Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in connection with that, statements were made about the chemical industry losing $600 and $800 million. It is a moving target. They say several things at one time. I ask unanimous consent that this statement correctly altering the misstatements already made, and probably will be reiterated, be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. HELMS. Now, I am taking this advantage as the chairman of the committee. I spoke for 26 minutes this morning. The distinguished ranking member spoke for an hour. Just for the record, how long did the distinguished Senator from Indiana speak? I ask that of the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I hope the distinguished ranking member will agree that the other Senator from Arizona should follow. I will leave it for him to limit his time or not. Let me do one or two other things and I will let the Senator take care of that. I noticed that two or three times in the past week--and I am used to the media criticism; as a matter of fact, I enjoy it. I have a lot of cartoons on my office wall to prove that I do enjoy it. But I noticed that two or three people said, ``Helms doesn't do anything in the Foreign Relations Committee except hold up treaties.'' Well, let's look at the record. In the past 2 years--that is to say the 104th Congress--the Foreign Relations Committee has considered 39 treaties, and the Senate approved 38 of them--the one exception being this chemical weapons treaty, which the administration pulled down just before it was to become the pending business in the Senate. I will read the list that I am going to put into the Record: Consideration of the CWC, in the context of the work of the committee in carrying out its responsibility to us and consent to ratification as set forth in article II, section 2, of the Constitution. Treaties considered during the 104th Congress included bilateral tax and investment treaties, important to protecting and furthering U.S. business interests abroad; 14 treaties strengthening U.S. law enforcement through extradition of criminals and access to criminal evidence in other countries. One notable example of the impact of these treaties was the ratification of the United States extradition treaty with Jordan, which enabled the United States to take into custody a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing. Extensive hearings were held by the committee to consider the START II Treaty and the Convention on Chemical Weapons. The Foreign Relations Committee also considered, and the Senate ratified, three multilateral treaties dealing with landmines and the rubber industry and international fisheries laws. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. In addition to my recommendation to the distinguished ranking member, I hope Senator McCain, although he does not share my view on the treaty, will be recognized, because he is a patriot of the first order, as far as I am concerned. If anybody ever paid his dues to this country, the Senator from Arizona did. Following him, I should like for Senator Hutchinson to represent our side in the pecking order. How much time will the Senator need?

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, [Mr. Craig].

Mr. HELMS. Yes, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HELMS. I think it is fair to let Senator Craig have another whack at it, and I do wish the former Democratic Secretary of Defense can be quoted on this subject as well. As a matter of fact, the news media ignored him entirely. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.

Mr. HELMS. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. President, I have received a very fine statement by a distinguished former Member of this body, Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, a gentleman and Senator whom I admire very much. He is now chairman, by the way, of the Frontiers of Freedom. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the able Senator from New Hampshire, a great patriot, Bob Smith.

Mr. HELMS. The Senator can use a little longer if he wishes. Let me ask about the time consumed thus far, Madam President.

Mr. HELMS. Three hours even for me?

Mr. HELMS. We are running pretty near. The distinguished Senator from Delaware made his usual eloquent speech this morning. How long did I speak, by the way?

