Senate Session - December 20, 2010
Speakers:
Time
Action
  • 10:00:19 AM

    THE CHAPLAIN

    PRAY. MERCIFUL GOD, LOOK ON OUR LAWMAKERS WITH KINDNESS AND TEACH THEM TO…

    PRAY. MERCIFUL GOD, LOOK ON OUR LAWMAKERS WITH KINDNESS AND TEACH THEM TO DO YOUR WILL. SHOW THEM HOW TO LIVE FOR YOUR HONOR AND TO BE INSTRUMENTS OF YOUR PEACE. RESCUE THEM FROM THE TRAPS THAT KEEP US FROM NATIONAL PROSPERITY FOR YOU ARE OUR SHELTER AND STRENGTH. KEEP THEM FROM FEAR, EVEN IF THE EARTH IS SHAKEN AND MOUNTAINS FALL INTO THE OCEAN DEPTHS. STAY WITH US, MIGHTY GOD, RULING OUR HEARTS, OUR NATION, AND OUR WORLD. WE PRAY IN YOUR SOVEREIGN NAME. AMEN.

    Show Full Text
  • 10:01:30 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.…

    OFFICER: PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

    Show Full Text
  • 10:01:51 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL READ A COMMUNICATION TO THE SENATE.

  • 10:01:54 AM

    THE CLERK

  • 10:02:15 AM

    MR. REID

    FOLLOWING LEADER REMARKS THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND…

    FOLLOWING LEADER REMARKS THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW START TREATY. WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS NOW PENDING TO THE TREATY, THE THUNE AMENDMENT REGARDING DELIVERY VEHICLES AND THE INHOFE AMENDMENT DEALING WITH INSPECTIONS. WE HOPE TO VOTE IN RELATION TO THE THUNE AMENDMENT BETWEEN 12:00 AND 1:00 P.M. TODAY AND DISPOSE OF THE INHOFE AMENDMENT LATER THIS AFTERNOON. AT 1:30 THE SENATE WILL RECESS AND RECONVENE AT 2:00 P.M. IN CLOSED SESSION IN THE OLD SENATE CHAMBER. FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION IN THE SENATE CHAMBER. WE ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF SESSION FOR THAT ONE HALF-HOUR PERIOD OF TIME, MR. PRESIDENT, TO ALLOW THIS, FINAL SWEEPS SO THIS WILL BE COMPLETED. AS A REMINDER LAST NIGHT, CLOTURE WAS FILED ON THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION AND THE START TREATY. A CLOTURE VOTE ON THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION WILL OCCUR AT A TIME TO BE DETERMINED TOMORROW MORNING. WE NEED TO ACT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT C.R. EXPIRES TOMORROW AT MIDNIGHT. THE FILING DEADLINES FOR THE FIRST-DEGREE AMENDMENTS TO THE START TREATY IS 1:00 P.M. TODAY. SENATORS WILL BE NOTIFIED WHEN ANY VOTES ARE SCHEDULED. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, TO MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WE CAN ADVANCE THESE VOTES NOT NECESSARILY ON THE START TREATY, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD ON THE C.R. AND GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY TODAY. WE HAVE TWO ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON. ONE IS THE START TREATY. WE HAVE TO COMPLETE WORK ON THAT. AND WE HAVE TO COMPLETE WORK ON THE 9/11 FOR THOSE EMERGENCY WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED WITH ILLNESSES AS A RESULT OF ALL THE TOXINS THEY SUCKED IN DURING THE TIME THEY WERE WORKING THERE. SOME ARE REALLY ILL. I HOPE WE CAN GET THAT DONE QUICKLY. I'M WORKING WITH THE REPUBLICAN LEADER ON NOMINATIONS WHICH WE MADE LITTLE PROGRESS ON THAT. I HOPE TO DO BETTER. WE LOOK FORWARD TO COOPERATION TO FINISH THIS WORK. LAST YEAR WE WERE HERE THIS TIME UP UNTIL CHRISTMAS EVE. I HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT THIS YEAR. IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE TO THE LIKING OF EVERYONE HERE. WE DON'T NEED TO. WE HOPE EVERYONE WILL COOPERATE AND LET US MOVE FORWARD. HAS THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THE BUSINESS FOR THE DAY?

    Show Full Text
  • 10:05:54 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.

  • 10:05:57 AM

    MR. McCONNELL

    MR. PRESIDENT, OVER THE WEEKEND I INDICATED I WOULD BE VOTING AGAINST THE…

    MR. PRESIDENT, OVER THE WEEKEND I INDICATED I WOULD BE VOTING AGAINST THE START TREATY. THIS MORNING I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN MY DECISION IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, AND I'LL BEGIN WITH THE MOST OBVIOUS OBJECTION. FIRST AND FOREMOST, A DECISION OF THIS MAGNITUDE SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED UNDER THE PRESSURE OF A DEADLINE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO US SQUEEZE OUR MOST IMPORTANT WORK INTO THE FINAL DAYS OF THE SESSION. THEY WANT US TO TAKE THE TIME WE NEED TO MAKE INFORMED AND RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS. THE SENATE CAN DO BETTER THAN TO HAVE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TREATY INTERRUPTED BY A SERIES OF CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ITEMS. LEAVING ASIDE FOR A MOMENT ANY SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS -- AND WE HAVE MANY -- THIS IS REASON ENOUGH TO DELAY A VOTE. NO SENATOR SHOULD BE FORCED TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THIS SO WE CAN TICK OFF ANOTHER ITEM ON SOMEONE'S POLITICAL CHECKLIST BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. YET, LOOKING BACK OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, IT BECOMES APPARENT WHY THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ATTEMPT TO RUSH THIS TREATY. AND IT'S IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE DISCOVER ANOTHER IMPORTANT REASON TO OPPOSE IT. I'M REFERRING OF COURSE TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S PATTERN OF RUSHING TO A POLICY JUDGMENT AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY STUDYING THE PROBLEM THAT THE POLICY DECISION WAS INTENDED TO ADDRESS. A PATTERN THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN CREATED MORE PROBLEMS AND COMPLICATIONS THAN WE STARTED OUT WITH. FIRST THERE WAS THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TO CLOSE GUANTANAMO BAY WITHOUT ANY PLAN FOR DEALING WITH THE DETAINEE POPULATION THERE. AS WE NOW KNOW, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD NO PLAN FOR RETURNING TERRORISTS WHO WERE HELD AT GUANTANAMO TO YEMEN, AND IT'S STILL GRAPPLING WITH QUESTIONS HOW BEST TO PROSECUTE KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED. NEXT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S RUSH TO MOVE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FROM INTERROGATING CAPTURED TERRORISTS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION AS TO HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM. WHETHER THEY WERE CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR AT AN AIRPORT IN DETROIT. THIS BECAME ALL THE MORE CONCERNING WHEN THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED HIS SURGE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN WHICH PREDICTABLY LED TO MORE PRISONERS. AND EVEN IN ANNOUNCING THE STRATEGY ITSELF, THE PRESIDENT DECIDED TO SET A DATE FOR WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT ANY SENSE AT THE TIME OF WHAT THE STATE OF THE CONFLICT WOULD BE IN JULY OF 2011. THEN THERE WAS THE ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACH ON DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED HIS DETERMINATION TO REPEAL THIS POLICY DURING HIS CAMPAIGN BEFORE THE MILITARY HAD TIME TO STUDY WHETHER THIS CHANGE IN POLICY WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF COMBAT READINESS, BEFORE SENIOR ENLISTED STAFF AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE MILITARY HAD TESTIFIED AND BEFORE THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY SERVING HAD TOLD US WHETHER IN THEIR EXPERT OPINION THE POLICY SHOULD BE REPEALED. MOREOVER, WHEN THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS SUGGESTED THE CHANGE WOULD HARM UNIT COHESION, HE WAS PROMPTLY IGNORED. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN THE SAME CART BEFORE THE HORSE APPROACH ON THE TREATY BEFORE US. IN THIS CASE THE PRESIDENT CAME TO OFFICE, THE LONG-TERM PLAN TO REDUCE THE NATION'S ARSENAL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THEIR ROLE IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. THE PLAN ENVISIONED A QUICK AGREEMENT TO REPLACE THE START TREATY THAT WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE WITH NO BRIDGING AMENDMENT FOR ARMS INSPECTIONS FOLLOWED BY EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS TO A NONPROLIFERATION TREATY. RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY AND FURTHER REDUCTIONS OF NUCLEAR ARMS OVER TIME. AND HE SPOKE OF ULTIMATELY REDUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO GLOBAL ZERO. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NEW START TREATY WAS JUST A FIRST STEP AND IT NEEDED TO BE DONE QUICKLY. LEAVE ASIDE FOR A MOMENT THE FACT THAT THE NEW START TREATY DOES NOTHING TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S STOCKPILE OF STRATEGIC ARMS, IGNORES THE THOUFS TACTICAL WEAPONS IN THE RUSSIAN ARSENAL AND CONTAINS AN IMPORTANT CONCESSION LINKING MISSILE DEFENSE TO STRATEGIC ARMS. WE HAD TO RUSH THIS TREATY, ACCORDING TO THE LOGIC OF THE ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE IT HAD BECOME AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT IN THE EFFORT TO RESET THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. IT WAS BROUGHT UP FOR DEBATE PREMATURELY BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST STEP IN A PREDETERMINED ARMS CONTROL AGENDA. THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF ADVICE AND CONSENT BECAME AN INCONVENIENT IMPEDIMENT. THE DEBATE OVERT McCAIN AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE TREATY WAS INSTRUCTIVE. THE LANGUAGE IN THE PREAMBLE CONCERNING MISSILE DEFENSE IS HARMFUL TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY BECAUSE OF HOW IT WILL BE VIEWED NOT BY OUR PRESIDENT, BUT HOW IT WILL BE VIEWED BY OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE AND BY THE RUSSIANS. THE RESULT GOVERNMENT OPPOSED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO PLACE TEN SILO-BASED MISSILES IN POLAND AND A FIXED RADAR INSTALLATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC. ALTHOUGH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF OUR TWO ALLIES AND PROPOSED BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE POSED NO THREAT TO RUSSIA'S OVERWHELMING ABILITY TO STRIKE EUROPE AND THE URPBGS RUSSIA SOUGHT TO COERCE OUR EASTERN EUROPEAN ALLIES. THE McCAIN AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE REMOVED ANY STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY THAT THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WILL EXPLOIT TO INTIMIDATE NATO MEMBERS. MANY OF OUR NATO PARTNERS HAVE BEEN SLOW TO ACCEPT THE CONCEPT OF TERRITORIAL MISSILE DEFENSE AND REST ASSURED THAT THEY WILL BE SLOWER TO FUND THE PROGRAM. IT IS CERTAINLY -- IT IS A CERTAINTY THAT IF THE LANGUAGE IN THE PREAMBLE SURVIVES AND THIS TREATY IS RATIFIED, THE RUSSIANS WILL MOUNT A CAMPAIGN TO OBSTRUCT MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE. THERE IS NO GOOD ARGUMENT FOR HAVING VOTED AGAINST THE McCAIN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED THIS TREATY. THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT RAISED AGAINST THE McCAIN AMENDMENT WAS THAT ANY AMENDMENT TO THE TREATY WOULD RESULT IN A STATE DEPARTMENT HAVING TO RETURN TO NEGOTIATION WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. THAT MAY BE TRUE, OR THE AMENDED TREATY COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE RUSSIAN DUMA. IN EITHER CASE THE ARGUMENT BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE SENATE'S ROLE IN PROVIDING ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION. IF IT IS THE POSITION OF THE MAJORITY THAT THE TREATY CANNOT BE AMENDED, AS THE SENATE WAS UNTAOEUBL AMEND SO -- UNABLE TO AMEND SO MANY OTHER MATTERS BEFORE US THESE LAST WEEKS OF THIS SESSION WHY HAVE ANY DEBATE AT ALL? THIS LEADS TO THE SUBJECT OF VERIFICATION, THE SECOND MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN. ALTHOUGH THE SENATE WILL MEET TODAY IN CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FLAWED NATURE OF THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURES ENVISIONED BY THE NEW START TREATY, THE MAJORITY HAS FILED CLOTURE AND STATED THAT THE TREATY CANNOT BE AMENDED. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM MISSOURI, THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HAS PROVIDED HIS VIEWS TO THE SENATE ON THIS MATTER, AND I JOAN HIM IN HIS CONCERNS -- I JOIN HIM IN HIS CONCERNS. SENATOR BOND HAS PROVIDED A CLASSIFIED ASSESSMENT OF THE DETAILS RELATED TO VERIFICATION AND CHANCES OF BREAKSOUT OF THE TREATY'S WARHEAD LIMITS WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL SENATORS TO REVIEW. TO QUOTE THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, "I HAVE REVIEWED THE KEY INTELLIGENCE ON OUR ABILITY TO MONITOR THIS TREATY AND HEARD FROM OUR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE UNITED STATES CANNOT RELIABLY VERIFY THE TREATY 1,500 LIMIT ON DEPLOYED WARHEADS. I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NEW START TREATY CENTRAL WARHEAD LIMIT OF 1,550 CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY VERIFIED. THE NEW START TREATY ALLOWS THE RUSSIANS TO DEPLOY MISSILES WITHOUT A STANDARD OR UNIFORM NUMBER OF WARHEADS. THE LIMITED NUMBER OF WARHEAD INSPECTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THIS TREATY ALSO LIMITS THE ACCESS OF OUR INSPECTORS TO AN UPPER LIMIT OF 3% OF THE RUSSIAN FORCE. IT CAN BE SAID THIS TREATY PLACES HIGHER CONFIDENCE AND TRUST -- IN TRUST THAN ON VERIFICATION. COMPOUNDING THESE CONCERNS IS THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN TREATYY VIOLATIONS. AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S RECENT REPORT SON ARMS CONTROL COMPLIANCE MAKE CLEAR, THE RUSSIANS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF THE START TREATY, THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION, THE CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE TREATY AND THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. THIS IS NOT A TRACK RECORD TO BE REWARDED WITH GREATER TRUST. IT'S A REASON TO TAKE OUR VERIFICATION DUTIES EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY. DESPITE MY OPPOSITION TO THIS TREATY, I HOPE THE PRESIDENT REMAINS COMMITTED TO MODERNIZING THE NUCLEAR TRIAD. THE WAR ON TERROR REQUIRED AN EXPANSION OF OUR NATION'S GROUND FORCES, THE MARINE CORPS, THE ARMY AND OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES AND OUR NEAR-TERM READINESS. AS WE CONTINUE THE EFFORT TO DISMANTLE, DEFEAT AND DISRUPT AL QAEDA, WE MUST ALSO PLAN FOR THE THREATS THAT OUR COUNTRY WILL FACE IN THE COMING DECADES. WE MUST INVEST NOT ONLY IN THE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND PLATFORMS THAT WILL PRESERVE OUR NUCLEAR DELIVERY CAPABILITY, SUCH AS THE NEXT-GENERATION BOMBER, NUCLEAR SUBMARINES, AND A NEW INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE, BUT ALSO IN THE STRIKE AIRCRAFT AND NAVY FORCES REQUIRED TO CONTROL THE PACIFIC RIM AS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE MILITARY CAPABILITIES OF CHINA INCREASE. ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT DECIDED THERE IS VALUE IN PURSUING A DISARMAMENT AGENDA, THIS COUNTRY MAY DETERMINE IN THE COMING YEARS TO PLACE A GREATER RELIANCE UPON THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ARMS AND WE MUST REMAIN COMMITTED TO DEFENSE MODERNIZATION. OUR NATION FACES MANY CHALLENGES IN THE COMING DECADES, SOME ECONOMIC, SOME STRATEGIC. IT WOULD SEEM SHORTSIGHTED TO THINK THAT AS NORTH KOREA, IRAN, AND OTHERS WORK TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES WE COULD DRAW OUR ARSENAL DOWN TO ZERO. SO I WILL OPPOSE THIS TREATY. I THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS, ARMED SERVICES, AND INTELLIGENCE FOR THE SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDED THE SENATE IN REVIEWING IT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF A TREATY LIKE THIS ONE WAS TRUNCATED IN ORDER TO MEET ANOTHER ASH TERROR DEADLINE OR THE WISH -- ASH TEAR DEADLINE OR THE WISH LIST OF THE LIBERAL BASE. AND IT IS ALSO UNFORTUNATE THAT WE WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THIS ROLE. AS DEBATE OVER THIS TREATY HAS INTENSIFIED OVER THE PAST FEW DAY, THESE AND OTHER CONCERNS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY APPARENT TO A NUMBER OF SENATORS AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ADDRESSED. OUR TOP CONCERN SHOULD BE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION, NOT SOME POLITICIAN'S DESIRE TO DECLARE A POLITICAL VICTORY AND HOST A PRESS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE 1st OF THE YEAR. AMERICANS HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF ARTIFICIAL DEADLINES SET BY POLITICIANS FOR ATTENTION. THEY WANT US TO FOCUS ON THEIR CONCERNS, NOT OURS, NEVER MORE SO THAN ON MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 10:17:33 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP TIME IS RESERVED. UNDER THE…

    UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP TIME IS RESERVED. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING TREATY WHICH THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

    Show Full Text
  • 10:17:47 AM

    THE CLERK

    THE SNOER FROM--THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 10:17:53 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SNOER FROM--THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 10:18:01 AM

    MR. KERRY

    THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M DELIGHTED TO BE ABLE TO SAY A FEW WORDS…

    THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M DELIGHTED TO BE ABLE TO SAY A FEW WORDS WORDS IN RESPONSE TO THE MINORITY LEADER. HE AND I CAME TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE TOGETHER, IN THE SAME CLASS, AND I APPRECIATE THE DIFFICULTIES OF HIS JOB AND CERTAINLY THE DIFFICULTIES OF CORRALLING ANY NUMBER OF THE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE MAJORITY LEADER. THESE ARE TOUGH JOBS. BUT I WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND FROM KENTUCKY THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. AND OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SEEM TO HAVE A HABIT OF REPEATING THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY REFUTED BY EVERY FACT THAT THERE IS. OUR OLD FRIEND, PATRICK MOYNIHAN, USED TO REMIND ALL OF US IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND IN THE COUNTRY THAT EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION, BUT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN FACTS. JOHN ADAMS MADE THAT FAMOUS STATEMENT THAT FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS, AND FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS. THE FACTS ARE THAT THIS TREATY IS NOT BEING RUSHED. THIS TREATY WAS DELAYED AT THE REQUEST OF REPUBLICANS. THIS TREATY WAS DELAYED 13 TIMES SEPARATELY BY SENATOR LUGAR TO RESPECT THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO DEAL WITH THE MODERNIZATION ISSUE, WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION HAS COMPLETELY, TOTALLY THOROUGHLY DEALT WITH IN GOOD FAITH. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE GOOD FAITH COMES FROM ON THE OTHER SIDE OCCASIONALLY. THEY PUT EXTRA MONEY IN. THEY SAT AND NEGOTIATED. THEY SENT PEOPLE TO ARIZONA TO BRIEF SENATOR KYL PERSONALLY. FOR WEEKS WE DELAYED THE PROCESS OF MOVING FORWARD ON THIS TREATY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. AND NOW, FULLY ACCOMMODATED, WITH THEIR REQUESTS ENTIRELY MET, THEY COME BACK AND SAY, OH, IT'S BEING RUSHED. WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, TODAY MARKS OUR SIXTH DAY OF DEBATE ON THE NEW START TREATY. THAT'S A FACT. SIX DAYS OF DEBATE ON THE NEW START TREATY. NOW, THEY'LL COME TO THE FLOOR AND SAY, WELL, WE HAD AN INTERVENING VOTE HERE, AN INTERVENING VOTE THERE. SURE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S THE WAY THE UNITED STATES SENATE WORKS. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKED WHEN THEY PASSED THE FIRST START TREATY IN FIVE DAYS. WE'RE NOW SPENDING MORE TIME ON THIS TREATY THAN WE DID ON A FAR MORE COMPLICATED TREATY, AT A FAR MORE COMPLICATED TIME. THE FACT IS THAT IF WE GO THROUGH TODAY, WHICH WE WILL, ON THIS TREATY -- AND DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH CLOTURE AND WHEN THE OTHER SIDE DECIDES THEY WANT TO VOTE, WE CAN BE HERE FOR NINE DAYS ON THIS TREATY, WHICH IS MORE TIME THAN WE WOULD HAVE SPENT ON THE START TREATY, START II TREATY, AND THE MOSCOW TREATY. THE TIME IT TOOK OTHER SENATES TO DEAL WITH THREE TREATIES, THESE FOLKS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT FOR THE TIME TO TAKE ONE TREATY. AND IT'S GOING TO BE MORE TIME. IT'S ASTOUNDING TO ME, AND I HOPE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY WILL SEE THROUGH IT. WHEN THE LEADER COMES TO THE FLOOR AND SAYS THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS BEING DRIVEN BY POLITICS, WE REALLY NEED TO STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT AND CALM DOWN AND THINK ABOUT WHAT'S AT STAKE. THIS TREATY IS IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, NOT BECAUSE OF SOME POLITICAL SCHEDULE; IT'S BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ASKED US TO DELAY IT. WE WANTED TO HOLD THIS VOTE BEFORE THE ELECTION. AND WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT THEN BY OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE? OH, NO, PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. THAT'LL POLITICIZE THE TREATY. AND SO, IN ORDER TO NOT POLITICIZE THE TREATY, WE MADE A DECISION ON OUR SIDE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR INTERESTS. HAVING ACCOMMODATED THEIR INTERESTS, THEY NOW COME BACK AND TURN AROUND AND SAY, OH, YOU GUYS ARE TERRIBLE. YOU'RE BRINGING THIS TREATY UP AT THE LAST MINUTE. I MEAN, IS THERE NO SHAME EVER WITH RESPECT TO THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE SOMETIMES ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE? IS THE IDEA ALWAYS, JUST SAY IT, JUST SAY IT, SAY IT ENOUGH. GO OUT THERE AND TRAPT AND SOMEWHERE IT'LL STICK, MAYBE IN THE RIGHT-WING BLOGOSPHERE OR SOMEWHERE ELSE, PEOPLE GET AGITATED ENOUGH AND BELIEVE SOMEHOW THAT THIS IS BEING JAMMED. THIS TREATY IS ON THE FLOOR FOR THE SIXTH DAY. IT'S A SIMPLE ADD-ON TREATY TO EVERYTHING THAT HAS GONE BEFORE OVER ALL THE YEARS OF ARMS CONTROL. AND IT'S A SIMPLE ADD-ON TREATY AND EXTENSION OF THE START I TREATY. THIS IS NOT A NEW PRINCIPLE. IT'S NOT COMPLICATED. IT'S PARTICULARLY NOT COMPLICATED, MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, EVERY PRIOR REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE ALL SAY, RATIFY THIS TREATY, RAT NIGH IT NOW, WE NEED IT NOW. -- RATIFY IT NOW. WE NEED IT NOW. SERIOUSLY, I SCRATCH MY HEAD. THE PLACE WHERE WE HAVE ARRIVED AT, WHERE THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY ARE GOING TO GET WRAPPED UP IN IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COMMANDED EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. WE DID HAVE AN ELECTION A FEW MONTHS AGO -- A FEW WEEKS AGO. IT HAS BEEN MUCH REFERRED TO BY OUR COLLEAGUES. AND IT DID SIGNAL THE NEED TO DO SOME THINGS DIFFERENTLY. ONE OF THE THINGS IT SIGNALED TO DO DIFFERENTLY IS SOMETHING LIKE THE START TREATY, WHERE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT US TO COME TO THE FLOOR AND DO THE NATION'S BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY THE BUSINESS OF KEEPING AMERICA SAFER. WE'VE HAD AN EXCELLENT DEBATE SO FAR. THE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED WERE REJECTED OVERWHELMINGLY, 60-30, I THINK, WAS THE LAST ONE. WE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ABSENT. BUT 60-30 IS A PRETTY PRONOUNCED STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE. IT SEEMS TO ME THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY JUST SEDER THE MAJOR ARGUMENT -- THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY JUST SAID THE MAJOR ARGUMENT FOR NOT APPROVING ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS IS THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE US TO GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE. NO -- NO, MR. LEADER, THAT'S NOT THE MAJOR ARGUMENT. THAT'S AN ARGUMENT THAT UNDERSCORES THE MAJOR ARGUMENT. THE MAJOR ARGUMENT IS, THE LANGUAGE HAS NO MEANING. THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T AFFECT MISSILE DEFENSE. THE MAJOR ARGUMENT ARE THE FACTS FACTS, THE SUBSTANCE, THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IS THE PREAMBLE LANGUAGE HAS NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH RESPECT TO MISSILE DEFENSE, AND EVERYBODY WHO HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH MISSILE DEFENSE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID THAT. THAT'S THE MAJOR ARGUMENT. IN ADDITION TO WHICH THE MAJOR ARGUMENT IS ALSO THAT HENRY KISSINGER AND DONALD RUMSFELD AND SECRETARY GATES HAVE ALL SAID THAT THAT LANGUAGE THAT HAS NO LEGAL IMPACT IS JUST AN EXPRESSION OF A TRUISM, THE REALITY THAT OFFENSE AND DEFENSE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP. I MEAN, ARE WE NOT CAPABLE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE OF OVER OVERLOOKING NONBINDING, NONLEGAL, NONIMPACTING LANGUAGE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES A SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF OFFENSE AND DEFENSE IN THE NATURE OF ARMS CONTROL? THAT'S ALL IT DOES. THAT'S THE MAJOR ARGUMENT. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT, IN ADDITION TO HAVING NO IMPACT ON OUR DEFENSE AND NO IMPACT LEGALLY AND NO IMPACT THAT IS BINDING, IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT ALSO REQUIRES GOING BACK TO THE RUSSIANS AND REGORKTING THE TREATY -- AND RENEGOTIATING THE TREATY. AND AS WE'LL SHOW IN THE CLASSIFIED SESSION TODAY, THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS WHY THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FROM THE SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO OUR JOB OF ADVICE AND CONSENT, BUT OUR JOB OF ADVICE AND CONSENT REQUIRES US TO PROCESS THE FACTS. IT REQUIRES US TO THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT WHAT THOSE FACTS ARE AND HOW THEY IMPACT THIS TREATY. AND IF THE SENATE DOES IT JOB OF THINKING SERIOUSLY ABOUT THIS TREATY, IT WILL SEPARATE OUT LANGUAGE THAT HAS NO IMPACT AND NO MEANING WHATSOEVER ON OUR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS OR ON THE TREATY ITSELF. NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PRESIDENT COULD MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAN IN THE LETTER THAT HE WROTE TO THE UNITED STATES -- TO THE LEADERSHIP IN WHICH HE SAID, AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE, "THE UNITED STATES DID NOT AND DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE RUSSIAN STATEMENT. WE BELIEVE THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INCLUDING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH SYSTEMS, DO NOT AND WILL NOT THREATEN THE STRATEGIC BALANCE WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. REGARDLESS OF RUSSIA'S ACTIONS IN THIS REGARD, AS LONG AS I AM PRESIDENT" -- PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID -- "AS LONG AS THE CONGRESS PROVIDES THE NECESSARY FUNDING, THE UNITED STATES WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY EFFECTIVE MISSILE DEFENSES TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES, OUR DEPLOYED FORCES, AND OUR ALLIES AND OUR PARTNERS." I DON'T KNOW HOW, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU CAN MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAN THAT. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TODAY THE JOINT CHIEFS WILL ALL BE SUBMITTING AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD HERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS THEIR VIEW THAT THIS TREATY HAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON OUR MISSILE DEFENSE AND THAT THEY BELIEVE IT IS ENTIRELY VERIFIABLE, AND THEY WANT TO SEE IT RATIFIED. SO THE ISSUE OF ADVICE AND CONSENT HERE IS WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THOSE THAT WE LOOK TO ON MILITARY MATTERS, ON DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE MATTERS, ON SECURITY MATTERS, THOSE STATES STATESPEOPLE WHO HAVE ARGUED THESE TREATIES AND NEGOTIATED THESE TREATIES THROUGH THE YEARS. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, THE JOINT CHIEFS, THE COMMANDER OF THE U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND -- THIS IS SECRETARY GATES SPEAKING -- "AND I ASSESS THAT RUSSIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT CHEATING OR BREAKOUT UNDER THE NEW START." "OUR ANALYSIS OF THE N.I.E. AND THE POTENTIAL FOR RUSSIA CHEATING OR BREAKOUT CONFIRMS THE TREATY'S VERIFICATION REGIME IS EFFECTIVE." SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE THAT FACTS WILL CONTROL THIS DEBATE, THAT THE SECURITY INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY WILL CONTROL THIS DEBATE, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE CREATED THIS RECORD FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO WEIGH -- WE HAVE BEEN ON THIS TREATY FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, NOT JUST FOR SIX DAYS. 60 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE -- ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY WORKING GROUP, WHICH I COCHAIR WITH SENATOR KYL -- HAVE ALL MET AND CONSIDERED THIS TREATY. SOME PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO GENEVA TO ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE NEGOTIATORS. THE NEGOTIATORS HAVE MET WITH US HERE BEFORE THE TREATY WAS EVEN SIGNED, WE WERE WEIGHING IN ON THIS TREVMENT AND WE'VE CONSIDERED IT IN OVER 21 HEARINGS AND MEETING OVER THE LAST COURSE OF MONTHS. THIS IS NOT SIX DAYS. LET'S NOT KID THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT SIX DAYS. THREE OTHER TREATIES, ONE OF WHICH HAD NO VERIFICATION AT ALL. THAT TREATY RECEIVED A 95-0 VOTE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR US TO STOP THE POLITICS. THEY VOTED FOR US TO ACT LIKE ADULTS AND DO THE BUSINESS OF THIS COUNTRY, AND I BELIEVE VOTING ON THIS TREATY IN THESE NEXT HOURS AND DAYS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE UP TO THE HOPES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 10:31:03 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA.

