[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3309-S3310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RATIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to address this body on a most 
important issue, an issue which may affect our country and, of course, 
the citizens of our country. The Chemical Weapons Convention, when 
ratified by this body, will mark the beginning of a new arms control 
era.
  I first stood before the Senate December 11, 1995, and urged that we 
bring the Chemical Weapons Convention to the floor for debate. I urged 
that this be done expeditiously and without partisanship. After many 
unsuccessful attempts, we are now in a position to debate the treaty on 
the Senate floor.
  This treaty was negotiated and signed during the administration of 
President George Bush. The Clinton administration, after making its own 
assessment of the treaty, submitted it for the Senate's advice and 
consent pursuant to our Constitution in November of 1993. The Chemical 
Weapons Convention is truly a bipartisan effort and is now enjoying 
support from both sides of the aisle. The Chemical Weapons Convention 
has been signed by 161 countries and ratified by 68 of these countries 
and many more will ratify the convention once the United States does.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention is not about eliminating our chemical 
weapons. The United States is already committed to eliminating our 
chemical weapons. We have done that unilaterally and have been doing 
that since 1985 because in 1985 we passed legislation requiring the 
unilateral destruction of all of our chemical weapons inventory. The 
only question since then has been how and where we do the destruction 
of the chemical weapons.
  The convention will hold other nations to the same standards which we 
hold ourselves. How can this be viewed as anything but beneficial to 
the citizens of this country. The Chemical Weapons Convention requires 
signatory nations to destroy their chemical weapons inventory. The 
security of this Nation and our allies will be improved when the 
Chemical Weapons Convention enters into force on April 29 of this year.
  Secretary Madeleine Albright, our Secretary of State, has said, among 
other things:

       The convention will make it less likely that our Armed 
     Forces will ever again encounter chemical weapons on the 
     battlefield, less likely that rogue states will have access 
     to the material needed to build chemical arms, and less 
     likely that such arms will fall into the hands of terrorists.

  That is what our Secretary of State said, and I agree with her.
  This treaty reduces the possibility that our Armed Forces will 
encounter chemical weapons on the battlefield by preventing signatory 
nations from producing and, also importantly, possessing chemical 
weapons.
  Ratification does not prevent our military from preparing for 
chemical attacks, nor does the ratification diminish the ability of our 
military leaders to defend against a chemical attack. In fact, as I 
speak, our national laboratories are working on programs to test how we 
can defeat terrorist activities using chemical weapons. We need to have 
a program where we determine how we can eliminate rogue states that 
have these materials in their possession and terrorists obtain them. A 
lot of this will be going on at the Nevada test site in the deserts of 
Nevada.
  Ratification does not prevent our military, as I have indicated, from 
preparing for chemical attacks. The Department of Defense is committed 
to maintaining a robust chemical defense capability. The defense 
capability will be supported by aggressive intelligence collection 
efforts and also the research and testing that I have indicated that 
will likely take place at the Nevada test site. The Department of 
Defense will continue to prepare for the eventual possibility of 
chemical attacks, and they will continue to train on systems which can 
be used to defend against such an attack.

  The Chemical Weapons Convention requires other countries to destroy 
their weapons, I repeat, weapons that may someday threaten American 
citizens.
  Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who became an American folk hero because of 
his activities during the Gulf war, has said:

       I'm very, very much in favor of ratification of the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention. We don't need chemical weapons 
     to fight our future wars. And frankly, by not ratifying that 
     treaty, we align ourselves with nations like Libya and North 
     Korea.

  The 1925 Geneva Protocol does not--I repeat, does not--restrict 
possession and production of chemical weapons. The Chemical Weapons 
Convention fills that void by further rolling back the threat of 
chemical weapons.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the development, 
production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer and use of 
these weapons. It enforces these basic prohibitions through the use of 
a multinational economic and political sanction network.
  I stress, the Chemical Weapons Convention makes it less likely that 
our Armed Forces will face these horrible instruments of power on the 
battlefield by prohibiting the production and the stockpiling of these 
chemical weapons. The convention also protects Americans at home from 
deadly terrorist attacks such as those that occurred at the Tokyo 
subway. It does not eliminate them but it adds to the protection that 
we in America have.

