Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska. He is absolutely correct. What he has said, as I translate it, is this amendment does not mean anything in the legislative sense. But I promise you, I promise you, if this amendment passes today, it will mean something to the Republika Srpska; it will mean something in Mostar; it will mean something in Belgrade; it will mean something in the Balkans; it will mean something in Paris; it will mean something in Moscow. It will mean something where it matters, and what matters is what the rest of the world believes our resolve is. We sometimes do not focus closely enough, and I acknowledge I do not, as well. But we have a situation in Croatia right now where the President of Croatia is very ill. To call him a very strong man is putting it mildly, and it connotes everything that goes along with strongman, a guy who is no box of chocolates. There is already a battle for succession going on in Croatia between the nationalists, those who to this day wish to see the partition of Bosnia, and those who are democrats, who want to become part of the West. If we announce now that the U.S. Senate want American troops out of there, either this September or next June, we give succor to those in Croatia who will argue the following: ``With the United States gone, no peace can hold, partition is the answer, and we are going to get our piece.'' The same is taking place in Belgrade. Milosevic is a war criminal. He is a thug. Remember the history of why this war took place in the first place. What happened there was, in effect, a referendum as to whether or not Bosnia would stay part of Yugoslavia. There was a vote. The voters said we want to set up an independent nation-state. They set it up, recognized by the United Nations, and Milosevic sent the Yugoslav National Army across the river. He supplied and gave cover for the use of force against the Muslims and Croats, and he instituted a war of aggression. He and his cronies instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing, a phrase I do not think any of us ever thought we would hear again. They actually talked about it out loud. That was their policy. Mr. President, our good friend, Mr. Milosevic, is on his last legs in Belgrade. Why, at this moment, are we going to indicate to him that there is a consensus in this country that the United States should walk away? Why are we going to do that now? What possible good would that do? Secretary Cohen, a man we all respect, has guaranteed we will be out of Bosnia in June 1998. He has said this in private meetings, in private arguments with me, and in public discussions. The President has said it. Madeleine Albright has acknowledged it. As I said, I think that, in and of itself, is a mistake. For us to come along now and announce to the world that we are not going to appropriate moneys is a mistake--and I acknowledge these are moneys we could not appropriate anyway. But they are not going to understand all that. All they are going to understand is that the United States of America, the U.S. Senate, has told the President he has to get out of there. I echo the phrase my friend from Connecticut used. He said, when has it ever made sense for us, in a circumstance where there is the potential for or the immediate past presence of war, to announce that we are going to leave and give a lead time to that announcement? When has that ever benefited us? Our only hope for the peace process is to continue to have an international force remain in Bosnia through June 1998. At least through June 1998. By then, several things will have shaken themselves out, one of which is the political situation in Croatia and the other is the political situation in Serbia. I am going to refrain from doing what I want to do, speak in more depth about this, because my friend from Alaska is technically right. He is right that this does not mean anything legislatively. I just want it to be known that there are voices in the Senate that think this is a very bad policy. When this amendment is written about, when this is discussed in other capitals of the world, they should understand not all of us share this view. This is not a sound policy. At this moment, it is my hope and expectation that the administration is leaning on our European allies to make it clear to them that we are willing to support a European-led follow-on force in Bosnia, composed of European troops, after the SFOR mandate ends. Remember what we said: We are going to remove American forces from Bosnia. We did not say we are disengaging in every military sense from Bosnia. The President did not say that, thank God, and I hope he will not say that. What we should be doing now, and what I hope we are doing now, is meeting with our NATO allies to explain to them that we are willing to have a forward force based in Hungary to back them up. We are willing to use our airpower and our intelligence apparatus to assist them. We are willing to use the capacity of our naval forces in the Adriatic to help maintain peace and security in Bosnia. This takes time. This amendment undercuts every possible option that exists between now and June 1998 by announcing now that the U.S. Senate does not support the continued presence of the United States of America in that part of the world. I do not fully understand what both my friend from Wisconsin and the Senator from Texas are saying. I acknowledge the Senator from Alaska is correct. This is meaningless in a legislative sense. But I do not understand what my two friends hope to accomplish here. Their amendment says, ``Provided further, that none of the funds made available under this Act may be obligated or expended for operations or activities of the armed forces