[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3312-S3313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are working toward developing a unanimous-
consent agreement which I hope will permit us to vote yet today on an
important piece of legislation that complements the efforts of the
administration to proceed with the consideration of the Chemical
Weapons Convention next week.
For those who support the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is a way of
reiterating that support. For those who oppose the Chemical Weapons
Convention, it is a way of declaring support for a wide range of very
realistic and practical and constructive steps that the United States
can take to help reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and, in particular, chemical and biological weapons here in
the United States.
It is my hope that we will be able to call that bill up. It is a bill
which I have sponsored with cosponsorships, including I believe all of
the Members of the leadership of the Senate Republicans, including the
distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott; Senator Nickles; Senator
Mack; Senator Coverdell; Senator Helms; Senator Shelby; Senator
Hutchison; Senator Allard; Senator Hutchinson; Senator Inhofe; Senator
Smith; and myself.
It is a bill which would have, under the unanimous consent agreement
being proposed, only 2 hours of debate before the vote. There would be
a very limited amount of time to describe it, and, therefore, I would
like to briefly describe the legislation at this time.
I think it should be noncontroversial, though the Chemical Weapons
Convention itself is very controversial; and reasonable people can fall
on either side of that debate. I think the legislation before us today
should be supported by all Members of the United States Senate.
The title of the bill--or let me actually read the description of the
title of the bill to begin this description:
To provide criminal and civil penalties for the unlawful
acquisition, transfer, or use of any chemical weapon or
biological weapon, and to reduce the threat of acts of
terrorism or armed aggression involving the use of any such
weapon against the United States, its citizens, or Armed
Forces, or those of any allied country . . .
Mr. President, this legislation came about because of the focus on
the Chemical Weapons Convention and the determination that there were a
lot of things that the United States could and should do whether or not
that convention is ratified.
For example, we found that while it is illegal in the United States
to possess or manufacture biological weapons, there is no criminal
prohibition upon the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons.
Therefore, we combine the two sections of the statute which relate to
chemical and biological weapons and provide that it is a criminal
offense to manufacture them, to use them, to threaten to use them, to
possess them. All of these things are criminalized with substantial
penalties being provided for them.
We provide for the revocation of export privileges for those
companies in the United States that might violate that law and,
incidentally, for the forfeiture of assets to help pay victims of such
crime. In effect, say, this was an attack such as in the Tokyo subway
about a year ago. We would, under certain circumstances, be able to
seize the assets of the criminals responsible for that for the purpose
of compensating the victims of that terror.
This legislation provides for sanctions against the use of chemical
and biological weapons. Under existing law there are sanctions, but we
would provide more flexibility for the President. Under the existing
law, the President has a limited range of 10 sanctions that he has to
impose in two particular tiers if he makes a finding that there has
been a violation of law. These are sanctions against another country.
What we would do is provide the President the flexibility to provide
any combination of those sanctions. He is still required to impose five
of them, as he is under current law, but this provides him some
additional flexibility depending upon the circumstances of how he would
impose sanctions against any particular country that has used or
possesses or manufactures chemical or biological weapons.
There is also a continuation of the waiver for the President.
Although that is strengthened somewhat, he would still be able to waive
these provisions in the supreme national interest of the United States.
But importantly, also, this act would call the President to block
transactions of any property that is owned by a country found to use
chemical or biological weapons. So their property here in the United
States should be seized, here again, for paying the victims of such
crime.
Another thing this bill does is to call upon the President and the
Secretary of State to use their best efforts to maintain the Australia
Group in force. That is the group of countries of the world that have
agreed among ourselves not to trade in chemicals with countries we do
not think should have those chemicals because they might be used to
manufacture chemical or biological weapons.
We need to maintain the Australia Group. This provides the sense of
the Senate and the policy of the United States to continue that
Australia Group in force.
There are currently conditions on assisting Russia in the destruction
of and the dismantling of their chemical and biological weapons. They
have far and away the largest stocks of chemical and biological weapons
in the world. What we have done is to provide assistance to them under
what are called Nunn-Lugar funds. This continues the same kind of
restrictions that existed in the past with respect to a certification
by the President that Russia is in compliance with these requirements.
The four conditions in this legislation closely parallel those in the
1996 Defense Authorization Act in which
[[Page S3313]]
both Houses of Congress agreed to fence the so-called Nunn-Lugar funds
pending a certification by the President that either Russia was making
progress toward achieving these goals or that the President could not
so certify.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent just to speak for a couple
more minutes to conclude my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Thank you.
I note the distinguished Senator from Texas is here. I will,
therefore, try to stay within this limitation of time.
In any event, this is basically a continuation of previous policy,
Mr. President, not something new, but we think it is important to
continue.
Our legislation calls for a report on an annual basis on the state of
chemical and biological weapons proliferation. It calls for the
Secretary of State to work with other nations of the world to try to
find ways to put teeth in the 1925 Geneva Protocol. That is the treaty
we all signed that bans the use of chemical weapons and, by the way,
includes such countries as Iran and Iraq and other countries that
really ought to comply with the provisions of that treaty.
We restrict the use of funds until the United States is actually a
member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Next to last, we make it the policy of the United States to continue
to enhance our defense capabilities. The GAO came out with a report
last year that frankly said our military was going the wrong way in
providing defensive capability to our troops, that we need to spend
more money and that we need to do a better job in equipping our troops
to defend against the use of chemical weapons.
Because of that GAO report, we have included in this legislation
instructions to the Secretary of Defense to get on with that job and,
very specifically, by the way, to require that the primary facility
which engages in this conduct to defend our troops is under the
jurisdiction of a general officer of the United States.
We provide a sense of the Senate that the President reevaluate the
current policy on negative assurances. And, finally, we provide that
the policy begun in the Ford administration on the use of riot control
agents be continued in force. This is a policy that says, for example,
that notwithstanding any chemical weapons convention, if we have a
downed pilot, for example, and there are civilians in the area, we can
use riot control agents, tear gas, if you will, so we do not have to
fire real bullets to extricate that pilot from that situation.
The bottom line is this act that will be introduced, and we hope
voted on today, is an act that continues some very important policies
and institutes some new, positive changes in the law, including filling
some important gaps in the law relating to the manufacture and use of
chemical weapons here in the United States. It ought to be supported by
all Senators in this Chamber whether or not they intend to support the
Chemical Weapons Convention. This bill is an important bill to support,
and we will be calling on them later today for that support.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are there any time limits on the
amount of time that a Senator can speak at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes per Senator.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able
to speak for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, I want to commend the distinguished junior Senator from
Arizona for all of the efforts that he has made to educate Members of
the Senate and members of the American public on the chemical weapons
treaty that will be before the Senate at some point in the next week.
He has shown so many of the problems with this treaty and some of the
consequences that might occur if the treaty is put forward in the form
that it is in.
I think his bill would correct some of the real problems, such as the
concern over the ability to use tear gas. To unilaterally say we would
not use tear gas is unimaginable when we know what an important tool it
is to safely extricate a pilot that is down or to safely be able to
control a group of prisoners, which was done with Iraqi prisoners of
war in Desert Storm. The last thing you want to do is have to shoot
with real bullets when you have other options that are not permanently
harmful.
So, I thank the Senator from Arizona, and I am proud to be a
cosponsor of his bill that I think would correct some of the problems
in this treaty so that we would all be able to ratify it very happily
and knowing that we have carried our responsibility to do what is right
for our country.
____________________