  • 10:31:08 AM

    MR. LUGAR

    MR. PRESIDENT, A GREAT DEAL OF OUR DAY WILL BE SPENT ON DISCUSSING THE…

    MR. PRESIDENT, A GREAT DEAL OF OUR DAY WILL BE SPENT ON DISCUSSING THE VERIFICATION REGIME OF THE NEW START TREATY. A PART OF THAT WILL BE IN CLOSED SESSION. BUT I WANT TO INITIATE ADDITIONAL DEBATE THIS MORNING ON THE NEW START VERIFICATION REGIME. THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT TODAY WE HAVE ZERO ON THE GROUND VERIFICATION CAPABILITY FOR RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCES GIVEN THAT START 1-EXPIRED MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. OPPONENTS OF NEW START'S VERIFICATION REGIME EMPHASIZED A PECULIAR ARGUMENT, IN MY JUDGMENT. ON THE ONE HAND WE'RE TOLD WE DON'T NEED NEW START BECAUSE IT'S A COLD WAR RELIC AND MODERN APTPROEFPS ARMS CONTROL SHOULD BE -- APPROACHES SHOULD BE SOUGHT. ON THE OTHER HAND OPPONENTS LAMENT THE START I VERIFICATION REGIME. I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES WHICH ONE SHOULD IT BE? SHOULD WE PREFER MODERNIZED VERIFICATION FOR A POST COLD WAR THAT REFLECTS THE LACK OF AN ARMS RACE AND OUR MILITARY'S DESIRE FOR A FLEXIBLE FORCE STRUCTURE? OR SHOULD WE RESORT BACK TO COLD WAR VERIFICATION? MR. PRESIDENT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT PRESIDENT BUSH'S MOSCOW TREATY APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 95-0, AS THE CHAIRMAN JUST MENTIONED, CONTAINED NO VERIFICATION WHATSOEVER. SOME WOULD CITE THIS AS A MODERN APPROACH TO ARMS CONTROL; FAILED TO MENTION THAT THE MOSCOW TREATY EXPLICITLY RELIED ON START I'S VERIFICATION REGIME. AS I NOTED START I EXPIRED MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. I WOULD POINT OUT PARENTHETICALLY, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT AT NUMEROUS HEARINGS OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, THOSE WHO EXTOLLED THE VIRTUES OF THE MOSCOW TREATY, AS I POINTED OUT, RATIFIED 95-0, INDICATED WE WERE IN A NEW DAY. WHEN WE ASKED IN THAT PARTICULAR CONTEXT HOW ABOUT VERIFICATION, THEY SAID THERE'S ALREADY VERIFICATION UNDER START I. WE POINTED OUT EVEN THEN IT WOULD EXPIRE IN DECEMBER OF 2009. BUT IT WAS FULLY ANTICIPATED BY THOSE ADVOCATING THE MOSCOW TREATY THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER START REGIME BY THAT POINT OR THAT VERIFICATION APPARENTLY WOULD NOT BE NEEDED AT ALL. SOME SENATORS SAY WE COULD HAVE JUST EXTENDED START I AND KEPT THE MOSCOW TREATY IN PLACE. THIS AGAIN OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT OUR MILITARY IN PARTICULAR DISLIKED ASPECTS OF START I AND ADVOCATED FOR A MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACH IN START II OR THE NEW START. UNDER START, THE UNITED STATES CONDUCTED INSPECTIONS OF WEAPONS, THEIR FACILITIES, THEIR DELIVERY VEHICLES AND WARHEADS IN RUSSIA, KAZAKHSTAN, UKRAINE AND BYELARUS AND THESE INSPECTIONS FULFILL A CRUCIAL NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST BY GREATLY REDUCING THE POSSIBILITY WEE. WE WOULD BE SURPRISED BY FUTURE ADVANCEMENT IN RUSSIAN WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY OR DEPLOYMENT. ONLY THROUGH RATIFICATION OF THE NEW START WILL UNITED STATES TECHNICIANS RETURN TO RUSSIA TO RESUME VERIFICATION. NEW START VERIFICATION SHOULD NOT BE EVALUATED BY COLD WAR STANDARDS. DURING THE COLD WAR, WE WANTED TO CONSTRAIN THE ARMS RACE AND KPWAOUF STABILITY BY ENCOURAGING -- IMPROVE STABILITY BY ENCOURAGING A SHIFT AWAY FROM ICBMs WITH MULTIPLE WARHEADS. NEITHER OF THESE OBJECTIVES REMAIN TODAY. START WAS NEGOTIATED AT A TIME WHEN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION HAD MORE THAN 10,000 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON MORE THAN 6,000 MISSILES AND BOMBERS, MOST OF THEM TARGETED AGAINST UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES. UNDER NEW START, THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA EACH WOULD DEPLOY NO MORE THAN 1,550 WARHEADS FOR STRATEGIC DETERRENCE. SEVEN YEARS FROM ENTRY INTO FORCE, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IS LIKELY TO HAVE ONLY ABOUT 350 DEPLOYED MISSILES. THIS SMALLER NUMBER OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR SYSTEMS WILL BE DEPLOYED AT FEWER BASES, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT EARLIER IN THE DEBATES. WHILE WE INSPECTED 70 FACILITIES UNDER START, MANY OF THESE HAVE NOW BEEN SHUT DOWN IN RECENT YEARS. UNDER NEW START, WE'LL BE INSPECTING ONLY 35 RUSSIAN FACILITIES. IT IS LIKELY THAT RUSSIA WILL CLOSE DOWN EVEN MORE BASES OVER THE LIFE OF THE TREATY. BOTH SIDES AGREED AT THE OUTSET THAT EACH WOULD BE FREE STRUCTURE ITS FORCES AS IT SEES FIT. A VIEW CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. AS A PRACTICAL ECONOMIC MATTER, CONDITIONS IN RUSSIA PRECLUDE THE MASSIVE RESTRUCTURING OF THE STRATEGIC FORCES. FOR THE UNITED STATES, THE NEW START TREATY WILL ALLOW FOR FLEXIBLE MODERNIZATION AND OPERATION OF U.S. STRATEGIC FORCES WHILE FACILITATING TRANSPARENCY REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPLOYMENT OF RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCES. THE TREATY PROTOCOL AND ANNEXES CONTAIN A DETAILED SET OF RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE NEW START TREATY. MANY OF THEM DRAWN FROM START I. NEGOTIATORS TOOK THE EXPERIENCE OF ON-SITE INSPECTIONS THAT WAS WELL HONED DURING START I AND TAILORED IT TO THE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES OF TODAY. THE INSPECTION REGIME CONTAINED IN NEW START IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE EACH PARTY CONFIDENCE THAT THE OTHER IS UPHOLDING ITS OBLIGATIONS WHILE ALSO BEING SIMPLER AND SAFER FOR THE INSPECTORS TO IMPLEMENT, LESS OPERATIONALLY DISRUPTIVE FOR OUR STRATEGIC FORCES, LESS COSTLY THAN THE START REGIME. SECRETARY GATES RECENTLY WROTE TO CONGRESS THAT -- AND I QUOTE -- "THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, THE JOINT CHIEFS OF THE COMMANDER U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND, AND I ASSESS THAT RUSSIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE MILITARY SIGNIFICANT -- MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT BREAKOUT UNDER NEW START DUE TO BOTH NEW START VERIFICATION REGIME AND THE INHERENT SURVIVABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY OF THE PLANNED U.S. STRATEGIC FORCE STRUCTURE." END OF QUOTE. THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT, IN MY JUDGMENT, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT SECRETARY GATES WITH THE AFFIRMATION OF ALL THE ABOVE OFFICIALS OF OUR GOVERNMENT SAY THAT RUSSIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT CHEATING OR BREAKOUT UNDER NEW START GIVEN THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED. PREDICTABLY, RECENT VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE REPORTS COVERING START HAVE CHRONICLED CASES WHERE WE DISAGREE WITH RUSSIA ABOUT START I IMPLEMENTATION. YET, DESPITE THESE ISSUES, NEITHER PARTY VIOLATED START ONE'S CENTRAL LIMITS. WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT NEW START WILL ELIMINATE FRICTION, BUT THE TREATY WILL PROVIDE A MEANS TO DEAL WITH SUCH ISSUES CONSTRUCTIVELY AS UNDER START I. THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION APPROVED BY THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE REQUIRES FURTHER ASSURANCES BY CONDITIONING RATIFICATION ON PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO THE TREATY'S ENTRY AND FORCE OF OUR ABILITY TO MONITOR RUSSIAN COMPLIANCE AND ON IMMEDIATE CONSULTATIONS, SO A RUSSIAN BREAKOUT FROM THE TREATY WILL BE DETECTED. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANY STRATEGIC ARMS CONTROL TREATY, A CONDITION REQUIRES A PLAN FOR A NEW START MONITORING. SOME HAVE ASSERT THAT HAD THERE ARE TOO FEW INSPECTIONS IN NEW START. THE TREATY DOES PROVIDE FOR FEWER INSPECTIONS COMPARED TO START I, BUT THIS IS BECAUSE FEWER FACILITIES WILL REQUIRE INSPECTION UNDER NEW START. START I COVERED 70 FACILITIES IN FOUR SOVIET SUCCESSOR STATES, WHEREAS NEW START ONLY APPLIES TO RUSSIA AND ITS 35 FACILITIES. THEREFORE, WE NEED FEWER INSPECTORS TO ACHIEVE A COMPARABLE LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT. NEW STARTLES MAINTAINS THE SAME -- NEW START ALSO MAINTAINS ON-SITE INSPECTIONS. END OF QUOTE. THAT'S START I. NAMELY TEN PER YEAR. BASELINE INSPECTIONS THAT WERE PHASED OUT IN NEW START ARE NO LONGER NEEDED BECAUSE WE HAVE 15 YEARS OF START I TREATY IMPLEMENTATION AND DATA ON WHICH TO RELY. IF NEW START IS NOT RATIFIED FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD, THE EFFICACY OF OUR BASELINE DATA WOULD EVENTUALLY DETERIORATE. NEW START INCLUDES THE INNOVATION THAT UNIQUE IDENTIFIER AS -- QUOTE -- "U.I.D.'S" BE AFFIXED TO ALL RUSSIAN MISSILES AND NUCLEAR-CAPABLE HEAVY BOMBERS. U.I.D.'S WERE APPLIED ONLY TO RUSSIAN ROGUE MOBILE MISSILES IN START I. REGULAR EXCHANGES OF U.I.D. TAEU AT THAT WILL PROVIDE -- DATA WILL PROVIDE CONFIDENCE AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE LOCATION OF 700 DEPLOYED MISSILES, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE ON NONDEPLOYED STATUS, SOMETHING THAT START I DID NOT DO. THE NEW START TREATY ALSO CODIFIED AND CONTINUES IMPORTANT VERIFICATION ENHANCEMENTS RELATED TO WARHEAD LOADING ON RUSSIAN ICBMs AND SLBMS. THESE ENHANCEMENTS ALLOW FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY IN CONFIRMING THE NUMBER OF WARHEADS ON EACH MISSILE. UNDER START I AND THE I.M.F. TREATY THE UNITED STATES MAINTAINS A CONTINUOUS ON-SITE PRESENCE OF UP TO 30 TECHNICIANS. THEY CONDUCT PHOPB TO, FINAL SPWEUF RUSSIAN COHESION SYSTEMS USING SOLID ROCKET MOTORS. WHILE THIS PORTAL MONITORING IS NOT CONTINUED UNDER NEW START, THE DECISION TO PHASE OUT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN ANTICIPATION OF START I EXPIRATION. WITH VASTER LOWER RATES OF RUSSIAN MISSILE PRODUCTION, CONTINUOUS MONITORING IS NOT CRUCIAL AS IT WAS DURING THE COLD WAR OF ASBM'S DURING THE COLD WAR. THE MOSCOW TREATY'S VERIFICATION SHORTCOMINGS WERE DISMISSED DURING DEBATE IN THE SENATE IN 2003 BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THERE WOULD BE TIME TO FIX THEM BEFORE START 1 EXPIRED, SOMETHING WE FAILED TO ACHIEVE. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THE ONLY BINDING TREATY REGIME OF ANY KIND IN PLACE IS THE MOSCOW TREATY WHICH ITSELF WILL DESIRE IN DECEMBER 2012. THE MOSCOW TREATY CONTAINS NO COUNTING RULES AND NO VERIFICATION. MR. PRESIDENT, TO ILLUSTRATE THE BENEFITS OF NEW START COMPARED TO THE MOSCOW TREATY, WE WILL HAVE DATA ON THE NUMBER BY TYPE OF THE DEPLOYED, FIXED LAND-BASED ICBMs AND SLBMS AND THEIR LAUNCHERS. THIS IS NOT IN THE MOSCOW TREATY. SECONDLY, WE WILL HAVE DATA ON THE NUMBER BY TYPE IF THEY EXIST OF DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED ROGUE MOBILE AND RAIL -- ROAD MOBILE AND RAIL MOGUL ICBMs AND THEIR LAUNCHERS AND THE PRODUCTION OF ICBMs. THIS TOO IS NOT IN THE MOSCOW TREATY. WE WILL KNOW THANKS TO NEW START, PREINSPECTION PROCEDURES, THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF WARHEADS IN PLACE ON EACH ICBM OR SLBM SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION. THE WARHEAD INSPECTION PORTION OF A NEW START INSPECTION ON A DEPLOYED MISSILE IS USED TO CONFIRM THE ACCURACY OF THE DECLARED DATA ON THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF WARHEADS IN PLACE ON A DESIGNATED DEPLOYED ICBM OR SLBM. THIS IS NOT IN THE MOSCOW TREATY. AND WE WILL NOW HAVE DATA AND INSPECTIONS FOR THE NUMBER OF WARHEADS AND ICBMs AND SLBMs. FOR THE FIRST TIME WE WILL HAVE IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF ALL NONDEPLOYED RUSSIAN MISSILES, NOT JUST THE ROAD MOBILE MISSILES, A UNIQUE VERIFICATION IT SYSTEM UNDER NEW START. WE WILL HAVE DECLARATIONS, NOTIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS ON THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF DEPLOYED MISSILES. WE WILL HAVE DATA ON THE TECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILES THROUGH TECHNICAL EXHIBITIONS INSPECTIONS FOR MISSILES. AND WE WILL HAVE DATA ON THE NUMBER BY TYPE OF DEPLOYED HEAVY BOMBERS, BOTH THOSE THAT ARE EQUIPPED FOR NUCLEAR-CAPABLE WEAPONS AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT. AND THE NUMBER BY TYPE OF FORMERLY NUCLEAR CAPABLE HEAVY BOMBERS, TRAINING AIRCRAFT AND HEAVY BOMBERS, CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS THAT NO LONGER CARRY NUCLEAR MUNITIONS. WE WILL HAVE DATA COMMUNICATIONS ON DELIVERY VEHICLES. WE WILL HAVE TRACKING, NOTIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF THE PRODUCTION OF ICBMs FOR MOBILE LAUNCHER DEVICE ICBMs TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF ICBMs FOR MOBILE LAUNCHERS OF ICBMs PRODUCED. AND WE WILL HAVE DATA AND INSPECTIONS ON THE ELIMINATION OF DECLARED FACILITIES. MR. PRESIDENT, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT EVERY SENATOR SHOULD PONDER TODAY THAT WE HAVE ZERO ON-THE-GROUND VERIFICATION CAPABILITY FOR RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCES, GIVEN THE FACT THAT START I EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 5, 2009. THOSE WHO WISH TO REJECT THIS TREATY AND RELY ON THE MOSCOW TREATY ENJOY THE SAME RESULT: ZERO VERIFICATION -- BECAUSE THE MOSCOW TREATY CONTAINED NONE. MR. PRESIDENT, I APPRECIATE THAT WE'VE HAD VIGOROUS DEBATE NOT ONLY ON THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURES BUT LIKELY UPON MISSILE DEFENSE AND FOR THAT MATTER THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, IN MY JUDGMENT, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, GIVEN THE OUTLINE THAT I'VE EXPLAINED THIS MORNING, NO VERIFICATION -- NONE ANTICIPATED UNTIL WE PASS THE NEW START TREATY -- UNLESS THERE ARE THOSE -- AND THERE HAVE BEEN THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THESE DEBATES -- WHO SIMPLY DO NOT LIKE TREATIES WITH THE RUSSIANS, WHO WOULD PREFER NO TREATY, WHO ANTICIPATE THAT SOMEDAY PERFECTION MAY COME AND SOME NEGOTIATION WILL TAKE PLACE THAT IS PURELY NOT IN SIGHT IF REJECTION OF THIS TWRET TO BE RECORDED. I BELIEVE IT'S IMPERATIVE FOR OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, MR. PRESIDENT MR. PRESIDENT. THAT IS A PERSONAL JUDGMENT. IT IS ONE THAT I STRONGLY ADVOCATE. THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE THE PROGRESS ON THE NEW START FRET IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 10:47:30 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

  • 10:47:33 AM

    MR. INHOFE

    PRESIDENT, PROCEDURALLY, WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE…