relating to Bosnia ground deployment after June 30, 1998.'' Does that mean we cannot use our intelligence apparatus? Does that mean we cannot have forward deployment in Hungary? Does that mean we cannot use our airpower? Maybe it does. Maybe it does not. But I tell you one thing: To merely suggest that we are going to pull out U.S. ground forces is a bit disingenuous as well. So, again, I do not want to take any more time of the Senate except to say that this is a well-intended, very bad idea. It is a very bad idea. It does not serve U.S. interests. It does not serve us or aid us in our ability to lead an alliance in carrying out its responsibilities in Europe, in Bosnia. And it does not lend any support to those in both Serbia and in Croatia who are trying to change the political landscape of both those countries, which will have an impact upon the circumstance in Bosnia. So, again, I say as I yield the floor, with due respect to my friend from Wisconsin, I think this is a serious mistake. I hope the Senate will not go along with this suggestion. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to reintroduce President Clinton's proposal, the Presidential Honors Scholarship Act of 1997. I first introduced this bill on behalf of the administration last September--and I have included a very similar proposal in my own comprehensive higher education legislation, known as the Get Ahead Act. I am honored to have the opportunity to reintroduce this measure for the President, who continues his endless efforts at improving American education and making sure that college is affordable to all Americans. Most people are probably not familiar with Presidential Honors Scholarships, but I think many people have heard of the idea of merit scholarships. It is pretty simple. Under the bill, all students in public and private schools who graduate in the top 5 percent of their class would be designated as Presidential honors scholars and would receive a $1,000 scholarship to college. The scholarship could be used during their freshman year at the college of their choice, and the scholarship would not be used in determining eligibility for other financial aid. I strongly support merit scholarships for two reasons. First, we need to start rewarding excellence in educational achievement. Under the leadership of President Clinton, 4 years ago Congress passed legislation that encourages States to set high academic standards for their students. This proposal builds on that idea by rewarding those students who meet those high standards. Students who work hard and succeed ought to be recognized and rewarded. Second, by providing scholarship moneys, this bill will help thousands of students in paying for the costs of a college education, which, I might add, is becoming more and more difficult for middle- class families. I realize that $1,000 does not go a long way in paying for a public college education, not to mention the costs of a private college. But, it will be of some help, and for those who choose to go to a community college, it will pay for about two-thirds of the cost. Mr. President, I suspect that we will be debating higher education more than once this year. There is much to be done. We need to provide a tax deduction for the costs of college. We should allow penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts to pay for college. We should make permanent the employer-provided education tax exclusion. We need to expand the Pell Grant Program. And, we need to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. In that process, however, let us not forget merit scholarships. It is not the answer, but it is part of the answer. It is a piece of the puzzle. And while some would say that it is a small piece, it plays an important role in being the one piece that rewards those students who reach for excellence. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with President Clinton in seeing that this proposal becomes law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to reintroduce President Clinton's proposal, the Presidential Honors Scholarship Act of 1997. I first introduced this bill on behalf of the administration last September--and I have included a very similar proposal in my own comprehensive higher education legislation, known as the Get Ahead Act. I am honored to have the opportunity to reintroduce this measure for the President, who continues his endless efforts at improving American education and making sure that college is affordable to all Americans. Most people are probably not familiar with Presidential Honors Scholarships, but I think many people have heard of the idea of merit scholarships. It is pretty simple. Under the bill, all students in public and private schools who graduate in the top 5 percent of their class would be designated as Presidential honors scholars and would receive a $1,000 scholarship to college. The scholarship could be used during their freshman year at the college of their choice, and the scholarship would not be used in determining eligibility for other financial aid. I strongly support merit scholarships for two reasons. First, we need to start rewarding excellence in educational achievement. Under the leadership of President Clinton, 4 years ago Congress passed legislation that encourages States to set high academic standards for their students. This proposal builds on that idea by rewarding those students who meet those high standards. Students who work hard and succeed ought to be recognized and rewarded. Second, by providing scholarship moneys, this bill will help thousands of students in paying for the costs of a college education, which, I might add, is becoming more and more difficult for middle- class families. I realize