Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator withhold for a moment? We were going back and forth. I assured the Senator from New Jersey that he would be able to go next. He is not going to take all that long. Since you and I are going to be here, is it appropriate?

Mr. BIDEN. Why did they ratify the treaty, then, and why did they directly contact us in an extraordinary way through their leadership and say: Please, U.S. Senate, ratify it?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. Again, as usual, my friend from Georgia goes to the heart of the issue. If you put everything else aside, you take all the detail away, you will find at its root--I am not suggesting that everybody who opposes this treaty doesn't believe everything they are saying; they do. But at its root, it comes down to a belief that has been the case in almost all the debates on treaties--and I am not suggesting that everybody has opposed every treaty. But they have argued one final piece, and that is simply that they lack faith in the political will of this country to do whatever is required. That has been the closing and legitimate argument raised. It was raised in START I, START II, SALT I, and SALT II. The issue was whether or not we would so change the political climate that we lull ourselves to sleep. My friend from New Mexico remembers the argument that we would not have the political will to reengage. It is a legitimate argument. I do not give it short shrift. I think it is the single most serious argument against this treaty. I will close by saying, as the kids say, I will put my experts up against your experts. I have more of them, numerically. Mr. President, I think it is our turn. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bingaman.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia. If he needs more, I am happy to yield as well.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on my time, in response, I think the Senator from Georgia has narrowed it precisely. Let me tell you why I think the side on which he errs is the biggest chance. There is a safeguard F in this treaty which says that if at any time those laboratory Directors certify that they cannot certify the reliability of our stockpile--and they must do it once a year--and communicate that to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, and they concur with that judgment, which most assuredly they would, barring their place in history being besmirched in a significant way, then we have in this treaty the absolute authority, under safeguard F, to withdraw. So the reason I believe we should err on the side of not testing nuclearly--knowing that if, in fact, it becomes necessary to safeguard us, we can get out legally in a moment's notice--is that failing to take that very small chance, we open up a door that cannot be closed, or is difficult to close. If, as a consequence of no treaty, China begins significant testing and MIRVs ICBMs and moves them from 18 to 800, or 8,000, or 5,000, if in fact Pakistan and India test further so they can deploy their weapons on the nose cones of missiles that can be fired, it is incredibly more difficult to turn that clock back, to put that genie back in the bottle, than it is for a President of the United States, upon the recommendation of the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, saying, Mr. President, get out, get out. The last point I will make is this: I know of no program--and I stand to be corrected--where there has been a quantum leap in the capacity of a country that has taken us by total surprise, where we have had less than a year's notice. The likelihood of any fundamental change in the strategic balance during the year period, during the last certification and the next certification, is not reasonable. We are the only Nation in the world with the sophisticated capability to even approach that possibility. So that is why I respect my friend from Georgia, and he knows I do. That is why I decided we are taking very little chance relative to a gigantic chance if we turn the treaty down. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. The inference was not that those who voted no were the only ones who would be taking a chance; the inference was that whomever among us turned out to be wrong is going to, in fact, have a long time to pay. These are big stakes. If, in fact, you vote no, and if proliferation accelerates, whether or not because of this, mark my words, those who voted no will pay. Conversely, if you vote yes and we find out a year or 2 or 3 from now that all those horrible concerns about the treaty turned out to be true and the Soviets have a superiority and the Chinese are doing this, then those of us who voted for the treaty will be held accountable, as we should. I wasn't applying it to one side.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on my time?

Mr. BIDEN. Let me say it another way. I respectfully request my friend answer two questions while he is getting ready to respond: Did or did not Dr. Browne say: ``I am confident that a fully supported and sustained program will enable us to continue to maintain America's nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing''? I will give him that. Secondly, would he be able to respond and tell me how I am wrong, that when all three Directors were asked, ``Are you on board with this treaty?'' and every single one answered: ``Yes.''

