[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 50 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3568-S3570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. First we will have the clerk report the 
pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Treaty Document No. 103-21, the convention on the 
     prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and 
     use of chemical weapons and on their destruction.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the convention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 1 hour 30 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Nebraska, and if he needs more time, let me know. We are 
kind of tight on time. Then, in accordance with the unanimous-consent 
request by the majority leader, I will yield 7 minutes of my time to 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, [Mr. Bingaman].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank you.
  Mr. President, it was 30 years ago this week that I joined the U.S. 
Army. It was 29 years ago this week, with my brother Tom, that I was 
first wounded in Vietnam. This is an important week of reflection for 
me as we take up the final hours of debate on the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.
  I rise this morning to say that I will vote for the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. America's national security interests are better served 
with this treaty than without it. Our men and women in uniform are 
better served with this treaty than without it.
  There are few Senators who have put as much time in on this issue 
than I have, studying this treaty over the past few weeks. As a 
freshman Senator, I began with very limited knowledge about this 
convention. I had to understand it totally before I could make an 
intelligent vote on the treaty.
  This treaty is much improved from the form in which it was first 
submitted to the Senate. I would have voted against this treaty in its 
original form.
  But as the Framers of our Constitution intended, the Senate has 
worked its will and has substantially strengthened the final agreement. 
Because of the strong leadership and negotiation, in my judgment, the 
balance has tipped strongly in favor of ratification of this 
convention.
  The people of this country should recognize the important roles that 
Majority Leader Lott, Chairman Helms, and Senators Biden, Lugar, and 
Kyl played in this debate. They allowed the Senate the opportunity to 
listen, to learn, and to understand this treaty, to debate this treaty, 
and they have brought a more informed Senate together to vote on this 
treaty as we will throughout the day.
  That is what this body, the Senate, should be about, debating 
important issues that have consequences for all Americans. This 
convention will have consequences for all peoples around the globe.
  Under the leadership of Majority Leader Lott, Senator Biden, the 
administration, and others, the Senate made 28 substantial changes to 
the original treaty to address major problems in the treaty, several of 
which were key to improving it, in my opinion. The majority leader held 
a news conference 45 minutes ago and read a letter from the President--
as far as I know, unprecedented in arms control conventions--laying out 
some of the concerns that this President has and this body has about 
issues in this convention. I think that, too, further strengthens this 
treaty.
  We fully protected the constitutional rights of our businesses 
against unlawful searches and seizures by ensuring that international 
inspection teams must obtain a search warrant before entering any 
American facility. This means no challenge inspection will occur unless 
a U.S. Federal judge finds probable cause to believe a violation of law 
has occurred at that facility. The rights guaranteed under our 
Constitution will continue to reign supreme.
  We ensured that the American military will be able to use nondeadly 
riot control agents, such as tear gas. As military operations become 
increasingly complex and involve more areas with civilian populations, 
it is imperative that our military commanders have the maximum 
flexibility to employ a range of force, including nondeadly force.
  We made clear that our existing national and international export 
controls will remain in place. The United States simply will not 
transfer chemical technology in any manner that would weaken our 
existing controls or military defense capabilities, or would tend to 
allow dangerous chemical technology to fall into the hands of pariah 
regimes.
  We put in place safeguards to ensure that American intelligence data 
is protected whenever it is shared with the international organization 
that will oversee operations of the convention. We also prohibited 
chemical samples taken at American laboratories from being transferred 
off American soil--an important provision that helps protect 
proprietary and security information.
  And, we took steps to ensure that the new international organization 
set up to monitor and enforce the convention will not become an ill-
managed bureaucracy that burdens the American taxpayer. We put a cap on 
the American contribution to that organization, and we required the 
organization to establish and maintain an independent inspector 
general.
  I should like to close with this. As I have referenced, there are a 
number of improvements that have been made to this treaty. We have five 
more proposed conditions that remain in disagreement that we will vote 
on yet today. I will vote to strike at least four of those conditions 
because they would effectively prevent American participation in the 
convention and would undermine the very purpose of this treaty.
  This treaty, however, is no magic instrument that will guarantee 
Americans and our troops safety from chemical attack. No treaty can 
substitute for unwavering American strength, determination, vigilance, 
and leadership. But this treaty is one more tool we can use to make 
chemical attacks less likely. It does improve our eyes.
  With or without this treaty, the United States years ago decided 
never again to use chemical weapons and is committed by law to 
completely destroy our stockpile of chemical weapons by early in the 
next century. That decision was made during the Reagan administration 
and was reaffirmed by the Bush administration.
  The important question now is, what can we do to give ourselves more 
leverage to press other countries to do the same? It is a very 
important question. Ratifying this treaty is not the end of our efforts 
to make chemical attacks on Americans less likely. To the contrary, it 
is only the beginning. As President Reagan's top arms control 
negotiator, Ronald Lehman, said last week before our Foreign Relations 
Committee:

       Ratification is essential to American leadership against 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but 
     ratification alone is not enough. Strong follow-up involving 
     all branches of Government will be vital.

  We must now use the tools of this treaty effectively. The treaty 
tools give us, I believe, the most effective way to deal with the 
proliferation of chemical weapons. We must keep America strong. We must 
keep America vigilant. The Senate has an important and ongoing role to 
play in making sure this treaty is implemented properly, and I am 
committed as a Senator to making that happen.
  For me, this has never been a political issue, Mr. President. This 
vote is not about Republicans. It is not about Democrats. It is not 
about conservatives, not about liberals. It is not

[[Page S3569]]

about Bill Clinton. It is not about Trent Lott. This vote is about 
America's national security interests. It is about our young men and 
women in uniform all over the world who may someday face an adversary 
with chemical weapons. It is about each Senator doing what he or she 
thinks is in the best interests of our country.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote for 
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Before the Senator yields back all his time, if he will 
yield to me for a comment.
  Mr. HAGEL. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am obviously very pleased with the 
decision the Senator from Nebraska made, but I want to state on the 
record that I would have been comfortable with whatever decision he 
made, and I say that for the following reasons. I have been here for 24 
years. It has been a long time since I have been a freshman Senator, 
but I remember how overwhelming it was and the pressures that are 
exerted, legitimate pressures, when major issues confront someone. I 
have watched the Senator from Nebraska from the day he got here, 
because we serve on the same committee, attack with a seriousness of 
purpose I have seldom seen one of the most complicated issues that is 
going to come before this body this year. It was not merely determining 
what groups, what party, what factions of parties were for and against 
the treaty. He wanted to know what article X meant in the language. He 
wanted to know whether article I trumped article X. He wanted to know 
the details of it, and he addressed it.

