August 9, 1996

Dear Senator Helms:

The American Chemical Society (ACS) is the world's largest scientific organization with over 150,000 chemical scientists and engineers employed in industry, academia, and government. In view of the current debate on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Society offers its perspective.

The American Chemical Society strongly supports the overall goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention and urges immediate ratification of the treaty. Further, the Society believes that, after treaty ratification, the Congress should expedite consideration and passage of the needed implementing legislation.

For over a decade, the U.S. chemical industry has worked with the negotiators to craft the treaty. The industry continues to work to ensure that the treaty and its implementation are not unduly burdensome on American business. The U.S. chemical industry, with its positive trade balance and a $60 billion per year export business, has generated thousands of jobs. Without U.S. ratification, a treaty in force will adversely affect this industry as overseas customers start switching to suppliers in countries that have ratified the Convention.

The ACS's congressional charter imposes a responsibility to provide assistance to the government in matters of national concern related to its areas of expertise. The American Chemical Society has a long history of discussion on chemical warfare policies and of advising the government in this area. As the Senate deliberates on the treaty and its implementation, the Society offers its support and expertise. If we can provide assistance on this important issue, please call on us.

Sincerely yours,

Ronald Breslow

March 7, 1997

Dear Senator Lott:

I am writing to express the support of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) for ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Senate at the earliest possible date so that the U.S. will be an original party to the convention when it goes into effect on April 29, 1997.

The professionals of AIChE use their knowledge and skills to enhance human welfare. The chemicals, fuels, foods, and pharmaceuticals produced through the efforts of chemical engineering are meant to serve the world's needs. Chemical engineers have also served society by using their technical expertise to develop analytical techniques for controlling the spread of chemical weapons.

AIChE believes the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is a technically sound document that will enhance the security of the U.S. and other nations by reducing the threat of destructive chemical warfare. The best way to ensure that this threat is reduced is to be involved in the implementation of the treaty. Recognizing that there will always be means to bypass detection, we feel confident that, through the treaty, the U.S. can effectively monitor and stifle the development of these chemical weapons systems.

If the U.S. fails to ratify this treaty by April 29, we will not be involved in implementation discussions, but will be subject to the CWC nevertheless. The U.S. will be unable to transfer CWC-controlled chemicals to, or receive CWC-controlled chemicals from, nations that are parties to the convention.

Therefore, in addition to being concerned about protecting our nation's security, as professionals involved in the chemical industry we are also concerned about the implications non-ratification will have on the economic stability of the U.S. chemical industry. The trade restrictions could result in the loss of as much as $600 million in chemical export sales, jeopardizing American jobs. In addition, if the U.S. fails to ratify the CWC prior to April 29, the U.S. will not be a member of the executive council that will oversee implementation of the CWC and U.S. citizens will not be permitted to serve as international inspectors under the CWC. This would stifle interaction between U.S. professionals and their foreign counterparts on related technical issues.

AIChE, founded in 1908, is a non-profit, professional association that provides leadership in advancing the chemical engineering profession. Our membership of approximately 60,000 is made up of individuals who work in industry, government, academia, and consulting, as well as students and retirees. These individuals are creative problem solvers who use chemistry, physics, and mathematics to develop processes and design and operate plants that alter the physical or chemical states of materials to make useful products at a reasonable cost and in the safest manner possible.

For the many reasons states, we urge you to bring this matter to the floor and to vote for ratification prior to April 29.


Thomas F. Edgar


February 5, 1997

Dear Senator Glenn:

On behalf of the 40,000 members of the American Physical Society, I am writing in support of the position of the American Chemical Society urging immediate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. The American Chemical Society statement was communicated to all members of the U.S. Senate in a letter of August 9, 1996, from Ronald Breslow, then President of the American Chemical Society.

As the Senate deliberates on the treaty and its implementation, the American Physical Society joins with the American Chemical Society in offering its support and expertise. Please contact us if we can be of help.


Allan Bromley


The American Public Health Association,

Noting that on September 12, 1996, the United States Senate reversed earlier plans to consider the Chemical Weapons Convention for ratification; and

Recalling that the Governing council of the American Public Health Association adopted public policy statements in 1969 and 1974 calling upon the U.S. Government to join in ratification of a convention banning the use of chemical weapons; and

Recognizing that the Convention, which would place an international ban on the manufacture and possession of chemical weapons, was negotiated and signed by President Bush and endorsed by President Clinton and has broad bi-partisan support in the Senate; and

Noting that on November 3, 1996 the 65th nation ratified the Convention, the number needed for the Convention to enter into force; and

Realizing that the Senate's failure to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention may have a negative impact on efforts to secure approval by the U.S. Senate of other important arms control initiatives, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and