    PRESIDENT, PROCEDURALLY, WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE PENDING, MY AMENDMENT NUMBER 4833 AND THE THUNE AMENDMENT NUMBER 4841. MINE IS CONCERNING VERIFICATION. HIS IS CONCERNING DELIVERY SYSTEMS. WE WILL HAVE, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, UP UNTIL 1:30 WHEN WE GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, TO DEBATE THESE. IT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT MEMBERS WHO WANT TO DEBATE WOULD CONFINE THEIR DEBATE JUST TO THESE TWO AMENDMENTS BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T AND IF WE LET THE TIME GET BEYOND US, THERE WON'T BE AS MANY PEOPLE -- THE PEOPLE WON'T BE HEARD ON THESE AMENDMENTS. ERI KNOW THAT THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA WANTS TO SPEAK, AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE ANYONE WANTING TO SPEAK ON THE TREATY, OTHER THAN THESE TWO AMENDMENTS, DEFER TO THOSE WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON THESE AMENDMENTS. I ASK NOW A UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT -- I ASK NOT A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. IT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. THESE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS, BOTH OF THEM. I WOULD COMMENT ALSO THAT -- AND A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE TREATY OTHER THAN THESE TWO AMENDMENTS AND THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD DEFER TO WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THESE TWO AMENDMENTS. LEAT ME THAT I CAN A COMMENT ABOUT THEABOUT THE COMMENTS OF THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. WHEN YOU TALK THAT WE HAVE BEEN ON THIS TREATY FOR YEARS AND MONTHS AND ALL THAT. I WOULD REMIND HIM, I AM IN A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE I AM ON BOTH THE ARMED SERVICES AND FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF HEARINGS. IN THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE WE'VE HAD 16 HEARINGS, A TOTAL OF 30 WITNESSES. OF THE 30 WITNESSES, 28 WERE IN FAVOR OF THE TREATY, TWO WERE OPPOSED TO THE TREATY. WHAT WE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS TO GET A BROADER EXPOSURE TO THIS VERY SIGNIFICANT TREATY, THIS ISSUE, AND I THINK THAT FOR THAT REASON WE DO NEED TO TAKE MORE TIME BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY HEARD ONE SIDE. THEN, ON THE OTHER THING, THE IDEA STATED THAT THIS IS JUST AN ADD-ON FROM THE OTHER TREATY. LET'S KEEP IN MIND WHEN THE START I TREATY CAME UP, THAT WAS BETWEEN TWO SUPERPOWERS. THE USSR AND THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT'S NOT THE SCENE TODAY. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH THIS TREATY IS IT IS A TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA. WHEN -- THIS IS NOT REALLY WHERE WHERE, IN MY OPINION, WHERE THE THREAT S THE THREAT IS WITH IRAN. THE THREAT IS WITH NORTH KOREA. EVERY TIME WE GET AN ASSESSMENT ON NORTH KOREA, WE'RE WRONG. THEY HAVE MORE THAN WE BELIEVE THEY HAVE. OUR INTELLIGENCE WILL CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE. THEN WE'RE PUT IN A POSITION WHERE WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE TRADING WITH COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN. AND IRAN RIGHT NOW HAS -- IS IN A POSITION TO, ACCORDING TO OUR INTELLIGENCE, NOT EVEN CLASSIFIED, THEY WOULD HAVE A DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH A NUCLEAR WARHEAD BY 2015. SO THERE'S WHERE WE -- THE ISSUE OF MISSILE DEFENSE COMES IN. AND I KNOW THAT THE ARGUMENT WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS THING -- AN MISSILE DEFENSE. I WOULD STILL SAY THIS: THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV SAYING WE HAVE NOT YET AGREED ON THE MISSILE DEFENSE ISSUE AND WE'RE TRYING TO CONFIRM HOW THE AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE TWO PRESIDENTS CORRELATE WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN UNILATERALLY BY WASHINGTON AND ADDED THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAD NOT COORDINATED ITS MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS WITH RUSSIA. AND WHEN YOU HAVE ONE OF THE -- VERY OPENING DAY ON APRIL 8 IN PRAGUE, THE RUSSIANS SAYING THAT THE TREATY CAN OPERATE AND BE VIABLE ONLY IF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REFRAINS FROM DEVELOPING ITS MISSILE DEFENSE CAPABILITIES, QUANTITATIVELY AND QUALITATIVELY. NOW, WE CAN SIT AROUND AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT THAT. BUT, NONETHELESS, THAT'S ON RECORD. THAT'S DOWN THERE. SO WE HAVE SOME RUSSIANS WHO REALLY BELIEVE THAT. THAT'S NOT ON MY AMENDMENT. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT THERE'S A REASON FOR TAKE THE TIME HERE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE DEBATE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT BEFORE THE ELECTION OR AFTER THE ELECTION. I WILL SAY THIS: A LOT OF THE THINGS HAVE COME UP IN THIS LAME-DUCK HAVE COME UP BECAUSE THE CHANCES OF GETTING THESE THINGS THROUGH ARE GREATER THAN THEY WOULD BE AFTER EIGHT OR NINE NEW SENATORS COME N BUT THE FACT IS, THESE EIGHT OR NINE NEW SENATORS HAVE ALL JOINED IN A LETTER ASKING US -- ASKING US IN HERE, COULD YOU REFRAIN FROM RATIFYING THIS VERY SIGNIFICANT TREATY UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES, WE'RE THE NEW -- THE SENATE COMING N SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ARGUMENT. LET ME GET BACK TO MY AMENDMENT, 4833, AND KIND OF KICK IT OFF HERE, I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT. AND LET ME JUST SHARE MY THOUGHTS FIRST. THE -- RIGHT NOW THERE ARE, UNDER THE NEW START TREATY, 180 INSPECTIONS OVER TEN YEARS. THAT'S 18 A YEAR. VERSUS WHAT WE HAD IN THE START I, 600 OVER 15 YEARS. DO THE MATH THERE. IT'S A DROP FROM 40 INSPECTIONS A YEAR TO 18 INSPECTIONS A YEAR. IN JUST A MINL SAY WHY I BELIEVE THAT IT'S NECESSARY, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE ACTUALLY MORE THAN WE HAD DURING START I. THE INSPECTIONS UNDER NEW START, THEY INSPECT TO VERIFY THE ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPON DELIVERY SYSTEMS THAT HAVE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED FROM THOSE OF START I. IN START I -- START I REQUIRED SOME OF THE ELIMINATION OF SITES. SO WE DIDN'T AT THAT TIME HAVE TO SET UP A MECHANISM TO LOOK AND SEE IF THESE ARE ACTUALLY ELIMINATED BECAUSE WE KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT THEY WERE. BUT NOW WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THOSE SITES HAVE BEEN REACTIVATED. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. IN FACT, THE TEST IS BEING USED UNDER THIS NEW START TREATY WOULD BE TO VIEW THE DEBRIS. THE DEBRIS THAT SHE IS THAT SYSTEMS WERE ELIMINATED. WELL, IT COULD VERY WELL BE THAT THEY COULD DESTROY A SYSTEM, THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF DEBRIS. AND THERE COULD BE THREE 0 OR FOUR MORE SYSTEMS THAT THEY DON'T DESTROY. AND THEY COULD SPREAD THE DEBRIS AROUND. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD TEST AS TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. NOW, UNDER THE OTHER -- THE SECOND PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT UNDER THE NEW START 24 HOURS OF ADVANCE NOTICE IS REQUIRED BEFORE AN INSPECTION, WHICH IS QUITE A DRAMATIC INCREASE -- UNDER THE OLD START TREATY WAS NINE HOURS ADVANCE NOTICE. AND I THINK IF YOU WALK INTO THIS AND ASSUME THE RUSSIANS AREN'T GOING TO CHEAT, THAT'S FINE THEN. BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT. BECAUSE IN A MINUTE I'LL DOCUMENT THE THINGS THAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DOING. SO, IF ANYTHING, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE CERTAINLY THE -- NO LONGER A WARNING THAN UNDER THE OLD START TREATY OF NINE HOURS. THE AMENDMENT TRIPLES THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS UNDER THE NEW START FROM THE TWO TYPES OF INSPECTIONS SPECIFIED UNDER THE NEW START TREATY. TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 INSPECTIONS. TYPE 1 INSPECTIONS REFER TO THE ICBM BASES, SANDINISTAN BASES, THE AIR BASES TO CONFIRM -- ACCURATE DATA ON THE NUMBER OF DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED WARHEADS LOCATED ON ICBMs, SLBMs, AND HEAVY BOMBERS. TYPE 2 REFERS TO INSPECTIONS AT FORMERLY DECLARED FACILITIES TO CONFIRM THAT THOSE FACILITIES ARE NOT BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES INCONSISTENT WITH THE TREATY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH STAIMPLET. -- WITH START I. YOT THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT A MINUTE AGO. I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S ANY VERIFICATION IN TERMS THAT IS MEANING FOLLOW VERIFY ON THE TYPE 2. BUT TYPE 1EU7B SPECKS WOULD INCREASE FROM 10 TO 30 A YEAR. TYPE 2 IT WOULD INCREASE FROM 8 TO 24. A TOTAL OF 54 INSPECTIONS. ON JULY 20, 2010, THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY -- THAT'S JAMES MILLER -- TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE ARMS SERVICES COMMITTEE -- I WAS THERE. HE SAID THAT RUSSIA CHEATING OR BREAK OUT, AS THEY SOMETIMES SAY -- A KINDER PHRASE -- UNDER THE TREATY WOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT BECAUSE THE U.S.'S SECOND-STRIKE STRATEGY NUCLEAR CAPABILITY. WELL, I JUST DISAGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AND IF THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO AGREE AND DISAGREE, CERTAINLY WE SHOULD FALL DOWN ON THE SIDE OF PROTECTION FOR THE UNITED STATES. AND I THINK, AS YOU GET TO THE ARGUMENT SAYING THAT WE NEED -- WE DON'T NEED AS MANY INSPECTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE A SMALLER NUMBER OF FACILITIES TO INSPECT OR THE SMALLER SIZE OF THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL, AS IN NEW START, THE LARGER THE IMPACT OF CHEATING HAS ON STRATEGIC NUCLEAR BALANCE. THIS IS KIND AFTER HARD THING FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. BUT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TYPE 1 AND 2 INSPECTIONS IS CRITICAL TO THE NEW START VERIFICATION BECAUSE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS HAS BEEN DRAMATICALLY REDUCED. SO BY HAVING THE FACILITIES REDUCED MEANS THEY ARE MUCH MORE CONCERNED. LET ME QUOTE A FEW OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE WEIGHED IN ON THIS ISSUE. THE FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, HAROLD BROWN, EXPLAINED -- WE'RE TAKING ABOUT BACK IN 1991. THIS GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1991 WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE AND SAYING, THIS IS SOMETHING WE THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. HAROLD BROWN, WHO WAS THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AT THAT TIME, 1991, EXPLAINED WHY IN THIS CASE IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE ORIGINAL START TREATY. THIS WAS OCTOBER 23, 1991. "VERIFICATION WILL" -- LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE, WHERE WE'RE TODAY -- "VERIFICATION WILL BECOME EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AS THE NUMBERS OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON EACH SIDE DECREASES BECAUSE UNCERTAINTIES OF A GIVEN SIZE BECOME A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL FORCE AS OCCURRENCE." NOW IS HE THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES THIS? NO, BECAUSE FORMER SECRETARY OF ARMS CONTROL, JOHN BOWL TON STATED JUST THIS YEAR MAY 3, HE SAID "WHILE VERIFICATION IS IMPORTANT IN AN ARMS CONTROL TREATY, VERIFICATION BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AT LOWER WARHEAD LEVELS." THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW, LOWER WARHEAD LEVELS. IN 1997 BRENT SCOWCROFT SAID, "CURRENT FORCE LEVELS PROVIDE A KIND OF BUFFER BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGH ENOUGH TO BE RELATIVELY SENSITIVE TO IMPERFECT INTELLIGENCE AND MODEST FORCE CHANGES." NOW, LISTEN TO THIS. HE SAID, "AS FORCE LEVELS GO DOWN IN THE BALANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER CAN BECOME INCREASINGLY DELICATE AND VULNERABLE TO CHEATING ON ARMS CONTROL LIMITS, CONCERNS ABOUT HIDDEN MISSILES AND THE ACTIONS OF NUCLEAR THIRD PARTIES." YESTERDAY WHEN WE WERE HAVING THIS DEBATE, I COMMENTED -- OR ACKNOWLEDGED -- THAT WE -- BOTH THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS AND I HAVE BEEN AVIATORS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. I RECALLED GOING ACROSS SIBERIA IN A FLIGHT ACROSS THE WORLD. HE LOOK DOWN THERE AT TIME ZONE AFTER TIME ZONE AFTER TIME ZONE OF WILDERNESS. THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IS IN OUR COUNTRY. THAT'S WHAT BRENT SCOWCROFT WAS SAYING. THAT AS THE FORCE LEVELS GO DOWN AND THE BALANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER CAN BECOME INCREASINGLY DELICATE TO CHEATING ON ARMS CONTROL LIMITS, CONCERNS ABOUT HIDDEN MISSILES AND ACTIONS OF NUCLEAR THIRD PARTIES. AND THEN IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, FORMER SECRETARY JAMES BAKER, SUMMARIZED THE NEW START VERIFICATION REGIME IS WEAKER THAN ITS PREDECESSOR, TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS THAT THE NEW START VERIFICATION PROGRAM DOES NOT APPEAR AS RIGOROUS OR EXTENSIVE AS THE ONE THAT VERIFIED THE NUMEROUS AND DIVERSE TREATY OBLIGATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER START I. THIS COMPLEX PART OF THE TREATY IS EVEN MORE CRUCIAL WHEN FEWER DEPLOYED NUCLEAR WARHEADS ARE A ALLOWED THAN WERE ALLOWED IN THE PAST. SO I THINK WE HAVE THIS UNANIMITY OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT AS THE LEVEL COMES DOWN, THE INSPECTIONS BECOME MORE CRITICAL. AND I THINK THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT -- AND I KNOW IT'S NOT NICE TO SAY AND THIS OFFENDS A LOT OF PEOPLE -- BUT RUSSIA CHEATS. EVERY ARMS CONTROL TREATY WE HAD WITH THEM -- WE HAD A RECENT THING. I THINK IT WAS IN THE SUMMER OF THIS YEAR WITH THE REPORT ON FOREIGN COUNTRY COMPLIANCE. AND THIS IS WHAT OUR REPORT SAID. IT STARTS OUT WITH THE START, IT SAYS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LONG-STANDING COMPLIANCE ISSUES, SUCH AS OBSTRUCTION TO U.S. RIGHT-TO-INSPECT WARHEADS RAISED IN THE START TREATY WARHEAD COMPLIANCE THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED WHEN THE TREATYY EXPIRES. BIOLOGICAL WEAPON CONVENTION. IN 2005 THE STATE DEPARTMENT CONCLUDED THAT -- QUOTE -- "RUSSIA MAINTAINS A MATURE OFFENSIVE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM AND THAT IT IS, ITS NATURE AND STATUS HAVE NOT CHANGED." THIS WAS IN THIS REPORT THAT WE HAD. IN THE 2010 REPORT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT STATES THIS: "RUSSIA CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURE DECLARATION SINCE 1992 HAVE NOT SATISFACTORILY DOCUMENTED WHETHER ITS BIOLOGICAL WEAPON PROGRAM WAS TERMINATED." THEY SAID THE SAME THING FIVE YEARS LATER THAT THEY SAID BACK IN 2005. WE DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ELIMINATING THAT PROGRAM, THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. THEY DIDN'T DO IT. CHEMICAL WEAPONS, IN 2005 THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASSESSED THAT -- QUOTE -- "RUSSIA IS IN VIOLATION OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE ITS DECLARATION WAS INCOMPLETE WITH RESPECT TO DECLARATION OF PRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. IN 2010, THE STATE DEPARTMENT AGAIN STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM RUSSIA RESULTING IN THE UNITED STATES BEING UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER RUSSIA HAS DEDECLARED ALL OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILE, ALL CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND ALL OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. ALL THEY'RE SAYING IS NOW, FIVE YEARS LATER, AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN WARNED IN 2005 THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THIS, THAT THEY ARE IN NONCOMPLIANCE, THEY ARE STILL IN NONCOMPLAINS. THAT'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS. CONVENTIONAL FORCES, THE REPORT (music) RUSSIA HAS RESULTED IN NO ONE COMPLIANCE. A REPORT SAYS ACCORDING TO U.S. OFFICIALS, THE U.S. BELIEVES RUSSIA MOVED SHORT-RANGE NUCLEAR TACTICAL WARHEADS TO FACILITIES NEAR NATO ALLIES AS RECENTLY AS THIS SPRING. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD OF RUSSIA, THEY DON'T TELL US THE TRUTH. THEY AGREE TO SOMETHING, THEN THEY DON'T DO IT. THAT'S WHY VERIFICATION, PROBABLY IT MAY BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FRAILTY IN THIS NEW START TREATY THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. FOR STARTERS, I JUST WANT TO REPEAT THAT WE HAVE FEWER INSPECTIONS NOW UNDER THIS TREATY. THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE BY THE DEBRIS THAT REMAINS AFTER SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DESTROYED IS, TO ME, IT'S A NONSTARTER. THE ADVANCED NOTICE, THE FACT THAT WE NOW GIVE THEM ADVANCE NOTICE THREE TIMES AS LONG AS WE DID AT ONE TIME, AND WEAPONS DECREASE, BE I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT WE NEED TO HAVE MORE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES TO INSPECT. LASTLY, THE FACT THAT RUSSIA CHEATS. NOW, I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR AT THIS POINT. AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE AROUND THAT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THESE TWO AMENDMENTS. SO I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?

