[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.

                          ____________________