[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2808-S2809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about another 
issue that is very important this week as well. This week the Senate 
comes back from a 2-week break and turns to the question of nuclear 
waste. That is an important issue and one I hope this Congress and the 
President will address seriously and solve. But there is another issue 
that is very important that has a deadline that we must address, and 
that is the issue of the chemical weapons treaty.
  We now have a circumstance in which this country, with 160 other 
countries, has signed a convention in which a chemical weapons treaty 
to the Geneva Disarmament Conference in 1994 was negotiated and 
completed. It was initiated by President Bush, supported by President 
Reagan, it was continued under President Clinton and submitted to the 
U.S. Senate for ratification.
  The chemical weapons treaty will restrain the proliferation and will 
reduce the threat of the use of chemical weapons in our lifetime. It is 
the first ever treaty to try to ban an entire class of weapons of mass 
destruction. Never again should men and women in our lifetime face a 
weapon of mass destruction called a chemical weapon or poison gas. We 
have a treaty that has now been signed by 70 nations, more than the 65 
that is needed to ratify the treaty, so it will go into effect on April 
29 of this year. This country has not yet ratified it. Our key allies, 
Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and others, have 
already ratified this treaty, and we need to do so and we need to do so 
by April 29.
  There are opponents of this who say, ``No, this is not a perfect 
treaty.'' And it is not. Opponents say, ``If we adopt this treaty, 
Saddam Hussein is not going to adopt the treaty, so what are we doing 
here?'' Because some will commit murder, do we not want to make murder 
a crime in America? We understand there are some who may not want to 
abide by this treaty. This country has already made a decision, in the 
mid-1980's, that we are going to destroy our stockpile of chemical 
weapons. We have already made that decision. We made a decision under 
President Bush and continued it under President Clinton to negotiate a 
chemical weapons treaty. That treaty was negotiated. Seventy nations 
have now ratified it, and we have not yet done so, and we should. 
Ratifying it will strengthen this country, not weaken this country. 
Those who allege that ratifying the chemical weapons treaty will 
somehow weaken this country's hand, in my judgment, are wrong. I 
respect their opinion, but they are wrong. It is urgent and necessary 
that we, by April 29, ratify this treaty. We are able, with our allies, 
to provide leadership to destroy an entire class of weapons of mass 
destruction in our society. If we do not take this opportunity to do 
it, we will have made a very grave mistake.
  I was not here when we were testing nuclear weapons in massive 
quantity, but I know when it was proposed that

[[Page S2809]]

we cease testing nuclear weapons and have a test ban on nuclear 
weapons, there were some who stood up and said we cannot do that 
because it will weaken our country. Yet we had a ban on testing nuclear 
weapons, and it was the right thing to do. History tells us it was the 
right thing to do.
  This is the right thing to do as well. It is very important that we 
understand this must be part of the Senate's business this month. If we 
do not take the opportunity to provide leadership in banning the use of 
chemical weapons, a weapon of mass destruction in our society, if we do 
not take the opportunity to establish that leadership, we will have 
made a very grave error.
  This is not a case of one side of a debate being soft headed and 
fuzzy and the other side being the real prodefense folks. The people 
who support this--former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, 
former Secretaries of State James Baker, Larry Eagleburger, former Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency head Ron Lehman--all urge the Senate to 
ratify the chemical weapons treaty, none of whom can be alleged to have 
been soft on defense issues. These are people very prodefense, people 
who are very concerned about making certain that we do not lose 
advantage, that we are a strong country, that we can defend ourselves. 
But these are people who also believe, as did President Bush, that this 
treaty makes sense for our country, to provide leadership on the 
abolition of chemical weapons. Leadership on the abolition of poison 
gas as a weapon in war makes great sense for our country and great 
sense for humanity.
  The reason I raise the question today is this. We have a limited 
time, and a deadline of April 29, to ratify this treaty in order for us 
to be part of the regime that begins to develop the methods by which 
this treaty is enforced. Yet, we have no agreement even to bring the 
treaty to the floor of the Senate for a vote or discussion. Some of us 
believe very strongly that, with the exception of the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, for example, or with the exception, 
perhaps, of a budget bill to balance the Federal budget--which we 
should do--with the exception of those things we ought to make sure 
this is first in line. Until we have assurance this is first in line, 
we ought not be doing other business. This ought to be brought to the 
floor of the Senate, and we ought to have agreement to do that soon.

  I hope we will have an aggressive and significant discussion about 
this treaty. My understanding is the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma may intend to speak some about this treaty and some of his 
concerns about it. But my hope is, perhaps this afternoon--I intend to 
come back to the floor--some of us can have a discussion back and 
forth. I have great respect for people who take an opposite view on 
this and on other issues. We do not have to call each other names 
because we disagree with each other. Debate ought to be to evaluate 
what are the merits of a position, what are the facts, and what 
conclusions can one develop from those facts.
  My position is to say I think we ought to do this. It is an easier 
position, I must say, to oppose it. It is an easier position. That is 
not to say opposing it is necessarily wrong, and there are cases where 
the opposition might be the right position on some issues. But Mark 
Twain once said, when he was asked to debate, ``Of course, but I need 
to take the opposing side.'' They said, ``But we have not even told you 
what the topic is.'' He said, ``That doesn't mean anything to me. That 
doesn't matter. I only need to take the opposing side because that 
doesn't require any preparation.''
  The point he was making is it is always easier to take the opposing 
side. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, that doesn't mean the opposing 
side in every debate is wrong. But in this case, the need to ratify the 
chemical weapons treaty, the affirmative side is the right side for 
this country. It is urgent and has a time deadline, and we ought to do 
it. I hope this afternoon, perhaps, we can have some thoughtful 
discussion about what are the merits of this, why do we have such a 
large group of Republicans and Democrats from the Bush administration 
and the Clinton administration and many others who believe this is a 
priority for this country and believe it is something that this country 
ought to take a lead on.
  My hope is that at end of the day today, or this week, we will have 
an agreement by which we can at least bring this to the floor, even 
though some might want to vote against it. I think those who want to do 
that should give us the opportunity to have a debate and a vote on the 
chemical weapons treaty. We very much owe that to this country. If and 
when we get to the decision to give us a debate and a vote on the 
chemical weapons treaty, I will be happy with that. We have to make our 
best case and we have to make an affirmative case for this treaty. We 
have that responsibility. But we cannot do that if we are prevented 
from seeing it brought to the floor of the Senate for a debate and a 
vote.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
  Does the Senator from Oklahoma intend to speak?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________