that $1,000 does not go a long way in paying for a public college education, not to mention the costs of a private college. But, it will be of some help, and for those who choose to go to a community college, it will pay for about two-thirds of the cost. Mr. President, I suspect that we will be debating higher education more than once this year. There is much to be done. We need to provide a tax deduction for the costs of college. We should allow penalty-free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts to pay for college. We should make permanent the employer-provided education tax exclusion. We need to expand the Pell Grant Program. And, we need to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. In that process, however, let us not forget merit scholarships. It is not the answer, but it is part of the answer. It is a piece of the puzzle. And while some would say that it is a small piece, it plays an important role in being the one piece that rewards those students who reach for excellence. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with President Clinton in seeing that this proposal becomes law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Zaire must seize the current moment to avoid further bloodshed and negotiate a peaceful resolution to its current crisis. A tentative agreement for a meeting on Friday between President Mobutu Sese Seko and rebel Alliance leader Laurent Kabila has been reached. This meeting is critical to avoid further loss of human life in Zaire. I applaud Ambassador Richardson's presence in Zaire and fully support his important and courageous efforts to facilitate a peaceful settlement to the current political turmoil. The current crisis in Zaire has reached a critical fork in the road. In one direction lies the peaceful path of democracy and economic reform. In the other, the well-worn road of violence, bloodshed, and political instability. President Mobutu Sese Seko and rebel Alliance leader Laurent Kabila at this moment hold the fate of their country in their hands. I strongly encourage President Mobutu and Mr. Kabila to earnestly engage in a critical dialog on the future of Zaire. I urge them to put the interests of Zaire and their countrymen first, and resolve the current political crisis without further unnecessary loss of life. I have been deeply troubled by recent reports of wide-spread human rights abuses and mass killings of refugees and displaced persons in rebel-controlled Zaire. There are numerous accounts of desperately ill and malnourished women and children being indiscriminately slaughtered and maimed. Recently 55,000 refugees have inexplicably disappeared from a refugee camp outside Kisangani. Of these refugees, some 9,000, including 2,500 severely malnourished children, had only days earlier been deemed medically unfit to travel by visiting relief workers. After a week of repeatedly denying the United Nations to care for and repatriate refugees in rebel-controlled territory, today's news reports indicate the rebel Alliance is once again allowing the United Nations to care for the sick and the dying. Refusal to have given access to the United Nations over the past week, resulting in the maltreatment of refugees and displaced persons has been nothing short of deplorable. I call upon Mr. Kabila to put a permanent end to the bloodletting of innocents in Eastern Zaire. All impediments to humanitarian relief efforts in Zaire must be permanently removed. The United Nations must be permitted continued full access to these refugees and allowed to repatriate them to Rwanda without interference. Furthermore, the slaughter of those refugees suspected of responsibility for the 1994 Rwandan genocide must cease, as it is neither justifiable nor defensible. These people must be returned to Rwanda where they can stand trial in an appropriate court of law and rightly be held accountable for their crimes. It is time for President Mobutu and Mr. Kabila to signal their willingness to set Zaire on the path to peace and democracy. Zaire is a country of enormous potential that has suffered untold tragedies. Failure to seize this critical opportunity to negotiate peace in Zaire will only set that country woefully back. The fighting in Zaire must stop. The crisis in the country cannot be resolved by force. Replacement of the Mobutu regime with yet another authoritarian regime is a recipe of further political instability. I strongly urge both President Mobutu and Mr. Kabila to seize the current opportunity to avoid further bloodshed and choose the constructive path of peace and democracy in Zaire.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes and I ask to be informed at the end of those 5 minutes. I am not going to take the time to speak to why this is a killer amendment and why this is so important, because I could not improve upon what the Senator from Indiana said. I mean that sincerely. It is real basic. This gets down to real basic considerations. Anybody who has the capacity to transfer technology can do that right now. They can do it right now. If they are in the treaty, the treaty does not require them to transfer that technology, but they, theoretically, could transfer technology. If we are not in the treaty we are not there to modulate their attitudes, their activities. We are out of the game. This seems to me to be so simplistic and basic. But let me put on the hat I have been wearing for the past 5 years. I have been teaching constitutional law at Widner University on Saturday mornings, a three- credit course. You know the old joke is, if you want to learn a subject, teach it. If I had spent nearly as much time studying it when I was in law school, as much time as I have spent teaching it, I would have