[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2858-S2859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr President, one of this Nation's most pressing 
national security concerns is the ratification of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. The case for this treaty is compelling. The CWC treaty was 
negotiated by Presidents Reagan and Bush, two Republican 
administrations. It is now being moved to ratification by a Democratic 
administration. CWC is supported whole heartedly and overwhelmingly by 
the American people. According to a poll, 84 percent of all Americans 
support this convention. It also has the unconditional support of the 
U.S. chemical industry and the U.S. military as represented by Gen. 
Norman Schwarzkopf, General Shalikashvili, and Admiral Zumwalt among 
others. It is endorsed by veterans groups; religious organizations; the 
intelligence community; peace groups; societies for physicians, 
scientists, and engineers; and military organizations. It has already 
been ratified by 68 countries around the world including China, India, 
Japan, many of the former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact countries as 
well as our major West European allies. The fact of the matter is, the 
treaty is both effective and reasonable. It makes sense militarily and 
economically.
  Despite this unprecedented support from such diverse groups, the 
Convention has been languishing, awaiting a Senate vote since 1993. 
Very simply put, and to quote from an editorial in the Chicago Tribune: 
``This Treaty Ought To Be Ratified.'' This Tribune editorial goes on to 
state, ``In the annals of 20th century warfare, hardly a weapon short 
of nuclear explosives has produced such loathing and terror as those 
classified as chemical weapons.'' When you are considering outlawing 
the development, production, transfer, acquisition, and use of chemical 
weapons, partisanship and obstructionism should not be an issue.
  There are many misstatements and much propaganda against the CWC. The 
truth is that there is a heavy price to pay if we are not an original 
signatory: The United States will have no place on the executive 
council; Americans won't be able to serve as inspectors; American 
chemical companies will lose significant business to overseas 
competitors because of mandatory trade sanctions; and U.S. credibility 
and influence will be undermined. We'll be in the same category as 
other nonsignatories such as Libya, Iran, and Syria.
  On the other hand, the ratification of CWC will make it less likely 
that our troops will ever again encounter chemical weapons in the 
battlefield; less likely that chemical weapons will fall into the hands 
of terrorists; and less likely that rogue states will have access to 
chemical weapons. Unfortunately, CWC is not the panacea to remove all 
threat of chemical weapons, but it is a first important step.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to take up the debate on the Chemical 
Weapons Convention on the Senate floor so that this treaty can be 
ratified. I also ask that three editorials from Illinois newspapers 
supporting CWC be printed in the Record.
  The editorials follow:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 27, 1995]

                   The Helms Choke-Hold on Diplomacy

       That the president of these United States must seek the 
     advice and win the consent of the Senate in making treaties 
     and appointing ambassadors is so integral to the American 
     system of checks and balances that it is written into the 
     Constitution.
       The framers of that document certainly were no strangers to 
     the baser side of domestic politics, so a certain amount of 
     horse-trading in the conduct of foreign policy--which is the 
     province of the president--was to be tolerated and even 
     encouraged. Today, however, the pugnacious senator from North 
     Carolina, Jesse Helms, has turned advice and consent into 
     stonewalling and deadlock.
       As Senate Foreign Relations chairman, a post he assumed 
     with the Republican sweep of Congress, Helms has laid down 
     his gavel and refuses to convene business meetings of that 
     powerful committee.
       Frozen by his fit of pique are ratification of a dozen 
     treaties and international agreements, including two landmark 
     pacts; Start 2, the treaty slashing U.S. and Russian nuclear 
     arsenals that was signed by former President George Bush, a 
     Republican; and the Chemical Weapons Convention, which 
     outlaws the manufacture and use of chemical weapons.
       Among the 400 State Department appointments locked up by 
     Helms are 30 ambassadorial positions. Thus, the United States 
     is left without chief envoys to 15 percent of its embassies, 
     including those in several nations critically important to 
     American national security and a peaceful world order--China, 
     Lebanon, Pakistan, Panama, South Africa and Zaire.
       What is Helms after? He wants to reorganize the State 
     Department by eliminating the independent agencies that 
     handle foreign aid, arms control and public information. 
     Helms says $3 billion can be saved over four years by letting 
     the State Department swallow up the Agency for International 
     Development (AID), the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 
     (ACDA) and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA).
       The majority of Helms' Senate colleagues, however, 
     disagree. As recently as last week, the Senate refused to 
     approve Helm's controversial reorganization plan, which was 
     attached to the foreign aid bill.