[[Page S3310]]

  The Chemical Weapons Convention not only prohibits development of 
chemical weapons, it also, importantly, limits access to chemical 
weapons precursors. I do not know for sure, and I guess no one can 
determine for certain, if this convention would have prevented the 
deadly attack in the Tokyo subway. It certainly would have made it less 
likely. But we do know that almost immediately after the attack in the 
Tokyo subway, where people were killed and injured for life, Japan 
ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Terrorism is a real threat to this country. We only need look at what 
happened at the World Trade Center, Olympic Park, and, of course, 
Oklahoma City. Chemical weapons provide an avenue for terrorists to 
further their cause. The Chemical Weapons Convention, while not 
perfect, will minimize the opportunity for these groups to use chemical 
weapons. The convention enters into force this month on the 29th day. 
Refusal to ratify the treaty will not stop the treaty. It will only 
prevent our country from participating on the governing council of this 
convention.
  The United States is the premier world leader today. That is without 
dispute. We provide leadership and direction in economic, military and 
political issues whether we want to or not. Delaying ratification of 
this treaty is counterproductive to our world leadership role and 
counterproductive to this Nation's security. Failure to ratify this 
treaty by the 29th of this month not only aligns us with nations like 
Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, it also prevents the United States from 
obtaining a seat on the executive council and the international 
inspection team. This executive council will decide how the treaty will 
be implemented. If we are to continue as world leaders in 
nonproliferation, which we are now, it is vital for us to be a part of 
the executive council and international inspection team. We not only, 
in my opinion, have the desire to do that but the expertise to do that.
  The Department of Commerce estimated last year that only about 2,500 
U.S. firms will be required to submit a data declaration form. Most of 
these firms will only be required to complete a two-page form. It is 
important to note that chemical companies support this convention. 
Leading U.S. chemical trade associations such as the Synthetic Organic 
Chemical Manufacturers and the Chemical Manufacturers Association 
participated in the negotiation of this treaty and strongly endorse 
this treaty.
  The chemical industry of the United States uses and produces 
chemicals from medicinal and industrial applications. The Chemical 
Weapons Convention does not restrict the use of chemicals for these 
purposes. The Chemical Weapons Convention is designed to ensure that 
commercial facilities do not convert sensitive precursor chemicals into 
weapons agents.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention, I suggest, does not end the chemical 
weapons threat. It is only a tool that we can use to reach that as an 
objective. That objective is eventual elimination of a very dangerous 
class of weapons. The convention establishes a global norm by which 
state behavior can be judged. Some would say it levels the playing 
field in games of weapons proliferation.

  Make no mistake. The Chemical Weapons Convention is not without a 
flaw. However, for all its imperfections, it is in essence a fine 
treaty, one that will serve this Nation and this world well and will 
assist in stabilizing this all too volatile world. This convention is 
clearly in the best interests of our national security. It will assist 
in the leadership of our country. It will assist in the worldwide 
destruction of chemical weapons. Let us not imperil our global 
leadership position. It is time to ratify this convention.
  Mr. President, I also want to extend a personal word of 
congratulations to the two leaders who enabled us to get to the point 
where we can have a say in whether or not this treaty will be approved. 
The Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, has worked personally, spending 
hours, days, and weeks to allow us to get to this position. And I have 
to say I think this shows the leadership qualities of the Republican 
leader in allowing us to have this treaty before the Senate. If it did 
not come before the Senate, I think it would show a lack of leadership. 
At this stage I hope I am not going to be disappointed. I hope it will 
come before this body in a fashion that will allow us to fully debate 
and ratify this convention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________