Ben Cardin

This is not a new subject. This is not a new interpretation by an administration.

I would like to free-flow. I enjoy it. I enjoy members interacting.

The Congress can take action in one minute. Nothing prevents us legally from doing that.

There is a huge difference, though, between an agreement signed by the President and one in which the Congress has joined, either through ratification or through passage of legislation.

I think exercising our prerogatives would be something that we should do, and figure out a way to get that done.

I do not think there has been a year that has gone by, whether there was a Republican Governor or a Democratic Governor, or Republican President or a Democratic President, that I did not have problems with the prerogatives taken by the…

You and I both agree that that action should not compromise the prerogatives of the United States Congress or the United States Senate.

It is also, I believe, a safe statement to say that it is in our national security interest to preserve and expand the moratorium on nuclear testing.

Since 1992, the United States policy has been to impose a moratorium on nuclear explosive testing.

It is unlikely that this treaty is going to go into effect anytime in the near future.

We do not have any proposed language that the administration is seeking in regards to United Nations actions.

What I am concerned about is that the administration is taking steps that possibly... could take that policy and turn it into something that is binding.

There is a concern--I think it is a legitimate concern--about going to the U.N. Security Council and bypassing the Senate.

This is really about one thing, regardless of who is in--President, regardless of who is chairman of the committee, regardless of who is serving.

I am a strong supporter of it. I think the United States hurt itself by not ratifying the treaty.

I understand the verbiage. I am talking about action.

The effort to turn it into territorial waters that denies international open access of the kind that we have underwritten for decades

I think we need to draw some specific lines and encourage China to compromise on some of its objectives, as they have in other regions, as I said.

I think we should be prepared to take military action on Scarborough Shoal if China should undertake some of the same activities that it has undertaken in Subi Reef and the others. We should draw the line there.

But if you are a country in that region, knowing what they have done there, as far as not only jeopardizing your territorial claims, but also giving a beachhead in the event they decide to be even more aggressive, wouldn't you, if you were…

They changed the landscape to have Chinese presence on an area that is contested.

Well, we have had actions. We have military airfields that have been built.

They should hire different lawyers if they thought they were going to get different results.

I believe that this ruling--and how the regional and international community reacts--represents a watershed moment for the region and the world.

America stands for the rule of law, and we will continue to stand up for the rule of law.