Mr. BIDEN. Following that, I will yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. BIDEN. I do, too. I think it is very important we have the benefit of precision--precision--precision.

Mr. BIDEN. If we will all yield, I will yield. I just wanted to set the record straight.

Mr. BIDEN. I want to make two points. What I said about the lack of an intelligence community, CIA conclusion that Russia has exploded a nuclear device was cleared by the CIA to be able to be said. The operative word is ``conclusion.'' They reached no such conclusion, and that was cleared. I did not speak out of turn. No. 2, with regard to yesterday's--and through the kindness of my friend from Virginia, he has allowed a lowly member of the Foreign Relations Committee to sit in on his hearings. Yesterday, in front of the Armed Services Committee, all three lab Directors testified that our stockpile today is safe and reliable. Let me read what Dr. Browne said. Dr. Browne said: I am confident that a fully supported and sustained program will enable us to continue to maintain America's nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing. Let me further lay out for you that each Director--all three-- answered this when Senator Levin asked the following question. Senator Levin asked the following question to all three Directors: Are you on board with this treaty? Every single one of the lab Directors said, ``Yes.'' People will say: How can the honorable Senator from Virginia--and he is--say what he said and the Senator from Delaware say what he said? How can they be in disagreement? I will answer the question for you. Remember, I said at the beginning ``keep your eye on the ball here.'' It is true, if we do not fully fund the stockpile at $4.5 billion per year for 10 years, that all three of them lose confidence in the ability to do that. It is kind of ironic. The main reason why we fear that we will fund this--and I challenge anyone to show me this is wrong--is because a Republican-controlled House of Representatives is balking at funding it, not because we have not; we have funded it. The distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is sitting behind me. We did our part.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on my time?

Mr. BIDEN. On his time, I am happy to yield. Again, I apologize to my friend from Georgia. I told him he could come and speak. I will yield to him. I did not anticipate the majority leader coming to characterize the circumstances different than--he is entitled to do that; I am not criticizing him--the views of the Senator from Delaware of the characterization.

Mr. BIDEN. I respectfully suggest if you quote newspaper articles and you have some reason to believe a newspaper article is not consistent with what you know, then maybe we should not quote the newspaper articles. The point I am making is a very simple one: Nobody in here has enough evidence, based upon a record, other than the probably 10 or 12 of us to whom responsibility is assigned to know this material; I doubt whether if you poll this Senate, intelligent women and men, that their degree of confidence--and I will be devil's advocate--for or against the treaty is as high as it has been in the past with other treaties because we have had extensive debate before. When we talk about this notion that we are, in fact, in a position where what we asked for--and I wish the majority leader was still here. It was the Biden resolution that was going to be attached to an education bill that called for a sense of the Senate that we, in fact, hold hearings. Standing in this well, the leader--and he has acknowledged this and he made a point of this--walked up to me and said: If you will withhold that resolution, we can work out giving you a vote on this. He did say that, and I said fine. The point is, we were not asking for a vote without hearings, ever. The point is also, accurately stated by many, in retrospect, in hindsight, should some of us have objected to the unanimous consent agreement? The answer is yes. Yes. Here is where we are, and it is true, it is totally within the power of any single Senator to insist we vote. If that is the case, so be it. I am ready to debate the last few hours we have, and we vote. But I defy anyone to suggest this is the way in which they want the Senate in the future on other treaties of any nature, arms control or not, to proceed, which is to wait 2 years, do nothing, have no hearings in the committee of jurisdiction, wait until the committee of jurisdiction is discharged, hold 1 day of hearings, leave 14 hours of debate with one amendment available to each leader. I do not ever remember any treaty on which we restricted amendments or covenants. I do not remember that. On the chemical weapons treaty, we had a whole range of amendments, all developed in the Foreign Relations Committee after extensive hearings. So, folks, this is not the way to do business. But if we are going to do business this way, so be it. I cannot do anything about it except agree with the Senator from Virginia that we should not go forward. I agree with former General Powell. I agree; we should not go forward. If we do, we do. But it is going to be upon those who conclude that this is the way we should conduct business. I think we are setting bad precedent after bad precedent after bad precedent by the way in which we are proceeding. Again, it is true, tactically those who oppose the treaty are in a very strong position now. I give them credit for their tactic. But I hope they will put tactical advantage beneath substantive responsibility. If their case is as strong as they say, I would assume they would feel even better to have it debated at length, have the committees thoroughly explore it, and have it made clear to the American people so that when they vote it down, the American people--on average, 80 percent of whom support the treaty, based on all the polling data anybody has read-- will not have to wonder why they went against the public will. They will be able to make their case, even if it is for no other reason than that. So, Mr. President----