    Show Full Text
  • 11:04:10 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.

  • 11:04:16 AM

    MR. INHOFE

    I YIELD. -- WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD?

  • 11:04:19 AM

    MR. INHOFE

    I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE SENATOR SINCE THERE MAY BE SOME THAT WOULD LIKE TO…

    I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE SENATOR SINCE THERE MAY BE SOME THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME DOWN AND TALK ON THESE AMENDMENTS, HOW LONG -- THE GENERAL SUBJECT IS THE MISSILE DEFENSE OR THE TREATY, ABOUT HOW LONG HE'LL BE TALKING ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN SPECIFICALLY THESE TWO AMENDMENTS?

    Show Full Text
  • 11:04:35 AM

    MR. DORGAN

    I WOULD ESTIMATE ABOUT 15 TO 20 MINUTES MAXIMUM.

  • 11:04:44 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 11:04:46 AM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, I SPOKE YESTERDAY TO MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS. I DON'T THINK…

    MR. PRESIDENT, I SPOKE YESTERDAY TO MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A NEED TO GO BACK OVER MOST OF THEM. I APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS AND CONCERNS OF THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. I THINK I'LL LET THAT STAND WHERE IT WAS, AND WE'LL SEE IF ANOTHER SENATOR COMES TO PICK UP. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:05:05 AM

    MR. DORGAN

    MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT ISSUE. AS I…

    MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT ISSUE. AS I INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, WE DEAL WITH A LOT OF ISSUES HERE IN THE H UNITED STATES SENATE, SOME LESS RELEVANT, SOME MORE IMPORTANT. WE OFTEN TREAT THE SERIOUS TOO LIGHTLY AND THE LIGHT TOO SERIOUSLY. IN THIS CASE I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT NEGOTIATING A TREATY WITH THE RUSSIANS DEALING WITH ARMS REDUCTIONS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. I DON'T THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO IT. IF, GOD FORBID, BEFORE SUNDOWN TODAY WE LEARN THAT A NUCLEAR WEAPON HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY A TERRORIST GROUP OR A ROGUE NATION AND DETONATED IN THE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR CITY ON THIS PLANET EARTH, AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE KILLED, LIFE ON EARTH WILL CHANGE FOREVER. THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I JUST DESCRIBED THE HORROR OF A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A NUCLEAR WEAPON WAS DETONATED IN A MAJOR CITY ON THIS PLANET. WE HAVE 25,000 NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT EXIST ON THIS PLANET. AND QUESTION IS, ARE WE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO SYSTEMATICALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND, THEREFORE, REDUCE THE THREAT OF THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS? WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO KEEP NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT OF THE HANDS OF TERRORISTS AND ROGUE NATIONS. THESE DAYS IT SEEMS TO ME THE QUESTION OF THE NUCLEAR THREAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN PREVIOUS TREATIES WERE NEGOTIATED. AND THE REASON FOR IS THAT IS WE HAVE FOUND A NEW ENEMY ON THIS PLANET. IT'S CALLED TERRORISM. TERRORISTS WHO ARE HAPPY TO GIVE UP THEIR LIVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN TAKE THE LIVES OF OTHERS. THAT TERRORIST THREAT AND THE THREAT THAT A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION MIGHT ACQUIRE A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND THEN VERY HAPPILY DETONATE THAT NUCLEAR WEAPON AND KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, INNOCENT PEOPLE, THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM. AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS A NEW URGENCY TO NOT ONLY ARMS CONTROL AND ARMS REDUCTION NEGOTIATIONS, BUT TO THE PASSAGE OF TREATYIES THAT ARE IN FACT NEGOTIATED. WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED VARIOUS ARMS CONTROL TREATIES. I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE LIST OF SUCCESSES AS I DID PREVIOUSLY. BUT WE HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES, BOMBERS AND SUBMARINES AND INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE MISSILES. WE HAVE FIELDS WHERE SUNFLOWERS GO WHEN MISSILES ONCE WERE PLANTED AIMED AT OUR COUNTRY. THAT IS A SUCCESS, IN MY JUDGMENT. THERE IS JUST NO DOUBT THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL. AND, YET, THERE REMAINS ON THIS PLANET SOME 25,000 NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NOW, I HAVE LISTENED TO THIS DEBATE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS DEBATE THAT REPRESENTS BAD FAITH. I THINK THERE IS DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. I BELIEVE PEOPLE WHO COME HERE AND OFFER AMENDMENTS BELIEVE IN THEIR HEART THAT THEY'RE PURSUING THE RIGHT STRATEGY. BUT IN SOME WAYS IT ALSO SEEMS TO ME TO BE KIND OF THE THREE OR FOUR STAGES OF DENIAL. THAT IS YOU TAKE A POSITION, AND WHEN THAT IS RESPONDED TO, THEN TAKE A SECOND POSITION. I WASN'T THERE -- IF I WASN'T THERE, I DIDN'T DO IT. IF I DID IT, I'M SORRY. THE STAGES OF DETPHAOEURL PRETTY INTERESTING TO -- DENIAL ARE PRETTY INTERESTING TO ME. LET ME GO THROUGH A FEW OF THEM. SOME ARE VERY WORRIED IN THIS CHAMBER IF WE PROCEEDED WITH START WITHOUT ADEQUATELY FUNDING THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX AND FUNDING THE NECESSARY INVESTMENTS IN OUR CURRENT NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE, THE INVESTMENTS FOR MODERNIZATION, THE INVESTMENTS FOR LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND SO ON, IF TKWAOE THAT WITHOUT ADD -- IF WE DID THAT WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THAT, THAT WOULD BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. THE FACT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA PROPOSED ADEQUATE FUNDING IN COORDINATION WITH THOSE WHO ARE RAISING THAT QUESTION, PARTICULARLY SENATOR KYL WAS RAISING THAT QUESTION A GREAT DEAL. HE AND I TALKED ABOUT IT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT BECAUSE I CHAIR THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT FUNDS THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX AND THE LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND THE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS. WHILE MOST OTHER AREAS OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET WERE BEING TRIMMED OR FROZEN OR HELD STATIC, WE INCREASED, AT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REQUEST, THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LINE-ITEM IN THE BUDGET THAT DEALS WITH MODERNIZATION AND LIFETIME EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND SO ON. WE INCREASED THAT BY NEARLY 10% IN THE PAST FISCAL YEAR. AND THEN ANOTHER 10% IN THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THEN ON TOP OF A 10% INCREASE AND A 10% INCREASE, ANOTHER $4 BILLION INCREASE THROWN ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN CREDIBLY SUGGEST THERE IS NOW A PROBLEM WITH FUNDING. THE PRESIDENT KEPT HIS PROMISE AND THEN DID MORE THAN THAT. TWO 10% INCREASES TAKING US TO $7.6 BILLION. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, ADDING ANOTHER $4 BILLION IN FIVE YEARS. IT'S HARD TO FIND ANOTHER PART OF THE BUDGET THAT HAS BEEN AS ROBUSTLY FUNDED. AGAIN, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT FUNDS THIS, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE WHAT WAS NECESSARY AND MUCH MORE TO SATISFY THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THOSE WHO WORRIED THAT THE FUNDING WOULDN'T BE THERE. THIS PRESIDENT SAID IT WILL BE THERE. HE MADE THOSE PROPOSALS WITH TWO BIG INCREASES, AND THEN AN EVEN LARGER THIRD INCREASE. THAT OUGHT TO JUST LAY TO REST THAT SUBJECT FOR GOOD. WILL OUR CURRENT STOCKPILE BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED WITH LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS AND MODERNIZATION EXPENDITURES? THE ANSWER IS, YES, IT'S CLEARLY KWREFPLT THE FUNDING -- IT'S CLEARLY YES. THE FUNDING HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AND THERE OUGHT NOT BE DEBATE ABOUT THAT ANY LONGER. NOW THE QUESTION OF TIME. SOME HAVE SAID, AND I HEARD THIS MORNING ON TELEVISION ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAY, WELL, THIS IS BEING RUSHED THROUGH AT THE END OF A SESSION. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY ON THE FLOOR OF CREATING A NUDE TPH U REALITY AND -- CREATING A NEW REALITY AND INVENTING A REALITY AND DEBATING OFF THAT NEW INVENTION. THAT'S NOT TRUE RUSHING THAT THROUGH. WE HAVE HAD MEETING AFTER MEETING AFTER MEETING. I'M ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY WORKING GROUP. ALL THROUGH THE NEGOTIATION WITH THE RUSSIANS OF THIS TREATY, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ON THAT COMMITTEE WERE CALLED TO SECRET SESSION AND BRIEFED ALL ALONG THE WAY TO SAY HERE'S WHAT'S GOING ON. THE NEGOTIATORS WHO SAY HERE'S WHERE WE ARE, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE WERE ALWAYS KEPT ABREAST OF ALL OF THAT. AND SO, THERE'S NOTHING AT ALL THAT IS RUNNING AWAY QUICKLY AT THE END OF A SESSION TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE. THIS IS -- IN FACT, THIS HAS BEEN DELAYED MUCH LONGER THAN, IN MY JUDGMENT, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED. BUT, NONETHELESS, WE'RE HERE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS OUGHT NOT BE PART OF THE ROUTINE BUSINESS OF THE CONGRESS. THIS IS AN ARMS CONTROL TREATY, NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION. THIS OUGHT TO BE ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT RISES WELL ABOVE THAT WHICH IS THE NORMAL BUSINESS IN A CONGRESS. BUT THERE IS JUST NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL TO SUGGEST THIS IS BEING RUSHED. I CAN JUST RECALL DAY AFTER DAY SITTING IN SECRET SESSIONS WITH NEGOTIATORS TELLING US ALONG THE WAY, HERE'S WHAT WE ARE DOING. THEY MET WITH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. WE MET ALL TOGETHER IN A ROOM IN THE CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER AND HAD BRIEFING AFTER BRIEFING AFTER BRIEFING ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY WORKING GROUP, AND IT INCLUDES MOST OF THOSE IN THIS CHAMBER WHO HAVE SPOKEN ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE IS SOMEHOW MEMBERS -- THERE WERE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNINFORMED ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING. ALL OF US WERE INFORMED. THIS ADMINISTRATION, I THOUGHT, DID AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB OF COMING TO US TO SAY WE WANT TO KEEP YOU ADVISED AND INFORMED OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. IT JUST ISN'T THE CASE AT THE END OF THIS SESSION IT'S BEING RUSHED THROUGH. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A FEW MONTHS AGO. I WISH IT HAD BEEN, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN. SO, THEREFORE, WE FIND OURSELVES AT THIS INTERSECTION. WE SHOULDN'T LET ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS BEING PUSHED AND RUSHED WITHOUT TIME TO CONSIDER. ALL OF US HAVE HAD AMPLE TIME OVER MANY, MANY MONTHS AND OVER A YEAR BEFORE THAT WHILE THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE TAKEN PLACE TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER AND BE A PART OF WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR COUNTRY. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT'S BEING RAISED CONSTANTLY IS IT WILL LIMIT OUR CAPABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO MISSILE DEFENSE. AGAIN, IT IS JUST NOT THE CASE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN READING IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT CASE, BUT EVERY LIVING SECRETARY OF STATE FROM THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE COME OUT IN FAVOR OF THIS TREATY. EVERYONE. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF HAS MADE A VERY ASSERTIVE STRONG STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS TREATY. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE SOMEHOW WE ARE LIMITED ON MISSILE DEFENSE. IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT HAS WRITTEN TO US AND SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND THE RUSSIANS. IT JUST IS NOT. YESTERDAY IT WAS -- WELL, THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE TACTICAL WEAPONS. NO, IT DOESN'T. WE DO NEED TO INCLUDE TACTICAL WEAPONS. I WISH IT HAD BEEN PART OF THE MOSCOW TREATY. IT WASN'T. I WISH IT WOULD BE PART OF THIS TREATY. IT WASN'T. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD STOP PROGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC WEAPONS LIMITATIONS, A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHY WOULD YOU NOT TAKE THE PROGRESS IN THE AREA OF LIMITING STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND DELIVERY OF VEHICLES -- AIRPLANES, MISSILES, SUBMARINES AND SO ON -- WITH WHICH THOSE WEAPONS ARE DELIVERED. WHY WOULD YOU NOT TAKE THE PROGRESS THAT EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO LIMITING STRATEGIC WEAPONS? OF COURSE WE SHOULD DO THAT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THOSE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT TACTICAL WEAPONS. SO AM I. SO IS THIS ADMINISTRATION. ALL OF US WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. SO NOW WE WORK ON THIS AND THIS PROVIDES MEASURABLE REDUCTIONS IN THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND MEASURABLE REDUCTIONS IN THE DELIVERY VEHICLES FOR THOSE WARHEADS -- BOMBERS, MISSILES, SUBMARINES, AND SO ON. IT WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE, IT SEEMS TO ME, FOR OUR COUNTRY TO DECIDE, NO, THIS IS NOT THE DIRECTION IN WHICH WEEMENT TO MOVE. -- IN WHICH WE WANT TO MOVE. AS INDICATED EARLIER, ON EVERY OCCASION WHEN WE HAVE DEBATED THE ISSUE OF ARMS CONTROL AND ARMS REDUCTION, UNDERSTANDING IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY IT FALLS ON THIS COUNTRY, THE UNITED STATES TO ASSUME THE LEADERSHIP -- ON EVERY OCCASION WHEN WE HAVE DEBATED THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THIS PLANET AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES AND THE THREAT FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE'VE DONE THAT EXCLUSIVE OF THIS NEW THREAT WHICH NOW CASTS A SHADOW OVER EVERYTHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE THREAT OF TERRORISM. A NEW THREAT IN THE LAST DECADE. TERRORISTS WHO ARE VERY ANXIOUS TO TAKE THEIR OWN LIVES, IF THEY CAN KILL THOUSANDS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS. THE SPECTER OF HAVING A TERRORIST GROUP ACQUIRE A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND DETONATING THAT NUCLEAR WEAPON ON THIS PLAN ELIMINATE IS CHANGE LIFE ON THE PLANET AS WE KNOW T AND SO IT IS A MUCH MORE URGENT REQUIREMENT THAT WE FINALLY RESPOND TO THIS BY CONTINUING THIS RELENTLESS MARCH TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND TO TRY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE KEEP NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT OF THE HAND OF TERRORISTS, TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ROGUE NATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S OUR LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS COUNTRY. THE SIGNAL WE SEND TO THE WORLD WITH RESPECT TO THIS VOTE AND OTHERS DEALING WITH ARMS CONTROL AND ARMS REDUCTIONS IS UNBELIEVABLY IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S WHY THIS VOTE IN THIS CHAMBER AT THIS POINT IS SO URGENT. NOW, I MENTIONED TERRORISM, AND IT IS -- IT'S NOW A FEW DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS. LAST CHRISTMAS WE WERE REMINDED ABOUT TERRORISTS ONCE AGAIN. A MAN GOT ON AN AIRPLANE WITH A BOMB SEWN IN HIS UNDERWEAR. HE WAS PRECEDED BAY MAN GETTING ON AN AIRPLANE WITH A BOMB IN HIS SHOE. AND THE LIST GOES ON. PERFECTLY INTERESTED IN BRINGING DOWN AN ENTIRE PLANEFUL OF PEOPLE. THEY WERE INTERESTED -- TERRORISTS WERE -- IN KILLING SEVERAL THOUSAND AMERICANS ON 9/11/2001. BUT THEY ARE EVEN MORE INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE SOMEWHERE IN A MAJOR CITY ON THIS PLANET. THAT'S WHY THIS RESPONSIBILITY, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NEGOTIATE, CONTINUING TO NEGOTIATE AND NEGOTIATE AND NEGOTIATE TREATIES THAT REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS -- YES, THEY HAVE TO REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS; AND THIS ONE DOES. LOOK AT THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS TREATY. I'VE BROUGHT OUT BEFORE CHARTS THAT SHOW ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, THE FOLKS WHO HAVE WORKED ON THESE THINGS FOR SO LONG -- SECRETARIES OF STATE AND MILITARY LEADERS AND FORMER PRESIDENTS. IT IS -- IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE PROGRESS HERE. AND I -- FRANKLY, AIM -- AS I SAID, I DON'T SUGGEST THERE'S BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF ANYBODY WHO STOOD UP WITH THEIR OPINION. THAT'S NOT MY SUSMGHTS I THINK PEOPLE OF THIS CHAMBER ARE PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME HAVE NOT YET UNDERSTOOD THE INCREASING URGENCY NOW TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. THIS ISSUE IS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. THIS ISSUE WITH THE RUSSIANS, THIS TREATY WITH THE RUSSIANS WAS NEGOTIATED VERY, VERY CAREFULLY REPRESENTING OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS. YERGS ON VERIFICATION -- YES, ON VERIFICATION REPRESENTING OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS. IT REPRESENTS OUR INTERESTS IN EVERY OTHER WAY -- MISSILE DEFENSE -- WE DIDN'T GIVE UP ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO MISSILE DEFENSE. AND SO AS I HEAR SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES COME TO THE FLOOR VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE ISSUES, ALL OF THEM -- ALL OF THEM -- ARE RESPONDED TO EASILY, IN MY JUDGMENT. THE MONEY -- WE'RE SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN HAS EVER BEEN SPENT ON THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS WORK. THE PREVIOUS HEAD OF NNSA SAID "I WOULD HAVE KILLED FOR A BUDGET LIKE THEY NOW HAVE FOR THE LIFE-EXTENSION PROGRAM AND THE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM." I WOULD HAVE KILLED FOR THAT HE SAID. HE WAS THE MAN WHO RAN THE NNSA PROGRAM UNDER THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. SO MONEY IS NOT AN ISSUE. CLEARLY THAT'S NOT THE AN ISSUE. TIME -- THIS IS NOT BEING PRESSED INTO A TINY LITTLE CORNER WITH AN URGENT TIME REQUIREMENT. THIS HAS BEEN DELAYED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELAYED. BUT IT'S SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO STAY HERE AND DO THIS AND TO HOPE THAT THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS IN THE COMMITTEE CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE ENTIRE SENATE. LET ME SAY THAT I STARTED EARLIER -- AND I KNOW IT'S EASY TO COMPLIMENT PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER AND YOU DON'T COMPLIMENT THOSE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE, I SUPPOSE. BUT LET ME COMPLIMENT, IF I MIGHT, SENATOR KERRY AND SENATOR LUGAR, BECAUSE THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE, WHICH IS VERY STRONGLY BIPARTISAN, TO BRING THIS TREATY TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE FOR RATIFICATION IS, I THINK, A REPRESENTATION OF THE BEST OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. IT'S THE WAY THIS PLACE REALLY OUGHT TO WORK. SEARCHING OUT, HOLDING HEARINGS AND HEARINGS AND HEARINGS, THE BEST THINKERS ON ALL THESE ISSUES, TO COME AND GIVE US THEIR ADVICE ABOUT THESE MATTERS. THEY DID THAT. THERE'S NOTHING -- NOTHING THAT THIS ISSUE IS REPRESENTED BY RESPECT TO PUSHING IT INTO A TIGHT TIME FRAME. THEY HAVE DONE THIS THE RIGHT WAY, THE RIGHT KIND OF HEARINGS, THE RIGHT KIND OF CONSULTATION, AND NOW WE'VE COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND SAID, THIS IS URGENT. LET'S GET THIS DONE. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO COME TODAY. I WAS DRIVING TO WORK THIS MORNING AND I WAS SEEING THEY'RE BUILDING THE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. MEMORIAL OVER ON THE MALL. AND I RECALLED A WHAT HE HAD SAID ONCE. HE SAID, THE MEANS BY WHICH WE LIVE HAVE OUTDISTANCED THE ENDS FOR WHICH WE LIVE. HE SAID, WE'VE LEARNED THE SECRET OF THE ATOM AND FORGOTTEN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. WELL, THE SECRET OF THE ATAM IS SOMETHING WE HAVE RECENTLY LEARNED. IN MORE RECENT YEARS THE SPECTER OF HAVING MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THIS PLANET AND THE SPECTRUM OF TERRORISTS OBTAINING ONE, RESULTS IN OUR PROCEEDING TO RATIFY TREATIES. IT IS, AS I INDICATED, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. THIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR STOPPING THE ARMS RACE RESTS ON OUR SHOULDERS AND, YES, WE MUST DO IT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, PROTECTING OUR SELF AS WE DO. BUT, IN MY JUDGMENT, THIS TREATY MEETS EVERY ONE OF THOSE MEASURES AND I'M PLEASED TO SUPPORT IT AND PLEASED TO BE HERE TO SAY, I HOPE THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL LOOK AT WHAT SENATOR CHIRR AND LUGAR HAVE DONE AND COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE WITH ROBUST SUPPORT FOR THE WHAT I THINK IS SOME OUTSTANDING WORK. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:23:23 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 11:23:25 AM