  He indicated that this is the eve of an anniversary. It seems 
appropriate and totally consistent, I am going to say for the record--I 
hope I do not embarrass him--what I said to him privately. I have also 
observed another feature about him. This is a man whose conduct on the 
battlefield is mirrored by his conduct in politics, in that when he 
thinks he is right he is not afraid to do whatever it is he thinks he 
should do. And that comes through. That is what I mean when I say I 
would have been comfortable and assured that he had given it every 
consideration had he concluded to vote the other way. I want to 
publicly compliment him, not for the decision he made, but the way he 
made the decision. I hope that does not cost him politically, for 
someone on this side of the aisle to compliment my colleague.
  There is another freshman Senator I serve with, Senator Gordon Smith, 
who may not come to the same conclusion, but he has addressed it with 
the same kind of alacrity and commitment. So I just say it is a 
pleasure to serve with the Senator and our colleague, Senator Smith. 
But as I said, I am happy he came out the way he did. Regardless of how 
the Senator came out, I would have been comfortable.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you.
  I thank the manager of the bill, the Senator from Delaware, for 
yielding me time.
  I also commend my colleague from Nebraska. I sat through a meeting 
with him and the Senator from Delaware at the White House where he 
asked some very penetrating questions. The President and the Vice 
President were there. The Secretary of State was there. Our Ambassador 
to the United Nations and a great many individuals who studied this 
treaty were there. And I am very pleased to see the decision that our 
colleague from Nebraska has made.
  Mr. President, a point that was made by the Senator from Nebraska I 
think needs to be foremost in our minds, and that is that this is 
different from all other treaties that have come before the Senate 
since I have been here, in that this does not ask us to give up any 
military capability that we have not already decided to give up.
  Most treaties involve an agreement by us to give up military 
capability in return for other nations giving up military capability. 
But we have decided unilaterally during the Reagan administration and 
have maintained the policy ever since then that we are going to 
renounce the use of chemical weapons, destroy our stockpile of chemical 
weapons. What this treaty does is try to find ways to bring other 
nations to that same decision.
  President Reagan did commit to that in the 1980's. President Bush 
reiterated that position. President Clinton has certainly done so as 
well. That is a central part of this discussion that needs to be kept 
in mind.
  A second part of the discussion that needs to be kept in mind is that 
by going ahead and ratifying this treaty, we give up no other tools 
that we have to prevent chemical attack or to retaliate against someone 
who might begin a chemical attack.
  This is not: Do you want to have the ability to retaliate, or, on the 
contrary, do you want the treaty? We are going to retain in the future 
all capabilities to retaliate which we presently have. We stated very 
definitively in one of the conditions that is attached to this treaty 
that we will use a massive force to respond to any chemical attack. We 
do not consider a chemical weapons attack by a potential adversary or 
adversary to be comparable to a conventional attack; therefore, people 
need to know that we are not giving up any of our abilities or resolve 
in that regard.
  I think these two factors are persuasive. We have chosen to destroy 
our own chemical weapons anyway, whether this treaty goes into effect 
or not. And, second, we maintain the ability to retaliate against any 
chemical weapons attack with all the strength that we have today.
  So what does the treaty buy us?
  It buys us an international agreement with other nations that will, 
hopefully, bring them also to give up their chemical weapons 
stockpiles. And it puts in place mechanisms to ensure that they do 
that.
  It buys us a guarantee that other nations which might have chosen to 
build chemical weapons will find it much more difficult to do so.
  It buys us a likelihood that if anyone decides to cheat on the 
treaty, we will have the ability to detect that. It enhances our 
intelligence-gathering capability substantially. As the Director of the 
CIA testified--he said this treaty gives us tools that we do not now 
have to look into places where we cannot now look.
  There have been some concerns raised. I will not go into those. I 
think they have been addressed extensively in the various conditions 
that have already been added to the treaty.
  Let me just say a few words about the amendments that are being 
proposed.
  The first amendment calls for us to withhold ratification until the 
Russian Duma agrees to the ratification and agrees to comply with an 
earlier statement about the destruction of chemical weapons.
  Mr. President, what this does is essentially make our foreign policy 
and our national policy hostage to what the hard-liners in the Russian 
Duma decide to do. It gives the Russians an excuse for not ratifying 
the treaty if we do not. I think it would be contrary to our best 
interests.
  A second amendment that will be offered, which I will oppose--or 
second effort to strike that I will support, deals with an amendment 
that would destroy the potential benefits of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. It would require us to withhold ratification until various 
other countries, such as China, North Korea, Libya, and others, have 
ratified the treaty.
  Again, this provision would essentially shift to others the ability 
to define what is in our own best national interest. That cannot be a 
good thing for the United States.
  A third amendment deals with requiring us to reject inspectors from 
countries that have supported terrorism.
  Mr. President, we have the ability under the treaty to reject any 
inspectors we do not want to permit to come into this country and 
inspect. But it does not serve our interest to require, put into law a 
requirement, that certain inspectors be rejected at this early stage 
because, clearly, that will give them the same ability to reject our 
inspectors. That is not in our best interest.

[[Page S3570]]

  We will have the ability to decide any information that we will 
exchange with other countries. That has been a confusion about this 
treaty, Mr. President, that needs to be cleared up.
  When all the debate is concluded at the end of the day today, I 
believe it serves our national interest to go ahead and ratify the 
treaty. I believe it will contribute to a more peaceful world. Like all 
treaties, it lacks perfection. But the acid test is: Will this 
generation of Americans and future generations of Americans be less 
likely to confront chemical weapons on the battlefield or in a civilian 
context if this treaty is ratified? In my view, it is clear that they 
will be less likely to confront chemical weapons if we go ahead today. 
I hope very much my colleagues will join in supporting the treaty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Will the Senator withhold the quorum request?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I withhold.

                          ____________________