Mr. President, a point that was made by the Senator from Nebraska I think needs to be foremost in our minds, and that is that this is different from all other treaties that have come before the Senate since I have been here, in that this does not ask us to give up any military capability that we have not already decided to give up. Most treaties involve an agreement by us to give up military capability in return for other nations giving up military capability. But we have decided unilaterally during the Reagan administration and have maintained the policy ever since then that we are going to renounce the use of chemical weapons, destroy our stockpile of chemical weapons. What this treaty does is try to find ways to bring other nations to that same decision. President Reagan did commit to that in the 1980's. President Bush reiterated that position. President Clinton has certainly done so as well.
Jeff Bingaman: “Mr. President, a point that was made by the Senator from Nebraska I think needs to be foremost in our minds, and that is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a treaty related to chemical weapons.
Share
More from Jeff Bingaman
The President, in my view, could not have chosen a better nominee for the position than Mike.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., to hold a briefing entitled, ``Accountability Review Board''. The PRESIDING OFFICER…
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With objection, it is so ordered. Subcommittee on Financial Institutions on…
let me thank my colleague, Senator Udall, for his overly generous comments and indicate that 30 or 40 years from now when he retires from the Senate, I will be glad to make similar comments about his service. I could make similar comments…