Mr. BIDEN. I will not yield now. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty had 8 days; SALT I, 8 days of Foreign Relations Committee hearings, 18 days on the floor of the Senate; the INF Treaty in 1988, 23 days of Foreign Relations Committee hearings, 9 days on the Senate floor; Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, 1991, 5 days of Foreign Relations Committee hearings, 2 days on the floor; START I, 19 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, 5 days on the floor; START II, 1996, 8 days in the committee, 3 days on the floor; chemical weapons, 14 days in committee, 3 days on the floor; NATO enlargement, 7 days in committee, 8 days on the floor; Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 1 day of hearings after we are discharged. No committee report. Look on your desks, I say to my colleagues. Find the report. Find me a report that makes any recommendation. Come on. Come on, this is a stacked deck. The idea that we are going to vote on a treaty that everyone acknowledges, opponents and proponents, is maybe the single most significant treaty we will vote on to determine the direction of this country in terms of strategic rationale, and we do not even have a committee report? If you want to go down the list, the number of months between the time the treaty was sent to us and the time it got to the floor, we are talking over 2 years. In the case of ABM, 2 months; INF, 4 months; CFE, 8 months; START I, 13; START II, 32; chemical weapons, 37. We keep going higher and higher. Look at who is in charge when we have these. But, my Lord, the idea we have had hearings, we have had sufficient time to consider it, don't get me wrong; in each of these other treaties, an incredible, valuable contribution and report was filed by the Armed Services Committee and an incredible, valuable position was taken and a report by the Intelligence Committee. They were absolutely necessary and needed, neither of which are available now. That is why Senators are arguing about the determinations. For example, I just spoke to General Powell, as my friend from Virginia spoke to General Powell. I wrote down exactly what he said. I just got off the phone with him. He said the most important reason why he wants this delay is so it does not get defeated. That is an important little point. The second point he said was: I still support this treaty. The third point was: But in light of the way this is being taken up and the confusion raised, it is better for the country and everybody to have all this sorted out in an orderly fashion so we all know what we are talking about. He knows what he is talking about. He still supports the treaty, but he made a central point, the point Senator Hagel made, and that was: We have not had sufficient debate. Therefore, we can have the kinds of comments made, honest disagreements, my friends from Virginia can say: This is not verifiable. And the Senator from Delaware says: It is verifiable. For example, my friend from the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, quoted in his opening statement the Washington Times with regard to verifiability. I will discuss this in detail later. He is on the Intelligence Committee. He knows nobody in the intelligence community came in and said they have evidence that Russia has, in fact, detonated a nuclear weapon. He knows that.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I find the leader's comment extremely fascinating. I want to set the record straight on a couple of minor details, as they are. No. 1: The letter we sent was on July 20. The opening paragraph said: We urge you to hold hearings on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and report it to the full Senate for debate. Most importantly, we ask this be done in sufficient time to allow the United States to actively participate in the treaty's inaugural conference of ratifying states to be held in early September. We wrote that in July. The assumption, anyone in good faith would assume, was we have hearings now--July, August, and September. We had none. We did not have any. Zip. None. The majority leader said, ``Hearings are underway now.'' That is his quote. They are not underway now. The day before the treaty, the Foreign Relations Committee held its first hearing, on the day after we are discharged of responsibility. With all due respect to my friend from the great State of Virginia, chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, the only committee of jurisdiction under the rules is the Foreign Relations Committee. Their input is important. We love to hear their opinion, as we do the Intelligence Committee. They have no jurisdiction. It gets sent to our committee, not to theirs. And we have 1 day of hearings after we are discharged? Give me a break.