    MR. KERRY

    I KNOW THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DISHEERK AND HE WANTS TO SPEAK. I'M NOT…

    I KNOW THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DISHEERK AND HE WANTS TO SPEAK. I'M NOT GOING TO BE LONG. I JUST WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MOMENT WITH THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA HERE ON THE FLOOR TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO HIM PERSONALLY FOR THE COMMENTS THAT HE'S MADE, BOTH ABOUT MY AND SENATOR LUGAR'S EFFORTS HERE. I APPRECIATE THEM ENORMOUSLY. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I REALLY -- THE SENATOR IS GOING TO BE LEAVING THE UNITED STATES SENATE AT THE END OF THIS SESSION. AND I REALLY WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE FEW SENATORS THAT I THINK COMBINE AS MANY QUALITIES OF ABILITY AS DOES THE SENATOR FROM TORNLG DAKOTA. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST ARTICULATE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. HE'S ONE OF THE MOST DILIGENT MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. HE'S ONE OF THE MOST THOUGHTFUL MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. AND I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF SERVING WITH HIM ON THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE. I HAVE SEEN HOW CREATIVE AND DETERMINED HE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS, ON INTERNET ISSUES, ON FAIRNESS ISSUES, ON CONSUMER ISSUES, WHICH HE'S TAKEN AN ENORMOUS INTEREST IN. AND HE'S -- AS HEAD OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE FOR I THINK ALMOST TEN YEARS OR SO, HE'S BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE REST OF US ARE INFORMED ON ISSUES, AND IS A KEPT US REGULARLY -- AND HE'S KEPT US REGULARLY UP TO DATE ON THE LATEST THINKING. HE'S PUT TOGETHER VERY PROVOCATIVE WEEKLY MEETINGS WITH SOME OF THE BEST MINDS IN THE COUNTRY SO WE THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY TO HIM PERSONALLY THROUGH THE CHAIR HOW WELL-SERVED I THINK THE CITIZENS OF NORTH DAKOTA HAVE BEEN, HOW GRATEFUL WE ARE FOR HIS SERVICE, HOW EXTRAORDINARILY LUCKY WE HAVE BEEN TO HAVE SOMEONE REPRESENTING ONE OF OUR GREAT 50 STATES AS EFFECTIVELY AS HE HAS. I THINK HE HACK A SUE BESH -- I THINK HE HAS BEEN A SUPERB UNITED STATES SENATOR AND HE WILL BE MUCH-MISSED HERE.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:25:47 AM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

  • 11:25:50 AM

    MR. THUNE

    TO AN AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE PENDING AT THE DESK. I WANT TO MAKE SOME…

    TO AN AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE PENDING AT THE DESK. I WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS RELATIVE TO WHERE WE ARE ON THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THERE'S BAN LOT SAID -- THERE'S BEEN A LOT SAID ABOUT REPUBLICANS NOT WANTING TO VOTE ON THIS OR TRYING TO DELAY THIS. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE HAVE NOW TALKED ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE, WHICH I THINK IS A VALID ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS TREATY, VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OF DISAGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO HOW IT TREATS MISSILE DEFENSE. WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT TACTICAL WEAPONS, WHICH IN MY JUDGMENT ALSO IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE RELATIVE TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF OUR ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD, AND WE'VE HAD A DEBATE GO B. VERIFICATION WHICH THE SENATOR -- SENATOR INHOFE, THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA, HIS DEBATE IS CURRENTLY PENDING. THOSE ISSUES ARE ALL VALID AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS WITH REGARD TO THIS TREATY. THE AMENDMENT THAT I OFFER WILL DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF DELIVERY VEHICLES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT AS WELL WHERE THIS TREATY IS CONCERNED. SO I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR ROLE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO PROVIDE ADVICE AND CONSENT. IF IT WERE JUST CONSENT, IF THAT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD INTENDED, WE COULD RUBBER STAMP THIS. BUT WE HAVE A ROLE IN THIS PROCESS. THAT ROLE IS TO LOOK AT IN GREAT DETAIL THIESHESES AND MAKE SURE THAT THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS ARE WELL-ERVED BY A TREATY OF THIS IMPORTANCE. AND SO, I THINK THAT THE WORDS OF THE TREATY MATTER. I THINK THE WORDS OF THE PREAMBLE MATTER. AND I'M NOT GOING TO RELITIGATE THE DEBATE THAT WE'VE H.R. HAD ON MISSILE DEFENSE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU HAVE LANGUAGE IN A PREAMBLE TO A DOCUMENT LIKE THIS, NOT UNLIKE THE PREAMBLE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS FREQUENTLY QUOTED, IF IT HAS MEANING. TO SUGGEST THAT THE PREAMBLE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, THAT IT IS A THROW-AWAY, THROW-AWAY LANGUAGE, MISSES THE POINT TO ME IT MATTERS. I THINK IT MATTERS TO THE RUSSIANS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IF IT DIDN'T IT WOULD BE IN THERE. THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT HAVING THIS LINKAGE BETWEEN OFFENSIVE MISSILE DEFENSE AND -- OR OFFENSIVE STRATEGIC ARMS AND DEFENSIVE STRATEGIC ARMS IN THE PREAMBLE, IT IS IN THERE FOR A REASON. SOMEBODY WANTED IT IN THERE OBVIOUSLY. AND IT HAS WEIGHT BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED HERE ON THE UNITED STATES SENATE. AND I WOULD ALSO ARGUE AS WELL THAT THE SIGNING STATEMENT WHICH WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, WHERE THE RUSSIANS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT -- IN THE SIGNING STATEMENT IN PRAGUE IN APRIL 8, 2015, THE TREATY CAN OPERATE AND BE VIABLE ONLY IF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REFRAINS FROM DEVELOPING ITS MISSILE DEFENSE EXABLGHTS QUALITATIVELY OR QUANTITATIVELY. AND IF YOU TIE THAT BACK TO ARTICLE 14, THE WITHDRAWAL CLAUSE OF THE TREATY, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO WITHDRAW FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU CAN SEE THE PRETEXT WHERE THE RUSSIANS MAY DECIDE TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS TREATY. SO MISSILE DEFENSE IS AT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL ISSUE. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THIS TREATY AND THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS OFFERED ON SATURDAY AND VOTED BONN ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THAT. AND I'M -- UNFORTUNATELY, THAT FAILED. I HOPE WE HAVE SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITIES TO GET AT THE ISSUE OF MISSILE DEFENSE, BECAUSE I CERTAINLY THINK IT IS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE, IN MY VIEW, AND THE VIEW OF MANY OF US. THE AMENDMENT THAT I OFFER TODAY, MR. PRESIDENT, IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND MODEST. IT WOULD SIMPLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DEPLOYED DELIVERY VEHICLES -- IN OTHER WORDS, BOMBERS, SUBMARINES, AND LAND-BASED MISSILES -- ALLOWED FOR IN THE NEW START TREATY FROM 700 TO 720. SIMPLY ADDS 20 ADDITIONAL VEHICLES TO THE NUMBER IN ORDER TO MATCH UP WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN PRESENTED TO THE SENATE FOR FIELDING 720 DELIVERY VEHICLES RATHER THAN THE 700 CALLED FOR IN THE TEXT OF THIS TREATY. BEFORE I CONTINUE BE, I WANT TO ASK, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT SENATOR SCOTT BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS BE ADDED A AS A COSPONSOR TO THIS AMENDMENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:29:54 AM

    MR. THUNE

    FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE UNFANAL WITH SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY USED IN THESE…

    FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE UNFANAL WITH SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY USED IN THESE ARMS CONTROL TREATIES, SUCH AS THE TERM "DELIVERY VEHICLES," IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT DELIVERY VEHICLES SIMPLY MEANS THE NUCLEAR TRIAD OF SYSTEMS, BOMBERS, SUBMARINES, AND LAND-BASED INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES OR ICBMs SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS LAUNCH VEHICLES. THIS TRIAD IS VERY VALUABLE BECAUSE IT IS FLEXIBLE. MEAN THAT IF GOD FORBID WE WOULD SUFFER A NUCLEAR ATTACK, THOSE WHO ATTACKED US CAN NEVER BE SURE THAT THEY HAVE KNOCKED OUT OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND WITH A NUCLEAR STRIKE. SOLVE WITHOUT THE MEANS TO DELIVER NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AN ADVERSARY WOULD NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO AVERT A NUCLEAR ATTACK. AS NUMBERS GET REDUCED, IT COMES -- BEGINS TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHETHER WE CAN EFFECTIVELY RETAIN THE TRIAD, MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THAT OUR NATION WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE A LEG OF THE TRIAD. MR. PRESIDENT, ON JULY 9 OF 2009, IN AN ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING, I ASKED GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT, THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S COMMITMENT AT THAT TIME TO REDUCE OUR STRATEGIC DELIVERY VEHICLES TO SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF 500 TO 1,100 SYSTEMS. GENERAL CARTWRIGHT RESPOND THAT HE WOULD -- QUOTE -- "BE VERY CONCERNED IF WE GOT DOWN BELOW THOSE LEVELS ABOUT MIDPOINT." MEANING HE WOULD BE CONCERNED IF THE NEGOTIATED NUMBER FELLOW 800 DELIVERY VEHICLES. THE TREATY CAPS DELIVERY VEHICLES AT 700, SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE NUMBER GENERAL CARTWRIGHT STATED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. THE TREATY MAKES THIS ODD DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED DELIVERY VEHICLES AND THE TREATY'S PROPONENTS WILL POINT OUT THE TOTAL CAP FOR THE TREATY IS 800 DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED SYSTEMS. OF COURSE THERE IS A LETTER FROM GENERAL CARTWRIGHT IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE TREATY STATING HE'S COMFORTABLE WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED DELIVERY VEHICLES AND OVERALL LIMITS TO DELIVERY VEHICLES. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT, MR. PRESIDENT, TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT ARTICULATED HOW IT WILL DEPLOY A NUCLEAR FORCE CONFORMING TO THE NUMBER OF 700. INSTEAD THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PRESENTED A PLAN FOR HOW IT WILL DEPLOY 720 DELIVERY VEHICLES. THAT IS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT. I FIND IT VERY TROUBLING IF THE ADMINISTRATION IS YET TO ARTICULATE HOW IT WILL DEPLOY A NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD CONFORM TO THE NUMBER OF 700. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE FORCE STRUCTURE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS REQUIRED TO PRESENT TO CONGRESS UNDER SECTION 1251 OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL KNOWN AS THE 1251 REPORT PROVIDES A VERY TROUBLING LACK OF SPECIFICITY CONCERNING FORCE STRUCTURE UNDER THE NEW START TREATY. SPECIFICALLY, THE ADMINISTRATION FACT SHEET ON THE SECTION 1251 REPORT EXPLAINS THAT THE U.S. NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE UNDER THIS TREATY COULD COMPRISE UP TO 60 BOMBERS, UP TO 620 ICBMs AND 240 SUBMARINE LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILES. THE ONLY NUMBER THAT IS A CERTAINTY IN THE 1251 REPORT IS THE NUMBER OF SLBMS. I HOPE THE SENATORS WITH THE NUMBER OF BOMBER BASE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO THIS REPORT. UNDER THE EXPLANATION ROEUD BY THE ADMINISTRATION 1251 REPORT HAS NUMBERS ADDING UP TO 720 VEHICLES, IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE SUCH A DEPLOYMENT AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIMIT OF 700 DEPLOYED STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVER VEHICLES. CLEARLY ADDITIONAL REDUCTION DECISIONS WILL BE MADE WITH RESPECT TO U.S. FORCE STRUCTURE UNDER THIS TREATY AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE REDUCTIONS WILL COME OUT OF BOMBERS AND/OR ICBMs. SECRETARY GATES AND ADMIRAL MULLEN ACKNOWLEDGED IN A HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON JUNE 17, 2010, THAT FURTHER REDUCTIONS WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE TREATY'S CENTRAL LIMITS. IT WENT ON TO ARGUE BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES WILL HAVE SEVEN YEARS TO REDUCE ITS FORCES TO THESE LIMITS, THEY DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY A FINAL FORCE STRUCTURE AT THIS POINT, MEANING THE SENATE WILL COMMIT THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVERY VEHICLE FORCE OF 700 WITHOUT KNOWING HOW THAT FORCE WILL BE COMPOSED. MR. PRESIDENT, COMPOUNDING THIS PROBLEM OF NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FINAL FORCE STRUCTURE WILL LOOK LIKE IS THE FACT THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONCEDED TO RUSSIAN DEMANDS TO PLACE LIMITS ON CONVENTIONAL GLOBAL STRIKE SYSTEMS BY COUNTING CONVENTIONALLY ARMED STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILES AGAINST THE 700 ALLOWED FOR DELIVERY VEHICLES. FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH GLOBAL STRIKE, IT IS SIMPLY A PROGRAM THAT WOULD ALLOW THE UNITED STATES TO STRIKE TARGETS ANYWHERE ON EARTH WITH CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS IN AS LITTLE AS AN HOUR. DEVELOPMENT OF THESE SYSTEMS IS AN IMPORTANT NICHE CAPABILITY THAT WOULD ALLOW TO US ATTACK HIGH-VALUE TARGETS OR FLEETING TARGETS SUCH AS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, TERRORISTS AND MISSILE THREATS, A RECENT DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD REPORT STATES -- AND I QUOTE -- "THE MOST MATURE OPTION FOR PROMPT LONG-RANGE CONVENTIONAL STRIKE IS THE BALLISTIC MISSILE." AND BUILDING ON THE LEGACY OF THESE INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE WEAPONS SYSTEMS PROVIDES A RELATIVELY LOW-RISK PATH TO A CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS SYSTEM WITH GLOBAL REACH. AGAIN, END QUOTE. YET, THIS TREATY, MR. PRESIDENT, WILL NOT PERMIT US TO DEVELOP THIS LOW-RISK CONCEPT FOR CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE WITHOUT HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE CENTRAL LIMITS UNDER THIS TREATY OF 700 DELIVERY VEHICLES. TO BE VERY BLUNT, THIS TREATY WITH A SO POORLY NEGOTIATED, FOR EVERY ICBM OR SLBM DEPLOYED WITH A CONVENTIONAL WARHEAD, ONE LESS NUCLEAR DELIVERY VEHICLE WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED STATES. THIS ONE-FOR-ONE REDUCTION IN DEPLOYED NUCLEAR FORCES IS ONE WE CAN ILL AFFORD AT THE LEVELS OF DELIVERY VEHICLES ALLOWED UNDER THIS TREATY. WHEN THE COMMANDER OF THE U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND, GENERAL CHILTON, TESTIFIED BEFORE THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON APRIL 22 OF 2010, HE SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WE COULD NOT REPLACE THE DETERRENT EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITH A CONVENTIONAL CAPABILITY ON A ONE-FOR-ONE BASIS OR -- AND I QUOTE -- "EVEN TEN-FOR-ONE BASIS." TREATY PROPONENTS WILL POINT OUT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL NEW CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE SYSTEMS ON THE DRAWING BOARD THAT MAY NOT FALL UNDER THE TREATY'S LIMITATION. BUT WHY ARE WE TYING THE HANDS OF FUTURE ADMINISTRATIONS WHO MAY NEED TO QUICKLY FIELD SUCH SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY SINCE CONVERTING ICBMs TO CARRY A CONVENTIONAL WARHEAD ARE THE MOST ADVANCED SYSTEMS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW ON CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE? THE SENATE SHOULD NOT RAT FIGHT TREATY -- NOT RATIFY THE SYSTEM WITHOUT KNOWING HOW GLOBAL STRIKE SYSTEMS MAY BE COUNTED. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AN ASSESSMENT ON TREATY IMPLICATION FOR CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE READY UNTIL EARLY 2011. IF WE PASS THIS TREATY NOW, SENATORS WON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE UNTIL THE TREATY ENTERS INTO FORCE WHEN IT'S TOO LATE. ADOPTING MY AMENDMENT WOULD PROVIDE A HEDGE AGAINST THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED BY THE CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE NICHE CAPABILITY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE TREATY'S LIMIT OF 700 DELIVERY VEHICLES. 700 DELIVERY VEHICLE LIMIT AND CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE COUNTING AGAINST THAT NUMBER WE WILL HAVE FEWER DELIVERY VEHICLES AND DISINCENTIVE TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE AS A RESULT. MOREOVER, WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT THESE CONSTRAINTS IN A TREATY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS? MR. PRESIDENT, WHILE WE ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE TREATY TO CUT THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES TO THE BONE, RUSSIA WILL NOT HAVE TO MAKE ANY SIMILAR CUT TO THEIR DELIVERY VEHICLES, LEAVING ONE TO WONDER WHAT WE RECEIVED IN RETURN FOR THIS SIGNIFICANT CONCESSION. THE TREATY ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE UNILATERAL REDUCTIONS IN DELIVERY VEHICLES, AS RUSSIA IS ALREADY WELL BELOW THE VEHICLE DELIVERY LIMITS AND WOULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE ITS ARSENAL WITH OR WITHOUT THIS TREATY. AS THE C.R.'S WRITES, RUSSIA HAS 620 LAUNCHERS AND THIS NUMBER MAY DECLINE TO 444 TOTAL LAUNCHERS. THIS WOULD LIKELY BE TRUE WHETHER OR NOT THE TREATY ENTERS INTO FORCE BECAUSE RUSSIA IS ELIMINATING OLDER MISSILES AS THEY AGE AND DEPLOYING NEWER MISSILES AT A FAR SLOWER PACE THAN THAT NEEDED TO RETAIN 700 DEPLOYED LAUNCHERS. END QUOTE. SO I WANT TO JUST TO PUT A FINE POINT ON THAT, MR. PRESIDENT. ESECTIONLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE -- ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE HAVE IN OUR ARSENAL ABOUT 856 DELIVERY VEHICLES TODAY. WE ARE REDUCING THAT DOWN TO 700. WE'RE TAKING A SIGNIFICANT HAIRCUT, SIGNIFICANT CUT IN THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US. THE RUSSIANS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE CURRENTLY ONLY AT 620 LAUNCHERS, DELIVERY VEHICLES, ALREADY WELL BELOW THE 700. ON THE ATTRITION PATH THAT THEY'RE ON WOULD VERY SOON BE DOWN TO ABOUT 400 DEPLOYED LAUNCHERS AND 444 TOTAL LAUNCHERS. SO THE UNITED STATES MADE HUGE CONCESSIONS WITH REGARD TO DELIVERY VEHICLES IN THIS TREATY, AND THE RUSSIANS HAVE CONCEDE NOTHING ON THIS POINT. IT SEEMS TO ME AT LEAST THIS IS ANOTHER AREA IN WHICH WE MADE SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS AND RECEIVED VERY LITTLE IN RETURN. MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE BINDING OURSELVES TO THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES WE NEGOTIATE WITH RUSSIA, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE SECURITY COMMITMENTS TO EXTEND OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT TO MORE THAN 30 COUNTRIES WHILE RUSSIA HAS NONE. GIVEN THE GEOGRAPHIC REALITIES THAT WE DEAL WITH IN THE WORLD, THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES ARE PART OF HOW THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THIS EXTENDED DETERRENCE. AS WE FACE AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE WHERE NATIONS LIKE CHINA CONTINUE TO MODERNIZE THEIR NUCLEAR FORCES, WE WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO HOLD MORE POTENTIAL TARGETS AT RISK TO DETER ATTACKS. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT REDUCING DELIVERY VEHICLE LEVELS. THIS REPORT WOULD USE THE NUMBER OF 720 VEHICLES AS THE CEILING FOR DELIVERY VEHICLES UNDER THE TREATY RATHER THAN THE CURRENT NUMBER OF 700 REFLECTED IN THE TREATY. SOME OF THE MY COLLEAGUES WILL PROBABLY WARN THAT EVEN THIS MODEST AMENDMENT IS A TREATY-KILLER AMENDMENT. BUT ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE POWER BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE TO MAKE TREATIES. WHEN THE OTHER SIDE ADMONISHES US ABOUT TREATY-KILLER AMENDMENTS IT BECOMES APPARENT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A RUBBER STAMP FOR THIS TREATY, WANTING US TO PROVIDE OUR CONSENT BUT NOT OUR ADVICE. IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR WHAT A TREATY-KILLER AMENDMENT S. IT IS A REMEDY TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TWREUT WHICH NEW START -- TREATY WHICH NEW START OPPONENTS DO NOT WISH TO STOP. ONE THING SHOULD BE CLEAR, MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE CANNOT KILL NEW START IN THE WAY THAT SOME ARE SUGGESTING. IF THE SENATE GIVES ITS CONSENT TO NEW START WITH AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT, THAT JUST MEANS THE TREATY IS SENT TO RUSSIA FOR ITS APPROVAL WITH THE AMENDMENT. THE BALL WILL THEN BE IN RUSSIA'S COURT. THE C.R.'S HAS OUT LINED IN THE STUDY IN THE ROLE OF THE SENATE, AMENDMENT TO PROPOSE CHANGES IN THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE TREATY. THEY AMOUNT, THEREFORE, TO SENATE COUNTER OFFERS THAT ALTER THE ORIGINAL DEAL AGREED TO BY THE UNITED STATES AND COUNTRY. SIMPLY PUT, AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREATY TEXT WOULD NOT KILL THE TREATY. IT WOULD REQUIRE RUSSIAN CONSENT TO THE AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION. IF RUSSIA CHOOSES TO REJECT THAT AMENDMENT, IT WILL NOT BE THE SENATE THAT KILLS THE TREATY, BUT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. AS A SIDE NOTE, MR. PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECALL THAT GENERAL CHILTON'S SUPPORT FOR FOUR NEW START LEVELS WAS PREDICATED ON NO RUSSIAN CHEATING. HE TESTIFIED TO THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON APRIL 2, 2010, THAT ONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS IMMEDIATE WHEN THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW WAS COMPLETE WAS -- QUOTE -- "AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE RUSSIANS WOULD BE COMPLIANT." IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT HOW MANY TIMES RUSSIA HAS BEEN A SERIOUS VIOLATOR OF ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS. MR. PRESIDENT, IN CONCLUSION, REDUCING U.S. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES, ESPECIALLY WITH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER THAT HAS RECEIVED INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION. WE HAVE LITTLE TO GAIN AND MUCH TO LOSE IF WE CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT THE NUMBERS IN NEW START ARE ADEQUATE. I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING. FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY SCHLESINGER TESTIFIED ON APRIL 29, 2010 -- AND I QUOTE -- "AS TO THE STATED CONTEXT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE NUMBERS SPECIFIED ARE ADEQUATE THOUGH BARELY SO." END QUOTE. AGAIN, THIS IS A MODEST AMENDMENT THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ADMINISTRATION'S OWN FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN OF 720 DELIVERY VEHICLES. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY USE THE ADMINISTRATION'S 1251 REPORT FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN OF 720 DELIVERY VEHICLES AND MAKE THAT THE CEILING FOR DELIVERY VEHICLES UNDER THE TREATY RATHER THAN THE CURRENT NUMBER OF 700 THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE TREATY TODAY. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT WITH REGARD TO MAINTAINING A TRIAD, A SYSTEM OF BOMBERS, ICBMs AND SLBMs, THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, A 700 NUMBER CEILING MAKES THAT VERY COMPLICATED. IF YOU ASSUME 420 ICBMs AND 240 SLBMs, THAT HE IS LEAVES YOU ROOM -- THAT LEAVES YOU ROOM FOR BOMBERS BUT NOT A LOT OF ROOM. IF YOU GO FROM THE 720 NUMBER TO THE 700 NUMBER, IF YOU WENT TO 700 AND TOOK IT OUT OF BOMBERS, YOU WOULD BE DOWN TO 40 BOMBERS. WE HAVE 96 B-52'S, 21 THAT ARE NUCLEAR CAPABLE OR NUCLEAR WEAPONS WE USE WITH NUCLEAR LAUNCH VEHICLES TO USE FOR EXTENDED DETERRENCE AROUND THE GLOBE TAORBGSD GOING DOWN TO A -- GOING DOWN TO A NUMBER OF 40 WOULD BE A TWO-THIRDS REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF BOMBERS WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF EXTENDED DETERRENCE. IT STRIKES ME, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WE ARE GETTING PERILOUSLY CLOSE WITH THIS NUMBER FROM MOVING FROM A TRIAD TO A DIAD AND FURTHERMORE TYING OUR HANDS WHEN IT COMES TO OUR ABILITY TO HAVE THE NECESSARY DELIVERY VEHICLES AT OUR DISPOSAL IF AND WHEN THAT TIME WOULD EVER COME. SO AGAIN, A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AMENDMENT. TAKES THE NUMBER FROM 700 TO 720, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE 1251 REPORT AND WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAYS THAT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE IN TERMS OF LAUNCH VEHICLES, AND I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT IT. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:46:07 AM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE I SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, LET ME SEE IF…

    MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE I SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET AN AGREEMENT FROM MY COLLEAGUES. WE'VE WE HAVE A LOT OF COLLEAGUES ASKING WHEN WE'RE GOING TO VOTE, AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME VOTES. WE'VE ONLY HAD TWO VOTES ON AMENDMENTS AFTER SIX DAYS. OBVIOUSLY, I COULD NOTIFY TABLE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT -- AT LEAST NOT YET. I WOULD ASK IF WE COULD SET UP THE TIME TO HAVE A VOTE ON THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENT AT 12:30?

