman, and 
the appropriate parties have to come to cloture. If they can't come to 
cloture----
  Mr. LOTT. Closure.
  Mr. KERRY. Come to cloture on these issues, and, if they can't come 
to that resolution, this should be on the floor of the Senate for us to 
deal with in a matter of legislative urgency.
  I know, Mr. President, that there is a significant group of us 
prepared to exercise every right available to us with respect to the 
Senate business in order to try to guarantee that we have the 
opportunity to act on the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, one thing is that 
I do not want to mislead the Senator with regard to the probability of 
hearings. I assume that was a possibility. I do not think it needs long 
hearings. But I think a day or two--and I have not asked for those or 
called for them, and the chairman may or may not feel that they are 
needed.
  So I may have mislead when I was indicating that we are talking about 
another whole round of hearings. I agree with the Senator. I do not 
think a lot of hearings need to be done again.
  But I wanted to clarify that point. I didn't mean to infer that we 
were going through a long list or that a decision has been made. But it 
is something that I have asked: Is there going to be a need for a 
hearing on a day or so before action could occur? It could.
  There is another point. I want to commend the Senator from Arizona, 
Senator Kyl, who has spent a lot of time and has worked on these issues 
when he was in the House Armed Services Committee and continues to be 
very interested in them. He is very knowledgeable when you talk about 
article X, article XI, and all of the ramifications. He knows what is 
in this convention. He has very legitimate concerns, some of which have 
been addressed in a way that I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
would agree with and find acceptable. Others are still open, and there 
is time to work on those.
  I want to recognize the work of Senator Kyl. He may want to respond 
or comment on some of what has been said here today.
  I just wanted to make that one clarification.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I know that the Senator 
from Michigan, Senator Levin, is equally as versed and has had a long 
interest. I know that all of us believe very deeply that where there 
may be a legitimate question, we are and have been--and I think the 
administration has been--fully prepared to try to suggest legitimacy. 
But we can't allow an endless series of questions to be an excuse for 
putting us in the box where the U.S. Senate cannot perform its 
constitutional responsibility to advise

[[Page S2503]]

