[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.
____________________