The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RATIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S2238-S2239 on March 13, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RATIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is time--long past time--for the Senate to end the embarrassing delay and ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. The convention is the most significant nonproliferation agreement to come before the Senate since the 1968 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. It is a major step toward eliminating this entire class of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. ratification of the convention, before it takes effect on April 29 of this year, is vital to our national security. U.S. support for the convention will demonstrate our continued commitment to halting the spread of these weapons of mass destruction. This is far too important a subject for further delays. It is time to end the stalling and bring the convention to a vote. There is no justification for a handful of Senate opponents of the convention to bottle it up in the Foreign Relations Committee.
This treaty is clearly bipartisan. It was negotiated under President Reagan, concluded and signed by President Bush, and submitted to the Senate for advice and consent by President Clinton. It has broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and it should be voted on by the Senate, now.
The Chemical Weapons Convention deserves this broad support, because it makes sense for America's national security. We have the opportunity now to move forward and rid the world of these senseless weapons.
The United States initially led by example, by unilaterally destroying our stockpile of chemical weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention will extend this requirement to all other nations that approve the convention.
The convention also provides for monitoring and controls to reduce the proliferation of the chemicals and technology used to make such weapons. These restrictions will make it much more difficult for terrorists and rogue nations to develop these weapons of mass destruction. The convention also contains provisions to investigate and punish violators, including short-notice inspections of chemical manufacturing sites and other facilities.
Opponents of the convention argue that since it is not being ratified by all nations, it will not stop rogue countries from acquiring these deadly weapons. But no international treaty starts with worldwide support. Countries suspected of chemical arms violations will be subjected to broad economic and arms embargoes. In fact, the convention specifically restricts the export or transfer of controlled chemicals to nonparticipating nations, a clear deterrent to rogue countries.
American leadership is essential to halt the proliferation of these deadly weapons. It is already a serious international embarrassment that the United States, the leading country in the development of the convention, has taken over 4 years to ratify it. If not us, who? If not now, when? As of today, 71 nations have ratified the treaty, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Canada. We stand with Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Syria as nonsigners. The Senate needs to act now to end the unconscionable delay in ratifying this urgently needed convention. The longer we delay, the greater the danger of the proliferation of these devastating weapons.
Protecting our own soldiers and civilians from chemical attack is and will continue to be a high priority. Without U.S. support for this convention, rogue nations will have a greater incentive to acquire chemical weapons, and our military and civilian populations will face greater risk of chemical attack. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, those directly responsible for the men and women who are most at risk from chemical attack, fully support this convention.
It is clearly in our national interest to ratify the convention before April 29, so that this country can be involved in the initial implementation legislation, the budget negotiations, and the verification provisions for tracking chemical weapons worldwide.
Critics of the convention say that it will impose high costs on the U.S. chemical industry. But our industry and defense representatives have been involved in the development of the convention from the beginning. They helped draft the convention's language to ensure that their interests will not be compromised. The chemical industry supports ratification, because they know that if the convention enters into force without U.S. support, they will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in annual trade. This economic burden more than offsets the marginal costs that compliance with the convention will impose on the industry.
Opponents also argue that the convention will reveal U.S. trade secrets to foreign inspectors. But the United States will always be the target of industrial espionage, with or without this agreement. Issues relating to the confidentiality of product and processes received a great deal of attention during the negotiations, and they are addressed in detail in the convention.
In addition, the Commerce Department's expertise in protecting the proprietary interests of U.S. companies will continue to assist our chemical industry. The strong support for the convention by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business is a tribute to the fact that the concerns of these industries are fully protected.
Ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is vital to America's national security. I commend all those who have done so much to make this achievement possible. It represents arms control at its best, and I urge my colleagues to vote for ratification.
____________________
