I support that treaty. I support it. And I will go into the reasons why I supported that and why I will have problems ultimately voting for it if we do not hold tightly to what hit the floor earlier. Mr. President, I just want to talk about this as a couple people would perhaps talk about it if they were sitting somewhere across this country, somewhere in my State of Kansas, and how they look at the Chemical Weapons Convention. I think they would sit down and ask themselves: If we enter into this Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, will it be less likely for chemical weapons to be used in the world or will it be more likely for chemical weapons to be used in the world? It seems to me that that is the real crucible that we have to decide this under: Is it more likely or less likely if we enter into this treaty? I take this treaty obligation very seriously.
Sam Brownback: “I support that treaty. I support it. And I will go into the reasons why I supported that and why I will have problems…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Chemical Weapons Convention and its implications during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Sam Brownback
I wanted to engage my colleague from North Dakota because there is a strong base of bipartisan support to do this, and I also believe there is a strong majority community across America that supports this. Don't get it out there so wild…
To add insult to injury, this President is coming to Texas next week to raise campaign cash but apparently does not have an hour--not even 15 minutes--to spare for our American workers whose jobs he is killing.
It is such a memorable moment. I have seen this now twice, this formation. It is so memorable for me on this particular occasion because it is about a man who is so memorable. Senator Ted Stevens served in this body for many years and is…