Mr. HELMS. Four months? No, I understand. With the understanding that the Senator from Arkansas will follow the distinguished Senator from Arizona, I yield the floor to my distinguished friend from Delaware.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Seven, eight minutes. I yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I listened in amazement to some of the statements being made today about a nonexistent treaty. The treaty before us I understand, but I do not understand the descriptions that some are indicating that they believe are accurate. Furthermore, I was astonished at the number of companies that will be required to provide annual business information and undergo routine annual inspections under this arms control treaty, and that is what it is, an arms control treaty. The Chemical Weapons Convention, so-called, will affect companies engaged in coke, coal, steel production, mining, crop protection, fertilizers, paper production, wood preservation, chlorine manufacturing, color pigments, paint, ink, die stuff production, speciality coatings, powder and roof coatings, plating and packaging, compressed gas, cosmetics, toiletries and fragrances, drug chemicals manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, plastics, textiles, custom chemicals, food, wine, beer, processing and electronics, among others. The list I just read, as long as it is, is not all of them. So anybody sitting in television land listening to this conversation in the Senate today, I suggest, as the saying goes, wake up and smell the coffee and give some thought about what is going to happen to the business community if, as and when this treaty is ratified. It is not an ethereal thing that is floating through the air, dropping little rose petals, it is something that can bollix this country up. And yet what you hear from so much of the media and so much of the White House and other proponents of this treaty is simply not so. I note, however, that even this long list does not cover companies likely to be affected by the CWC, and I simply do not believe it advisable for the Senate to learn belatedly the far-reaching implications of this treaty for businesses of all kinds across the United States of America. As the April 15, 1997, hearing, recently, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations demonstrated, compliance costs--compliance costs, the cost of complying with this treaty--will place a massive new regulatory burden upon so many companies who don't even know it is going to hit them, along with an unprecedented onsite inspections and data declarations that may very well compromise trade secrets vital to the competitive edge of many, many businesses. So you see, we are dealing with a lot of untrue, inaccurate statements. I am not saying everybody is deliberately distorting the facts. In the media, they do not know what it is all about. I did see Helen Dewar the other day sitting down and having lunch reading the treaty. Bless her heart, she was trying. She looked up and said, ``I'm trying to understand this.'' Well, Helen Dewar is a great reporter with a not so great newspaper, but she was sitting there eating her lunch with the treaty before her. I would like to take a poll of all the people who have commented on this treaty and see how many of them have even looked at it. That is the problem. That is the problem. But at our hearing the other day, a number of companies, including two members of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, provided testimony relating to rising concerns about the chemical weapons treaty. Now, then, here is a fact, indisputable: Companies will have to bear an entirely new reporting burden beyond anything required by, say, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the International Trade Commission or the Census Bureau--and just name the various State and local agencies that require reports. Nobody says that on Pennsylvania Avenue about those reports, about the paperwork. Oh, no, we are not going to mention that because they might ask us too many questions. That is precisely the problem. Everybody has been dancing around the truth on this treaty. As a consequence, too few Americans understand the scope of it. For those businesses that are covered, current reporting thresholds are much higher than those required under the CWC. Some regulations require only prospective rather than retroactive reporting. Moreover, several environmental regulations--how do you like them apples?--will apply to the chemical producers but not to processors or consumers. And reporting deadlines for the chemical weapons treaty are shorter and will require more frequent updates than estimates currently required by the EPA. So, if you would like to file reports with the EPA, you will file more reports with this chemical weapons treaty. The regulations imposed by EPA and OSHA and all the others, in 1992 alone, 1 year, cost the chemical industry approximately $4 billion--$4 billion with a ``B''-- $4.9 billion. Now, isn't it a bit incredible that one major chemical manufacturer employs 1,700 of its 50,000 personnel for the sole purpose of satisfying Federal and State requirements for environmental and regulatory data? That is why, Mr. President, I am concerned that while large, international chemical industries such as those represented by the Chemical Manufacturers Association may be able to afford the cost of the new regulations as a result of the ratification of this chemical weapons treaty, these same requirements will be proportionately far more burdensome for small businesses. That was the point that Don Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, made when he appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee. But that was kept a secret by the news media. They hardly touched on anything that the four former Secretaries of Defense came and testified to. Well, let me correct that. One of them, it was delayed at the last moment, sent a letter. Now then, there are roughly 230 small businesses which custom synthesize made-to-order products and compete with the large chemical manufacturers. They generally have fewer than 100 employees. They are small businesses, and they have annual sales of less than $40 million each. Few, if any, of them can afford to employ the legions of lawyers just to satisfy the new reporting requirements of this chemical weapons treaty. Nobody talks about that. Sandy Berger down at the White House has not even mentioned it. He is telling Trent Lott and all the rest what to do. Yet, Bob Dole writes letters, but they did not talk about the details of the impact and the burden to be piled on the small businesses of America. It will not be reported in tomorrow's paper. You will not hear a thing about it unless you are looking at C-SPAN. That is one thing wrong with this country today--no warning is given the American people about some of the actions and some of the proposals that come up in the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, equally as important, Senators should be careful to note that the onsite inspection provisions of the CWC increase the potential for compromising proprietary information which is offered as the very basis for a company's competitive edge. Many companies will not survive if they had to do without their competitive edge. While it may be difficult to assess the potential dollar losses associated with the inspections under the chemical weapons treaty, it is clear, Mr. President, it is