Concerned that the delay by the United States to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention will jeopardize U.S. participation in negotiations on critical issues such as verification methods; and

Aware that the disposal of chemical weapons may create hazards to public health and the environment which must be minimized; therefore

1. Calls on the President of the United States to resubmit the Chemical Weapons Convention to the U.S. Senate at the earliest possible date, and to work for its speedy ratification; and

2. Calls on the U.S. Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention at the earliest possible date, and in such form so as to permit the U.S. to be a full and active participant in the Convention; and

3. Calls on all agencies of the U.S. Government to provide the financial, technical and administrative assistance necessary to implement the Treaty after its ratification in a manner which protects the health of all people and protects the environment; and

4. Calls on all nations of the world to sign, ratify, implement and observe the Chemical Weapons Convention.


September 10, 1996

Dear Senator:

As members of Business Executives for National Security (BENS), we urge you to vote in favor of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) when it comes to a vote later this week.

We strongly support the CWC because it makes sense on military and business grounds. The treaty helps reduce one of the gravest threats facing American troops and the American people. That's why the CWC is supported by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, and Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.

The business case for the CWC is equally compelling. The affected industries, led by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), support the treaty. The chemical industry helped negotiate the treaty, and they have helped craft provisions that protect their trade secrets and create a minimal regulatory burden. Since the treaty calls for trade restrictions on non-signatories, a failure to ratify could jeopardize American exports and jobs.

The tragedy of TWA Flight 800 and other incidents are fresh reminders of the urgent need to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists. By ratifying the CWC, you will put yourself in favor of strong international action against this threat.

We urge you to vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention.


Mr. Stanley A. Weiss
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (Ret.)
President & CEO

with 39 additional signatures


April 15, 1997

Dear Senator Lott:

We, the undersigned members of the Chemical Manufacturers Association's Board of Directors, are writing to ask you to support the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

We believe the Convention is a fair and effective international response to the international threat of chemical weapons proliferation. Ratifying the CWC is in the national interest.

The CWC is a natural extension of existing U.S. policy. In 1985, Congress voted to end production of chemical weapons by the military and to begin destroying existing stockpiles.

For years, the United States has imposed the world's stongest controls on exports of weapons-making ingredients. Our nation is the standard bearer in preventing the spread of chemical weapons.

The CWC requires other nations to do what the United States is already doing. That's why President Reagan proposed the treaty to the United Nations in 1984. It's why President Bush signed the treaty in Paris in 1993. And it's why President Clinton is asking the Senate to ratify it.

The chemical industry has thoroughly examined the CWC. We have tested the treaty's record-keeping and inspection provisions. And we have concluded that the benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs.

Ratifying the CWC is the right thing to do. We urge you to vote for the Convention.


Frederick L. Webber
President & CEO
Chemical Manufacturers Association
J. Lawrence Wilson
Chairman & CEO
Rohm and Haas Company
Chairman, Board of Directors
Chemical Manufacturers Association


February 19, 1997

Dear Senator Lott:

On behalf of the Council for Chemical Research (CCR), I am writing to urge your support when the Senate votes on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

CCR is a nonprofit organization that was formed to advance research collaboration among the industrial, academic, and government sectors. Our members include the chemical research components of most major research universities and chemical companies, as well as 13 government laboratories.

International weapons treaties are an unusual issue for CCR to address -- our members do not develop or produce chemical weapons. However, our knowledge of the chemical enterprise leads us, in solidarity with our colleague organizations, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association, to believe that ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is in the best interest of all people.

The U.S. chemical industry has worked for over a decade helping to craft the treaty you will consider. The industry strongly supports the treaty because it is the best tool available to prevent illegal and dangerous diversions of the chemical products it produces. At the same time, the treaty calls for strict restrictions on trade with nations that do not ratify. As the world's preferred supplier of chemical products, the U.S. has much to lose -- both economically and morally -- if we do not sign on.

Thank you for your attention to our views. If we can provide any additional information regarding our support for the chemical weapons convention, please contact me or Janis Tabor, CCR's Director of External Relations.


Ronald W. Rousseau
1997 Chair


March 21, 1997

Dear Senator Campbell:

We are writing to request your assistance in obtaining a vote by the United States Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Senate should vote before April 29 of this year, the date the Convention will enter into force with or without the United States.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, which will outlaw the development, production, transfer, acquisition and use of poison gas, has been awaiting Senate confirmation since it was submitted by President Clinton to the Senate for its advice and consent for ratification.

The Convention was negotiated by the Administrations of President Reagan and Bush and signed by the United States under President Bush in January 1993. The Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Representatives of the Chemical Manufacturers Association have all testified strongly in favor of the ratification of the Convention.