ended up in the top of the class, not the bottom. I don't think I would have the record the Senator from Indiana had, but it would be better. But all kidding aside, there is something, to quote Elliot Richardson, our former Attorney General, and Abe Chayes, Harvard Law School professor, and a number of other professors, which I will submit for the Record, there is, as the letter to me says, regarding article X and article XI, it says: As it is axiomatic that all treaty provisions must be interpreted in view of the purposes and objectives of the treaty and that a subsidiary obligation should never be read out of context to authorize behavior that would contravene a primary obligation, nothing in article X or XI may undermine article I . . .. But the first part of that sentence--maybe I spent too much time in law schools. There is no legal scholar in America who will tell you that you can read a subsidiary provision in a treaty, a document, a contract or anything else, that contravenes the stated purpose of the treaty--the stated purpose of the contract. You cannot do that. Think about it. Forget being a lawyer, just think about it. How could you write a contract, make a deal that said, ``This is our purpose,'' and five paragraphs later say, ``but if you don't want to meet the purpose, you don't have to.'' It is bizarre. This is an absolute bizarre interpretation. Let me also point out--I wish my friend had not taken down their chart. The Senator's chart, those in opposition to my amendment, a chart on article XI, is somewhat incomplete. The paragraph that sat up there for a half-hour or so, paragraph 2 in the chart, read, ``The state party shall--'' and then it goes on, and then the subparagraphs (b) and (c) were shown. But they left out the remaining part of that. The words that were missing are very key. They read as follows:. Subject to the provisions of the convention and without prejudice to the principles and applicable rules of international law, the state party shall. . .. That is the part they left out of article X and XI. What does article X and XI refer to? They are referring to article I. I do not want to be overly technical here. This is not rocket science. What does article I of the treaty say? It says: Each State party to this convention undertakes never under any circumstances: (a) to develop or produce or otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone; (b) to use chemical weapons; (c) to engage in any military preparation to use chemical weapons; (d) to assist, encourage or induce in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention.

Mr. BIDEN. I would like to thank the Vice President for being at the ready the whole day, and I would like to thank my colleagues for not making it necessary. I am glad they deprived the Vice President of the United States the opportunity to vote on the five conditions and on final passage. But I want to point out to my colleagues who are being very nice and solicitous about my efforts in this regard, the Vice President of the United States, who is in the Chair, played a critical role in pushing this, making sure that we kept it before the Nation, generating the interesting debate so this could not be left untouched, and I want to publicly thank him. There is that old expression in politics that politics makes strange bedfellows. I have had the distinction and the honor of having been the ranking member and/or chairman with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, and when I got that assignment I think most of my colleagues looked at me and said, this is going to be an interesting time, Biden and Thurmond. We turned out to be very good friends. This is the first occasion after 25 years that I have had to work as closely as I have with my new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I rank, and that is Senator Helms. I want to publicly thank him. He kept his word at every stage of this long, arduous, and for me ultimately rewarding negotiation. I want to acknowledge how much I appreciate it. I conclude by saying, because I do not want to turn this into some litany of people to thank, what a pleasure it has been to work with and receive the guidance and encouragement from the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar]. He has served this Nation well on this occasion, as well as Senator McCain. I hope I am not hurting their credentials in the Republican party by acknowledging how closely I worked with both of them. However, I think it should be noted that without the two of them weighing in on this treaty I not only doubt, I know we would not have passed this. I conclude by saying I truly think this is a very important moment in the Senate, and I do think the vote we just cast will be within the next hour heard around the world. Had we voted the other way, it would have been a louder, more resounding sound than the one now. It will be heard around the world, and it will reaffirm American leadership. I thank the Vice President for being here again and I am also thankful we did not have to have his vote, but I knew where it was if we had needed it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. We are ready to vote, Mr. President.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated October 17, 1996--speaking of superseding-- which supersedes the statement referred to by my colleague about the Australia Group. It says: In this context, the maintenance of effective export controls will remain an essential practical means of fulfilling obligations under the CWC and the BTWC. Translated into ordinary English, it means that we adhere to the commitment we made in the Australia Group with export controls. We believe it is consistent with the CWC and required by the CWC.