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself a few minutes to respond. I will take no more than 3 minutes. I hope all Members have observed why my friend from Arizona is such a good lawyer. He did get your eye off the ball. He started off talking about England and France and our allies and Japan and then shifted to Sri Lanka, China, and Russia and talked about why we should not yield to international opinion. No one has suggested we yield to Sri Lanka, China, and Russia in international opinion. The suggestion made is exactly stated: Allies urge ratifying a test ban treaty. Why? Because they believe it is in their critical interest. They don't lack confidence in our ability to maintain our stockpile. They signed and ratified the treaty. This circular argumentation going on is we should not ratify because we won't be able to protect our allies; but our allies say you should ratify because we want you to ratify, we feel fully protected. Who do you believe? Our allies saying they want us? They signed; we want to sign. Second, I point out this missile defense rests upon our allies in Great Britain and in France and in Norway allowing us to be able to put sensors in their country in order to be able to have a missile defense. That is the way it will work. What will happen is, we turn down this treaty that they signed, that they think is in their interests, and now we go to them and say: By the way, we want you to help us with a missile defense for our country--not yours, a theater missile defense for our country. How about it, fellows, what do you think? The third point I would make is: China can only be a threat to our theater missile defense. They have about 18 weapons right now. They can only be a threat to us if they are able to MIRV their missiles, if they are able to get sophisticated. Under this agreement, the intelligence community uniformly concludes that we could detect anything they are doing to get to the point where they were MIRVing those missiles, taking any of the stolen data they have gotten from us and using it. So what are we going to do? We reject this treaty, thereby giving a green light to them to do what they want to do without violation of any international law, thereby putting in jeopardy the very missile defense system my friend from Arizona thinks is so critical for our security. I find it fascinating. Keep your eye on the ball. I yield the floor. I see the leader. Welcome, leader.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, regarding that, I point out to my friend that the ability to do that is in direct proportion to the lack of a MIRV'd capability on the part of other countries--that is, other countries being able to put multi-reentry nuclear missiles on a vehicle to fire at us. All of the technology and testimony from all sources has indicated that for countries that don't have that capability now to be able to move to that capability, which requires them to have a much lighter physics package, or nuclear package on top of a missile--it must be lighter, and it must have a boost capacity--in order for them to develop that, they will have to have testing which is detectable beyond anybody's doubt. So I make the point that the ability to establish a credible missile defense is directly dependent upon the ability of us to keep other nations from developing the ability to have MIRV'd reentry vehicles. I yield 10 minutes now to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask my friend one question on my time, if he is willing. Does the Senator believe that if we defeat this treaty and allow for continued testing, there will be the consensus in this Congress, or in any future Congress, to spend $4.5 billion a year for the next 10 years to fund the Stockpile Stewardship Program?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if it will help my colleagues, we have been trying to equalize this. I am about to yield to Senator Dorgan for 15 minutes, but I say to Democrats who are waiting to speak, we have Tuesday as well. I will be yielding in the 5-to-7-minute range for people who wish to speak after this, if people want to speak. We will reserve enough time at the conclusion of this debate. I yield 15 minutes to Senator Dorgan who has been, quite frankly, the leader on our side of this issue who has been trying very hard for a year to get us to this point of debate. I yield 15 minutes to my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. BIDEN. Never mind; I withdraw it.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have been alternating. We have had two Republicans, and the Senator from Michigan needs additional time.