absolutely clear, that information gleaned from inspections and data declarations could be worth literally millions and millions of dollars to foreign competitors. You better believe that they will be digging for it every time they get a chance. So that is what some of us have been talking about and some of us have been pleading, let us get this thing straightened out before we make the mistake of ratifying this treaty. Let me tell you something. I do not enjoy having my shirttail on fire in the newspapers and on television about opposing a treaty that the newspapers and the television programs say is a wonderful treaty. But I stood there, as I said earlier this afternoon, five times, and I have taken the oath of office as a Senator. A part of that oath, I say to you, Mr. President, is to support the Constitution of the United States, defend it, and defend the American people. I have done my best to do that for every year that I have been here. So as Don Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense, emphasized in his testimony during his appearance, which was unnoticed by the news media, his appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee, Don Rumsfeld emphasized that the greatest threat is not--is not--to the large, diversified chemical manufacturers who have the lobbyists lobbying for this treaty--you fall all over the lobbyists--but it is going to be the threat to other companies that are trying to concentrate on a single market or a particular technological nature. A company whose profitability and economic survival derives from the cost or quality advantage in one type of process will be particularly vulnerable to industrial espionage. One other thing. For some companies even visual inspection might reveal a unique process configuration of great value to a would-be competitor. While big chemical businesses routinely undergo Federal inspections, the chemical weapons treaty will allow a whole cadre of international inspectors from countries routinely engaging in economic espionage to inspect hundreds of facilities around the United States on a recurring basis. Among the companies potentially hardest hit by treaty inspections will be those companies that engage in technologically intensive applications, such as the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors as well as the manufacturers of commercial and military aircraft, missiles, space-launch vehicles, and other equipment of a highly sensitive nature. The economic integrity of these companies is essential not only to the economic stability of the United States, don't you see, but in many cases to our future national security. I, for one, was not surprised to have discovered that the Aerospace Industries Association stated in a March 13, 1997, letter to the majority leader of the U.S. Senate: We are very concerned, however, that the application of the Convention's reporting and inspection regime to AIA member company facilities could unnecessary jeopardize our nation's ability to protect its national security information and proprietary technological data. At this point I am going to pause so that Senator Brownback can be recognized. We had several of those favoring the treaty in a row, and I think it is fair for Senator Brownback to be recognized--for how long?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I now invite the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] to take the floor to make whatever comments he may require.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require to thank the Senator for his comment. He is right on target. I have been around this place quite a while, and I have seen Senators come and go but there is one situation that is endemic to the trade. A lot of Senators can be frightened about threats of 30-second television commercials 2 years hence or 4 years hence. But let me tell you something, every kind of television known to man has been used against me about practically every vote I have cast and I am still here. So I have a little policy. I started it the first time I was sworn in. I stood over there five times now taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and to do my best to defend the best interests of this country just as the Senator has and just as the Senator has talked about. Now, the media have with one or two rare exceptions totally ignored the appearance of the three former Secretaries of Defense who came before the Foreign Relations Committee. And one of them read the letter that the Senator has just alluded to written by Dick Cheney. I wish all Americans could have heard these three gentlemen and read the letter by Cheney because they would understand that no matter about the 30-second commercials, no matter about the news media--I have had it all thrown at me. You can come to my office and look at the wall and see all the cartoons. Every cartoon that they run I put it up on the wall to remind me that the media do not count if you stand on principles and do what you think is right. Now, I have an idea satisfactory to myself that a lot of Senators wish they could vote against this treaty but they are wondering about the next election. I think they better stop and wonder about the next generation. I thank the Senator for the fine remarks that he made. I admire the Senator very much.

Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending April 18, the U.S. imported 7,984,000 barrels of oil each day, 684,000 barrels more than the 7,300,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 55.5 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf war, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 7,984,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 22, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,340,281,332,685.87. (Five trillion, three hundred forty billion, two hundred eighty-one million, three hundred thirty-two thousand, six hundred eighty-five dollars and eighty-seven cents) One year ago, April 22, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,101,586,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred one billion, five hundred eighty-six million) Five years ago, April 22, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,889,360,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-nine billion, three hundred sixty million) Ten years ago, April 22, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,271,567,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy-one billion, five hundred sixty-seven million) Fifteen years ago, April 22, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,058,288,000,000 (One trillion, fifty-eight billion, two hundred eighty-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,281,993,332,685.87 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty-one billion, nine hundred ninety-three million, three hundred thirty-two thousand, six hundred eighty-five dollars and eighty-seven cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, to receive testimony on the Administration's proposal on NATO enlargement.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on April 23, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. on the nominations of Kerri-Ann Jones of Maryland, and Jerry M. Melillo of Massachusetts, to be associate directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona has a unanimous-consent request, but I want him to withhold it until Senator Biden can be here and have an opportunity to object, if he desires.

Mr. HELMS. Very well.