Mr. BIDEN. More to the point, even if we were obligated--which we're not, we maintain export controls on chemical defense equipment. In other words, we do not allow it to be sold to the rogue states. The only specific obligation contained in Article Ten is in paragraph seven, which is where you provide assistance to nations facing attack by chemical weapons. This provision also has much flexibility--it allows a nation to choose one of three methods for providing assistance. But to ensure that this paragraph does not become a loophole, we have added a binding condition, condition number fifteen, which limits the type of assistance we will provide--at least when it comes to countries ineligible for economic or military assistance, which includes the rogue states--to medical antidotes and treatment. Let me now turn to Article Eleven. The proponents of this condition contend that this article requires us to weaken our export controls under the CWC. There is nothing in the CWC that requires us to weaken our export controls. But just to ensure that there isn't any doubt, we have agreed to a binding condition that addresses the problem. Condition seven requires the President to certify that nothing in the Convention requires us to weaken our export controls, and that the Australia Group--an informal group of potential supplier states to which the United States belongs--will continue to maintain controls over chemical weapons precursors that are equal to, or exceed, those in effect today. the Australia Group has already indicated, as a group, that it would maintain its export controls. On October 17, 1996--a little more recently than the statement read by the Senator from Arizona--the Australia Group stated that the ``maintenance of effective export controls will remain an essential practical means of fulfilling obligations under the CWC.'' But just to be sure, I asked the administration to ask each country-- individually--whether it intended to maintain existing levels of controls. The answers have come back--all in the affirmative--as the president stated today in his letter to the majority leader. Finally, the President committed today, in the event that either Article Ten or Article Eleven to legitimate trade in a manner that endangers our security, the President will consult promptly with Congress on whether we should withdraw from the Convention. This is an extraordinary commitment. So I hope it resolves everyone's concern. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time on the bill. I think I have used up all the time on the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Moreover, as with any treaty, this paragraph must be read in light of the object and purpose of the convention. The purpose of the treaty, quite obviously, is to ban chemical weapons. And any nation which provides technology to a country of concern would find itself in violation of the overriding obligation of Article One of the treaty, which requires states ``never under any circumstance * * * to assist, encourage, or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this Convention.'' This is an overriding obligation. It governs everything you do under the treaty. Ronald Lehman, the head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Reagan Administration, stated during a recent Foreign Relations Committee hearing that: We made it very clear throughout the negotiations that all of this was subject to [A]rticle I, which is the fundamental obligation [under the Convention] not to assist. So we reiterated that again and again and again. But the most important, I think, telling factoid in support of the U.S. interpretation is the fact that after the Convention was done so many of the usual list of suspects were so unhappy that they did not get what they wanted in these provisions. On this point, I would also like to refer to a letter submitted to me by a group of eminent legal scholars, including Abe Chayes of Harvard Law School, former State Department legal adviser, and Elliot Richardson, former Secretary of Defense and former Attorney General. They write that the language in paragraph three which discusses that each State Party has the right to ``participate in exchanges of equipment'' is axiomatic--that is, it ``merely reaffirms current trade policies that allow nations to exchange goods and services. Each State Party retains the right to participate in this trade at the level of its own choosing, including not to trade at all. There is no affirmative duty to trade * * *.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield myself 2 additional minutes under the bill. Mr. President, what are we talking about here? Do you know what this debate on article X and article XI reminds me of, speaking of law school? The only thing I ever did do well in law school was moot court. I won that. Does that surprise you all? But I did. It reminds me of what we used to do--maybe when my friend from Indiana was at Oxford. You would walk in and you would be presented a question. The question before the court or the question before the House is--and you got assigned a side and you came up with the best arguments. This reminds me of that, as if we all got together earlier today and said, OK, one side has to argue that article X and article XI do all these terrible things. I am glad I did not get that side to argue. The reason is, it is much harder to make the case. My friend from Arizona, who is an able trial lawyer, is doing a very good job. But, look, you cannot avoid the central purpose of the treaty and that is: Never, under any circumstances, can any party assist, encourage, induce in any way anyone to engage in any prohibited activity. I yield myself 2 more