Joe Biden

The first line of defense against proliferation is to keep people from getting the materials and technology for weapons of mass destruction in the first place.

But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of enduring chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological attacks on our homeland or on our forces overseas.

The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them, is at the heart of the worst threats to United States security today.

Let me echo the comments on the chairman. After entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, getting a handle on Russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms control and non-proliferation objective of the United States Government. I look…

I think that the new relationship between the United States and Russia can only be improved by taking nuclear weapons off alert status. By giving decision makers more time to react to disturbing information, this would lower the risk of a…

It is the same word, but the need for precision in a nonbinding declaration is a lot less important, in a judicial sense, than it is in a binding provision. That is the only point I was making.

So the bottom line is you think that there are enough potential recipients that our assistance will have some impact that goes beyond arguably a suitable country.

Our goal is for the number of recipient nations to grow, not to diminish, correct?

I mean, we have got--you know, we went through this reorganization.

I would respectfully suggest that the Hungarians would have never worked out their differences with the--or I suggest that Poland would have never really worked out its border disputes.

Well, I wish you luck.

It is not a good thing to put out the list that we are looking into, because it creates expectations.

I would propose for your consideration that this study and list be submitted to us in a classified forum.

After entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, getting a handle on Russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms control and nonproliferation objective of the United States Government.

The Bush Administration is gearing up for a potential humanitarian crisis if U.S.-led forces attack Iraq.

What are we stockpiling--I mean, if it is as copacetic as you guys say, why are we spending millions to stockpile food?

Well, is there a reason that there is no report?

Do you have a copy of the study?

But there is no report that has been written?

I guess what I am trying to get at here is: Does this assume--are you operating on the assumption that, notwithstanding the fact we may not get a second resolution?

I would ask unanimous consent that that would be made available to us in whatever classified form is necessary.

I come from that era that you do where I learned when I ran at 29 years old, never trust anybody over 30, and never trust a government official saying there is a plan that I have not seen.

Senator Nelson, we are so pleased at the amendment that you offered because that $250 million is going to buy food for these complicated emergencies that we are facing right now.

Is the rest of the international donor community stepping up to the plate in terms of contributions?

What could the United States be doing that we are not now doing to help meet global food needs?