Thus far, certain members of the Senate have dismissed the advice of the Pentagon, the intelligence community and the chemical industry. The Chemical Weapons Convention is verifiable, enforceable, does not impose substantial new costs on industry, costs less than the congressionally approved decision to go ahead with the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons' stockpile by 2004 and increases national security.

Opponents have asserted that the Chemical Weapons Convention will impose expensive new costs on industry. This is pure myth. Although the Chemical Weapons Convention requires U.S. companies to file declarations and undergo periodic inspections, the burden on U.S. industry is minimal. The Chemical Manufacturers Association estimates that fewer than 200 sites in the U.S. will be subject to regular inspection. An additional 900 to 1,000 companies located at fewer than 2,000 locations will be required to file a short two-page form that summarizes their chemical productions totals. Moreover, a host of industrial sectors are exempt from the treaty, including petrochemical firms, biotechnology firms, textile firms, plastics producers and firms that produce small amounts (under 10 tons per year) of proscribed chemicals. Industry estimates of compliance for all U.S. companies is estimated at less than $250,000.

The costs are very small to the U.S. budget, as well. The U.S. share of contribution for the international monitoring agency in the Hague is only $20 million, which is half the FY 97 spending for chemical protection suits for U.S. troops.

If the U.S. continues to delay ratification, we may eventually find ourselves on the receiving end of trade restrictions after its entry into force. Up to $600 million per year in chemical exports from the United States are put at risk if the Chemical Weapons Convention is not ratified, according to estimates from the Chemical Manufacturers Association. The U.S. will also lose the ability to participate in inspections of chemical facilities if it fails to ratify this treaty. Thus, the U.S. has an important national security interest, as well as commercial interest, in ratifying this Convention.

It should be clear that the U.S. sacrifices no strategic military benefits, in light of its decision to destroy its own chemical weapons' stockpile, while increasing our national security interests and protecting our troops overseas.

A recent opinion survey of 1,002 randomly selected adults revealed that 84% of Americans support U.S. Senate ratification of the Convention. Further, only 13% expressed opposition in this February 1997 poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide and the Mellman Group.

With bi-partisan support of three successive administrations and the broadest social coalition possible, there can be no justification for the Senate not taking action before April 29, 1997, and ensuring a role for American leadership in combating the proliferation of chemical weapons. Your help is essential.

I would be pleased to discuss our concerns with you at your earliest convenience.


Robert E. Wages


August 29, 1996

Dear Senator Lott:

The undersigned senior executives of chemical companies urge your vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and quick Senate action on legislation to implement this important treaty.

The chemical industry has long supported the CWC. Our industry participated in negotiating the agreement and in U.S. and international implementation efforts. The treaty contains substantial protections for confidential business information (CBI). We know, because industry helped to draft the CBI provisions. Chemical companies also helped test the draft CWC reporting system, and we tested the on-site inspection procedures that will help verify compliance with the treaty. In short, our industry has thoroughly examined and tested this Convention. We have concluded that the benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs.

Indeed, the real price to pay would come from not ratifying the CWC. The treaty calls for strict restrictions on trade with nations which are not parties to the Convention. The chemical industry is America's largest export industry, posting $60 billion in export sales last year. But our industry's status as the world's preferred supplier of chemical products may be jeopardized if the U.S. does not ratify the Convention. If the Senate does not vote in favor of the CWC, we stand to lose hundred of millions of dollars in overseas sales, putting at risk thousands of good-paying American jobs.

The U.S. chemical industry has spent more than 15 years working on this agreement and we long ago decided that ratifying the CWC is the right thing to do.

We urge you to vote in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention.


J. Lawrence Wilson
Chairman & CEO
Rohm and Haas Company
Chairman, Board of Directors
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Alan R. Hirsig
President & CEO
ARCO Chemical Company
Chairman, Executive Committee
Chemical Manufacturers Association

with 51 additional signatures


April 16, 1997

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Air Force Association has expressed grave concern regarding the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Our concern was rooted in the prohibited use of riot control agents to rescue downed airmen or other military members needing assistance. Recent assurances by the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, lead us to believe this issue has been addressed. On the basis of these assurances, the Air Force Association withdraws its statements of concern and supports ratification of the Treaty in the United States Senate.

As military forces decline and as our men and women in uniform are called on to perform an increasingly diverse mission, the Association believes they should be afforded every possible protection. The use of riot control agents during rescue is but one protection. If the Treaty is ratified, we urge our government to insist on full and rigorous compliance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this most difficult and challenging issue.


Doyle E. Larson