minutes on the bill. So we are in a position here where I really understand the worry. But, even if there was any merit to the reading that is given by my friends, we have, in the conditions that we did support, we have two conditions which cover this--double cover it. We promise we are not going to transfer anything that is not medical in nature. Mr. President, a party cannot do something in the treaty by transferring material which would have the effect these Senators are worried about, because if it had the effect they were worrying about, then it would be assisting, encouraging, inducing or in some way engaging in activity prohibited by the treaty. Chemical weapons are prohibited by the treaty. To reiterate, Mr. President, this is a killer, pure and simple. This will prevent the United States from joining the Chemical Weapons Convention. The condition requires the President to certify that he has achieved the impossible: that he has been able to substantially rewrite the treaty. There is no chance--none--that he can achieve this by April 29, and it is highly unlikely that he can ever do so--because amendments may be blocked by any State party to the convention. If a party wants to keep us out--and thus render the treaty ineffective--it can easily do so. Aside from the practical difficulties of rewriting a treaty that took nearly a decade to negotiate, there is no need to do so. Let me start with article 10. The Senator from North Carolina wants to get rid of it completely. Article 10 contains two paragraphs at issue. Paragraph three provides that: [E]ach State Party undertakes to facilitate, and shall have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material and scientific and technological information concerning means of protection against chemical weapons. Note that this paragraph contains ambiguous terms like ``facilitate'' and ``possible.'' There's a reason for that--the negotiators did not want us to make a concrete commitment. And the Administration has made clear that it interprets this paragraph to mean that it will have the flexibility to decide what exchanges, if any, will occur under this paragraph. On April 15, Sandy Berger wrote to me to say that: . . . any exchange which does occur is limited to that which we determine would be appropriate and permitted under the Convention and consistent with our national export controls on these heavily regulated items. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest my colleague and I divide that time. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Indiana.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains under the control of the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we now turn to the last condition that I am seeking to strike which will require the President, before he deposits the instrument of ratification, to certify that the Chemical Weapons Convention has been amended by striking article X and article XI in several respects. Mr. President, I apologize for the shorthand, because it does not do justice to the arguments of my friends who oppose this, but this is what we call in the trade a killer amendment. Were this to pass, there is no treaty. I will speak to that later. With permission of the chairman of the committee, I yield to the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, who, as the old saying goes, has forgotten more about this treaty than most people know. I yield such time as he consumes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have spoken to the majority on this. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has been waiting around patiently all day and I keep bumping him. I want to yield up to 5 minutes of my time on the bill to him at this moment, and then I will move, with permission of the chairman, to the last condition. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BIDEN. It is my understanding the Senator from Delaware has control of an additional 8 minutes on the bill?

Mr. BIDEN. As I understand, there is 1 hour remaining on the last amendment of the Senator from Delaware to strike condition 32, is that correct?

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment is to strike a provision in the bill that requires the President to disallow an inspector from any of a number of countries, from Russia to Iran. There is in the treaty already the ability of the United States to strike any inspector. The inspectors must be named before an inspection takes place. The reason why we do not want a blanket exemption is, if we blanket exempt all those folks, they will blanket exempt any U.S. inspector. We want inspectors in the bad guy's country. We do not want to do this. It is counterproductive. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I am sorry to interrupt the Chair. You were going to say 1 minute for explanation, is that correct, equally divided?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, two very quick points. The companies named by my distinguished friend, including Hercules, which is headquartered in my State, that are supposedly worried, they support this treaty. Hercules supports this treaty. They are not worried about this being trouble. Second, this is not a killer, but it rips the heart out of our inspection regime, and I would not be objecting, I say to the majority leader, I would not be seeking to take it out if it gave the President the option. It gives the President no option. It requires him--it requires him--to ban. And what it does again, I say to my colleagues, it then says they will ban us. We have the class of the field doing the inspection. It is not a smart thing to do, in my humble opinion. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 49