[[Page S2859]]

       President Clinton concedes there's fat to be trimmed from 
     the State Department budget but points out, for example, that 
     the AID budget has been trimmed by 20 percent since he took 
     office, part of a downward trend that has seen the overall 
     funding of foreign affairs drop by 47 percent since 1985.
       This stonewalling by Helms is ill-considered, and extends 
     far beyond Congress' power of the purse. Helms should let the 
     treaties and appointments be voted in committee. Then, the 
     Senate as a whole and not just one senator--should be allowed 
     to consider what advice to give Clinton and whether to give 
     its consent on these important foreign policy matters.
                                                                    ____


            [From the State Journal-Register, Feb. 11, 1997]

            Obstructionism Blocking Chemical Weapons Accord

       The Senate's delay in bringing the chemical weapons treaty 
     to a ratifying vote is inimical to national interests. This 
     treaty is strongly supported by every major national 
     constituency.
       The treaty is an American brainchild, negotiated under 
     Presidents Reagan and Bush. President Clinton sent it to the 
     Senate for ratification in 1993. It has bipartisan Senate 
     support and is enthusiastically backed by the U.S. military, 
     which is destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles and wants 
     to see other nations do the same.
       The problem is summed up in two words: Jesse Helms. This 
     relic from North Carolina who, through seniority, not 
     ability, has become chairman of the Foreign Relations 
     Committee, has persuaded Majority Leader Trent Lott to 
     withhold the treaty from a vote on the floor, where it would 
     easily pass.
       In playing this power game, Helms serves neither nation, 
     Senate nor party.
       He serves his own ego.
       The practical effect of Helms' obstructionism is to damage 
     the U.S. chemical industry, a strong treaty supporter.
       After the treaty takes effect April 29, participating 
     nations (160 have endorsed it so far) and prohibited from 
     dealing with nonparticipants in any of the chemicals banned 
     by the treaty, many of which have commercial as well as 
     military uses.
       The U.S. chemical industry puts the cost to it of this 
     provision at $600 million in exports annually.
       But Helms does more serious damage to America's reputation. 
     This is our treaty. Since the United States renounced 
     chemical weapons 15 years ago and began destroying 
     stockpiles, it has been persuading other nations to do the 
     same.
       The Chemical Weapons Convention is the first treaty calling 
     not just for the reduction of a type of weaponry, but its 
     entire elimination.
       The United States has had success convincing others to 
     follow our lead, but now it is the Senate's turn to act. 
     Instead, Helms has blocked a ratifying resolution introduced 
     by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the man Helms ousted as 
     committee chairman four years ago in a particularly egregious 
     use of the seniority principle.
       If Helms wants to thwart the Clinton administration and 
     does not care about the chemical industry, perhaps he should 
     listen to what the military is saying.
       Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff, is supported by former military leaders Colin Powell, 
     Brent Scowcroft, Elmo Zumwalt and others in urging quick 
     ratification.
       Disputing Helms' claim that the treaty somehow weakens the 
     United States, Zumwalt, former chief of naval operations, 
     says it ``is entirely about eliminating other people's 
     weapons, weapons that may someday be used against Americans.
       That kind of sober warning should be enough to persuade 
     Helms to end his ego trip and let the treaty go forward.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 19, 1997]

                    This Treaty Ought To Be ratified

       In the annals of 20th Century warfare, hardly a weapon 
     short of nuclear explosives has produced such loathing and 
     terror as those classified as chemical weapons, more commonly 
     known as poison gas.
       Considered the poor-man's A-bomb because of their ease of 
     manufacture and battlefield delivery, the use of chemicals 
     was considered so inhumane that even the Nazis declined their 
     deployment on the battlefield--if not in the extermination 
     camps.
       So horrible was the thought of Iraq using chemical 
     artillery against U.S. forces in the Gulf War that Baghdad 
     had the clear impression that to do so might bring quick 
     nuclear retaliation.
       Who besides the leaders of renegade nations would oppose a 
     treaty that would ban and destroy such heinous weapons of 
     war? How about a handful of senators who oppose the U.S. 
     ratification of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
       Jesse Helms, the powerful head of the Senate Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, and a few others oppose the treaty, 
     claiming that it cannot be effectively enforced nor can 
     violations of its provisions be verified. Proponents dispute 
     such claims. Helms has asked that instead of chemical arms, 
     Senate priorities first be focused upon other aims, like 
     legislation ensuring a comprehensive reform of the 
     ``antiquated'' Department of State and the United Nations.
       In this there is a problem: if the Senate does not ratify 
     the pact by April 29, the day the convention becomes 
     international law, the sole remaining superpower will lose 
     out on the right to join teams to monitor suspect chemical 
     plants and guarantee the destruction of chemical arms 
     stockpiles. Another detriment would be denial to the U.S. of 
     access to information gathered by those chemical teams.
       So far 161 countries have signed the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, and the legislatures of 68 countries--including 
     those of our major allies--have ratified the pact. Russia, 
     which has yet to ratify, is nevertheless committed to destroy 
     its chemical stockpile by the year 2005 and the United States 
     its own by 2004.
       The list of those backing the treaty contains names hardly 
     associated with a soft line on national defense. On that list 
     are military giants like Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, 
     Brent Scowcroft and Adm. Elmo Zumwalt Jr., and civilians like 
     George Bush, Lawrence Eagleburger and James A. Baker III.
       Our confidence on this issue is in them, not Jesse Helms. 
     The Senate should move quickly to ratify the treaty and join 
     the 21st Century.

                          ____________________