and consent on a treaty as important as this one.
  So we are in the predicament here where we want to offer a good-faith 
effort to work through every single one of those particular issues. But 
we have to signal that we can't do so simultaneously taking away from 
ourselves our own rights to be guaranteed that the Senate ought to be 
able to have a vote.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  To the majority leader I would say the power of the majority in the 
Congress is a power to schedule. There are a number of us on our side 
of the aisle who have been patient to the edge of our abilities on this 
issue. And the question that is being asked is, Will we have an 
opportunity to consider the chemical weapons treaty on the floor of the 
Senate? What I heard the Senator from Mississippi say is that he hoped 
that would be the case. I very much would like to hear a commitment at 
some point today or tomorrow, before we leave, that we will when we 
return have an opportunity at a time certain to continue the chemical 
weapons treaty.
  Mr. LOTT. As the distinguished Senator knows, if he will yield, Mr. 
President, the scheduling does to a large degree rest in the hands of 
the majority leader. But it is usually done in coordination with both 
sides of the aisle. Like on the Mexico certification, or 
decertification, issue, quite often it can be objected to. I mean that, 
if I today proceeded to call up the House-passed version with the idea 
of offering a bipartisan substitute to it, we would have to get 
agreement to do that. The other option is to just call up 
decertification, which we could do, and start the 10-hour process 
running.
  The point, though, is that you have to work with a lot of different 
parties. And I intend to do that. I think the decision will come up in 
April, and we will work in the direction to say that we can get it up 
by a date certain. Once again, I think it might raise expectations 
beyond what is achievable.
  But we are continuing to work on that, and we are going to do it this 
very day.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to reiterate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish this 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
  As further evidence, if I could, I gave the Democratic leader 
yesterday and members of our conference--and I presume it was given to 
the Democratic caucus--a list of items that we anticipate we will 
consider prior to the Memorial Day recess. It includes nuclear waste, 
supplemental appropriations, the TEAM Act, comptime, flextime, 
legislation regarding chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention 
treaty, and others.
  It is on our list of things that we anticipate will be considered 
before we come back.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the problem is that this particular 
convention stands in a different place from all of those other things 
which the majority leader has listed, and for obvious reasons. The 
other things don't have a drop-dead date on them which runs into the 
convention processes themselves, which are controlled by other 
countries--not by us.
  So I think everybody understands how it works around here. We could 
wind up in a situation where we would have a very long debate. And if 
we need to have a very long debate, we want to make certain that we 
have the ability to adequately flesh out concerns for all Members and 
still not run up against that deadline, or drop-dead date.
  So I think what we are really trying today to say to the majority 
leader is that this has to be the first priority when we come back, or 
clearly stated as to what the date will be with a date certain.
  All we are trying to do is help the majority leader convey that 
message to parties on his side because otherwise, obviously, we are 
left no choice but to try to do whatever we can to leverage a date. We 
are not precluding nor predetermining an outcome. But we are asking for 
the Senate to be able to exercise its rights and privileges.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield 
for a question? I wonder if the majority leader might listen because 
the drop-dead date issue is a critical issue on this, of course, and 
the Senate should be allowed to work its will in whatever way in time 
so that, if we ratify, our ratification will be relevant.
  My question to the Senator from Massachusetts is this: We do not know 
precisely the drop-dead date in terms of Senate ratification, assuming 
it does ratify the treaty. But will the Senator from Massachusetts 
agree that it is some number of days in advance of April 29?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am wondering whether the majority leader, if I could 
just ask, is aware of that fact. Could I ask the majority leader 
whether or not, on the time of the Senator from Massachusetts, if the 
Senate does in fact ratify it, that ratification needs to come some 
days in advance of the 29th in order to meet the 29th deadline?
  Mr. LOTT. I am aware that when you have a treaty issue, there are 
actions that occur after the treaty that could take time. We will have 
to--at some point we could have a full debate about what that drop-dead 
date is. That is the point here. It is not a specific date in terms of 
having to take up the treaty to get the work done, but it is a fact if 
you assume some action must be taken, you have to back off that in 
order to get the work done.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the majority leader for his time on this. We will 
obviously be discussing it in the next day or so, and I look forward to 
our coming forward to some kind of mutual agreement. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I just wanted to also comment on this 
issue and state that I think we are to the point where it is not 
responsible for the Senate to go on with its other business if we 
cannot get agreement among Senators to bring up this very important 
matter on a timely basis. I think clearly we can do other work while we 
wait for the time certain to bring up the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
but if we cannot get agreement to bring it up, then I do not think it 
is responsible for us to go ahead and proceed with business as usual.
  Unfortunately, under the rules of the Senate, the only option 
available to those of us in the minority is to insist that this issue, 
which is time sensitive, be given attention by the Senate or at least 
get scheduled for attention by the Senate before we proceed to other 
matters, and I would expect to do that in the future. I do think the 
majority leader is trying to move ahead with this, but evidently there 
are objections being raised by others. I do not question that 
amendments will be offered. I do not question that real issues will be 
raised about different portions of the treaty. That is what we are 
designated to do under the Constitution, to debate those issues and 
vote on them. We do have a responsibility, though, to have a final vote 
on this treaty in a timely fashion, and I think until we can get 
agreement to do that, it is very difficult to proceed with business as 
usual.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me add my voice to this for just a 
moment. For many of us who have chemical weapons stored in our State--
and there are a good many States--this piece of legislation becomes 
highly important because certain language we hope to be in this treaty 
will allow us to look for alternate sources other than burning or 
destroying by burning. And so particularly in my case, where we have 
the nerve gas, this treaty becomes vital to us. And to have it timely 
considered becomes a very important aspect of alternative sources under 
this international treaty.
  So I am here pleading for my constituency to eliminate the so-called 
chemical weapons. We are being held up for reorganization of the State 
Department, reorganization of United Nations, this thing or that thing. 
We are

[[Page S2504]]

held up when we have a deadline of April 28 and we have people out 
there worried about chemical weapons and how you destroy them. We have 
the answer under this piece of legislation, but we cannot go forward 
with it.
  Mr. President, I hope you will listen to my friend from New Mexico, 
that there is going to be an effort to bring this piece of legislation 
up because of the deadline. If we worried about deadlines, we would 
have a budget. We do not have a budget. But this is an international 
treaty, and it has a deadline. And for one, I do not want to miss it 
because of the chemical weapons that need to be destroyed and the way 
they are to be destroyed so that we might protect your constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I seek recognition under the time 
allocated to Senator Daschle in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to 60 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________