    Show Full Text
  • 11:46:39 AM

    MR. THUNE

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, THAT I THINK THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO…

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, THAT I THINK THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO DEBATE. THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA WANTS TO TALK AT LENGTH, I THINK, ABOUT THE VERIFICATION ISSUE. I DON'T THINK WE'RE PREPARED AT THIS POINT TO ENTER INTO A TIME AGREEMENT FOR ANY TIME CERTAIN ON VOTES. AND UNTIL WE CAN GET SOME INDICATION FROM OUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:47:00 AM

    MR. KERRY

    WELL, I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, WELL, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE SIXTH DAY…

    WELL, I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, WELL, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE SIXTH DAY OF DEBATE. I DIDN'T SAY MASS IS COMING. IT IS SURPRISING TO ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATION OF WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:47:13 AM

    MR. THUNE

    THINK, MR. PRESIDENT -- OR, I SHOULD SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D SAY TO THE…

    THINK, MR. PRESIDENT -- OR, I SHOULD SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D SAY TO THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, WE DO HAVE, I THINK, OTHERS WHO WANT TO SPEAK NOT ONLY ON THIS AMENDMENT BUT ALSO ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA. AND THESE ARE, I SAID, ARE BOTH VERY SIGNIFICANT, SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS THAT DEAL FUNDAMENTALLY WITH THE ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THIS TREATY, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE PREPARED AT THIS POINT TO CUT OFF THAT DEBATE, AND UNTIL WE GET SOME INDICATION FROM SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHO ELSE MIGHT WANT TO COME DOWN HERE AND SPEAK TO EITHER OF THESE ISSUES, I WOULD OBJECT TO ENTERING INTO ANY KIND OF A TIME AGREEMENT FOR THAT.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:47:48 AM

    MR. KERRY

    THAT. AND THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS, NOBODY IS -- I THINK WE HAVE…

    THAT. AND THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS, NOBODY IS -- I THINK WE HAVE NOT -- WE'VE ALLOWED EACH OF THE PRIOR AMENDMENTS TO COME TO AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE. WE HAVEN'T TABLED THEM, WHICH IS AN OFTEN-USED PRACTICE HERE, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS. WE COULD HAVE DEBATED ALL LAST NIGHT. THERE WAS NOBODY HERE TO DEBATE. NOW WE'RE HERE DEBATING. WE'RE HAPPY TO LEAVE TIME FOR DEBATE. BUT I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THEY COULDN'T INQUIRE WHO MIGHT WANT TO COME SO WE COULD -- AT LEAST TRY TO OUT OF COURTESY TO OUR COLLEAGUES GIVE THEM A SENSE OF WHAT THE SCHEDULE MIGHT BE AND THEN WE COULD SET A TIME FOR DEBATE, ALLOWING EVERYBODY TIME. I'M NOT SUGGESTING IN ANY WITH A THAT THE TOPICS WE'VE DISCUSSED ARE NOT IMPORTANT. THEY ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY'RE WORTHY OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. SO WE WELCOME THAT. BUT I I'D LIKE TO SEE -- I'D YIELD FOR A QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:48:48 AM

    MR. INHOFE

    YES, IN ADDITION TO WHAT SENATOR THUNE HAS SAID, LET ME COMMENT THAT THERE…

    YES, IN ADDITION TO WHAT SENATOR THUNE HAS SAID, LET ME COMMENT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO GO INTO THE CLOSED SESSION FIRST AND ADDRESS THINGS HAVING TO DO WITH MY AMENDMENT AND HIS AMENDMENT BEFORE A VOTE. I THINK THAT'S THE CRITICAL THING THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:49:03 AM

    MR. KERRY

    THAT. AND I'M PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE IF WE WERE ABLE TO SET A TIME EVEN…

    THAT. AND I'M PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE IF WE WERE ABLE TO SET A TIME EVEN AFTER THAT CLOSED SESSION. I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD FEEL GOOD IF WE COULD TRY TO FIND A TIEVMENT BUT I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO TRY TO WANT TO HAVE THAT SESSION AND THAT'S THE SENATOR'S RIGHT AND WE RESPECT THAT. BUT MAYBE WE COULD FIND THE TIME WHEN WE COME OUT OF THAT SESSION. WE COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF VOTES BACK TO BACK AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A THE ALTHOUGH OF PEOPLE HERE. MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME JUST SAY THAT I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA FOR HIS AMENDMENT. IT IS ONE THAT IS WORTHY OF SOME DISCUSSION, AND OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CLASSIFIED SESSION. BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS. HE SAID THAT ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WILL BE USED IS THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN GOING BACK TO THE RUSSIANS AND HAVING TO RENEGOTIATE THE TREATY. THAT'S NOT A CASUAL ARGUMENT. I MEAN, IT IS NOT A SMALL THING. BUT IT'S NOT THE PRINCIPAL REASON -- IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, OBVIOUSLY, WHY I THINK THIS AMENDMENT IS ILL-ADVISED. BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS AMENDMENT IS UNNECESSARY. AND I THINK ALL OF US ON OUR SIDE HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPORTANCE OF DELIVERY VEHICLES WITH RESPECT TO OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE. BUT HERE'S WHAT WE'VE BEV TO BALANCE THE COMOANTSES -- BUT HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE TO BALANCE THE COMMENTS OF OUR COLLEAGUE FROM SOUTH DAKOTA AGAINST. THE JOIN CHIEFS OF STAFF, THE COMMANDER OF U.S. TREE GENETIC COMMAND, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND OTHERS HAVE ALL DETERMINED THAT WE CAN SAFELY REDUCE OUR DEPLOYED ICBMs AND OUR DEPLOYED SLBMs AND OUR DEPLOYED HEAVY BOMBERS -- THE THREE LEGS OF THE TRIAD -- THAT THEY COULD BE REDUCED TO THE 700 NUMBER. NOW, THAT FIGURE WAS PICKED, OBVIOUSLY, AFTER AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF THINKING BY ALL OF THOSE PARTIES CONCERNED -- THE STRATEGIC COMMAND, THE AIR FORCE FOLKS, THE NAVY, SLBM AND SO FORTH -- AND THEY DID SO ONLY AFTER SEEING THE RESULTS OF FORCE-ON-FORCE ANALYSES, OF EXACTLY WHERE THAT WOULD LEAVE US IN TERMS OF AMERICA'S RESPONSE SHOULD THERE, HAPPILY IN THE CURRENT ATMOSPHERE, BE THE UNLIKELY EVENT OF A NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS IN THAT LARGER CONTEXT. -- OF SORT OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WHAT DIRECTION ARE WE MOVING IN, WHAT'S THE RELATETY. AND AS THE SENATOR KNOWS, WITHOUT GOING INTO ANY DETAILS, THAT FORCE-ON-FORCE DETERMINATION WAS MADE NOT JUST IN THE LIKELIHOOD OF A RUSSIAN-U.S. CONFRONTATION WITH YOU -- BUT IN A MULTIPARTY CONFRONTATION. AND AGAIN WE'LL DISCUSS SOME OF THAT LATER. NOW, THE SENATOR IS -- SO THE GRAVAMEN OF THE SENATOR'S COMPLAINT IS THAT HE IS CONCERNED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO THUS FAR STATE PRECISELY HOW IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE DEPLOYED ICBMs, INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES AND SLBMs, SUBMARINE-LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILES. HOW DO YOU MEET THIS? I WANT THE CHAIRMAN TO WEIGH IN HERE. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT INTENDS TO MAINTAIN 20 LAUNCHERS ON THE 12 BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES THAT WE KEEP OPERATIONALLY DEPLOYED, MEANING THAT OUR SUBMARINE FORCE WILL ACCOUNT FOR 240 OF THE 700 LIMIT. WE AGREE ON THAT. THAT LEAVES ROOM FOR 460 DEPLOYED DELIVERY VEHICLES COMBINED FROM THE TWO OTHER LEGS OF THE TRIAD, FROM THE ICBMs AND FROM THE HEAVY BOMBER FORCES. NOW, THE SENATOR ALSO SAID THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID IN ITS 1251 REPORT THAT IT HASN'T MADE A FINAL DECISION ON GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 420 ICBMs. OR ALL THE WAY UP TO 60 BOMBERS. OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. THAT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IN OTHER WORDS, OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPLOYED DELIVERY VEHICLE LIMIT OF 700, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS LEFT ITSELF SOME ROOM TO MANEUVER TO MAKE A DECISION ON 20 OF ITS ICBMs AND BOMBERS. AND UNDER THE AGREEMENT, WE HAVE SEVEN YEARS -- SEVEN YEARS OF ROOM HERE -- BEFORE WE HAVE TO MEET THAT LIMIT. NOW, WHEN ASKED ABOUT THIS SORT OF AVAILABLE TIME OF SEVEN YEARS, GENERAL CHILTON, THE COMMANDER OF OUR STRATEGIC COMMAND, TOLD THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD -- QUOTE -- "THE FORCE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCT IS REPORTED IN THE SECTION 1251 REPORT IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NATION'S STRATEGIC DETERRENCE MISSION. FURTHERMORE, THE NEW START TREATY PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE THE FORCE DRAWDOWN WHILE MAINTAINING AN EFFECTIVE AND SAFE STRATEGIC DETERRENT. AS A TECHNICAL MATTER, THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE PRESIDENT TO GO NOW BACK TO THE RUSSIANS, MOVE THE LIMIT UP FROM 700 TO 720, EVEN THOUGH THE MILITARY IS PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE LEVEL THAT WE HAVE. THAT'S WHEN YOU BEGIN TO GET INTO THE QUESTION, HEY, IF THEY'RE TELLING US THAT THIS IS GOOD AND COMFORTABLE AND WE CAN DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THIS CONTEXT, I MIGHT ADD, OF A VERY DIFFERENT RUSSIA, VERY DIFFERENT U.S., VERY DIFFERENT SET OF STRATEGIC DEMANDS AT THIS MOMENT, WHY WOULD WE REOPEN THE TREATY FOR RENEGOTIATION? SO, I HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THIS, PARTICULARLY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE, BECAUSE THE PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE, LIKEWISE, IS NOT IMPACTED NEGATIVELY BY THIS, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY WE HAVE OPTIONS AS TO HOW WE ARM CERTAIN LEGS OF THE TRIAD AND WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT ALSO DISH THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT ALSO -- I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT -- UNDER -- THERE MAY BE SOME CONCERN -- I UNDERSTAND THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE SENATOR'S REPRESENTATION. SO THERE MAY BE SOME CONCERN FROM SOME SENATORS AND THE COMMENTS THAT THE SENATOR MADE. HE SAID THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH THE ICBM BASES OR THE SLBM BASES, ET CETERA, OR THE BOMBER BASES NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON THIS. LET ME BE CLEAR THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE IT CLEAR, NONE OF THE THREE ICBM BASES ARE GOING TO BE CLOSED BECAUSE OF THE NEW START TREATY. WE'RE MAINTAINING ALL OF THEM. WHAT'S MORE, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S COMMITTED TO THE ICBM FORCE IN THE YEARS TO COME. AND IT HAS UPDATE -- AND IN ITS UPDATE 12-D 51 REPORT, THE MINUTEMAN III WILL REMAIN IN FORCE AND THEN BE REPLAUSED BY A FOLLOW-ON ICBM TO BE DERLD. AND IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CUTTING BOMBERS, SENATORS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT TO MEET THE NEW START'S LIMITS, WE ARE NOT GOING TO NEED TO ELIMINATE ANY BOMBERS. WE PLAN TO SIMPLY CONVERT SOME BOMBERS TO A CONVENTIONAL ROLE AT WHICH POINT THEY WILL NO LONGER COUNT TOWARDS THE TREATY LIMITS. SO WITH THAT STATED AS PART OF THE RECORD, I WOULD YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO -- OR SUCH TIME AS THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN WOULD LIKE TO CONSUME, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE.

    Show Full Text
  • 11:57:20 AM

    MR. INHOFE

    IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAD KIND OF AN INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT, WE'D BE…

    IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAD KIND OF AN INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT, WE'D BE GOING BACK AND FORTH. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED. BUT IF IT IS --

    Show Full Text
  • 11:57:30 AM

    MR. KERRY

    OKAY.

  • 11:57:42 AM

    MR. LEVIN

    THE AMENDMENT WOULD AMEND THE TREATY BY CHANGING ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF…

    THE AMENDMENT WOULD AMEND THE TREATY BY CHANGING ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE TREATY, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF DEPLOYED STRATEGIC FORCES FORCES THAT WE HAVE. UNDER THE TREATY THE LIMIT 1700 BUT THE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PART TO OUR MILITARY IS THAT EACH SIDE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE MIX TO REACH 700 AS IT SUITS OUR RESPECTIVE NEEDS. THE AMENDMENT OF SENATOR THUNE WOULD ALTER THE LIMIT OF 700 TO 720 DEPLOYED SLBMs, HEAVY BOMBERS EQUIPPED WITH NUCLEAR ARMS AND ICBMs. NOW, THESE LIMITS, AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN REELS COMMITTEE HAS JUST SAID, WERE AGREED UPON ONLY AFTER CAREFUL ANALYSIS BY U.S. MILITARY LEADERSHIP, PARTICULARLY GENERAL CHILTON, WHO IS THE COMMANDER OF OUR U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND AND THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE STRATEGIC SYSTEMS. SENATOR KERRY HAS QUOTED GENERAL CHILTON, AND I WANT TO JUST ADD ONE ADDITIONAL QUOTE OF HIS WHICH HE TESTIFIED TO BEFORE THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON JULY 20 OF THIS YEAR. JULY CHILTON STATED THAT THE FORCE LEVELS IN THE TREATY MEET THE CURRENT GUIDANCE FOR DETERRENCE FOR THE UNITED STATES. AND BY THE WAY, THAT GUIDANCE WAS LAID OUT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. QUOTE -- "THE OPTIONS WE PROVIDED IN THIS PROCESS FOCUSED ON ENSURING AMERICA'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO DETER POTENTIAL ADVERSARY, ASSURE OUR ALLIES, AND SUSTAIN STRATEGIC STABILITY FOR AS LONG AS NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXIST. THIS RIGOROUS APPROACH ROOTED IN DETERRENCE STRATEGY AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSARY CAPABILITIES" -- AND HERE ARE THE KEY WORDS -- "SUPPORTS BOTH THE AGREED-UPON LIMITS IN THE NEW START AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW." THE N.P.R. SO, GENERAL CHILTON IS ON RECORD IN A NUMBER OF PLACES AS VERY PRECISELY AND SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT THE OPTIONS WHICH WERE PROVIDED, INCLUDING THE ONE WHICH WAS ADOPTED HERE, ROOTED IN THE STRATEGY, ROOTED IN THE PROVISIONS THIS A, THE GUIDANCE WHICH WAS LAID OUT BY PRESIDENT BUSH, SUPPORTS THE AGREED-UPON LIMITS IN THE START TREATY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE PRECISE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT YOU CAN GET WITH THE WORDS OF THE COMMANDER THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THESE WEAPONS. AS TO THE 1251, THE REPORT SAYS UP TO THOSE NUMBERS. IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY COMMITTED TO THOSE NUMBERS. AND THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THAT REPORT IS NOT JUST THAT IT SAYS UP TO I THINK IN AT LEAST TWO OF THE THREE CASES, BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE REMAIN FLEXIBLE AS TO THIS NUMBER. TO THE 700 FORCE STRUCTURE THAT'S IN THE TREATY RETAINS THE NUCLEAR TRIAD, RETAINS ALL THREE DELIVERY LEGS. GENERAL CHILTON ON THAT POINT SAID WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN A TRIAD OF NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS. AND IF THERE'S A FAILURE IN ONE OF THE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, WE CAN REARRANGE OUR POSTURE AND POSTURE WITHIN THE TREATY LIMITS TO COMPENSATE. SOME HAVE SAID THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS TO REACH THE 700 LEVEL AND THE RUSSIANS WILL HAVE TO MAKE NONE. ACCORDING TO GENERAL CHILTON, THIS ARGUMENT IS A DISTRACTION, BECAUSE WHAT HE SAID IS THAT THE NEW START LIMITS, IN HIS WORDS, "THE NEW START LIMITS THE NUMBER OF RUSSIAN BALLISTIC MISSILE WARHEADS THAT CAN TARGET THE UNITED STATES. MISSILES THAT CAN POSE THE MOST PROMPT THREAT TO OUR FORCES AND OUR NATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER RUSSIA WOULD HAVE KEPT ITS MISSILE FORCE LEVELS WITHIN THOSE LIMITS WITHOUT A NEW START TREATY, UPON RATIFICATION," GENERAL CHILTON SAID, "THEY WOULD NOW BE REQUIRED TO DO SO." AND THAT CERTAINTY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR STRATEGIC COMMANDER, GENERAL CHILTON, BECAUSE HE SAID THAT -- QUOTE -- "THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE TREATY ACTUALLY CONSTRAIN RUSSIA WITH REGARD TO DEPLOYED LAUNCHERS AND DEPLOYED STRATEGIC WEAPONS AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT AS WELL. WITHOUT THAT, THEY ARE UNCONSTRAINED." HE EXPLAINED THAT THE LIMITS WERE IMPORTANT BECAUSE WITHOUT THOSE LIMITS -- QUOTE -- "THERE WOULD BE NO CONSTRAINTS PLACED UPON THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS THE NUMBER OF STRATEGIC DELIVERY VMS OR WARHEADS -- VEHICLES OR WARHEADS THEY COULD DEPLOY. AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES," HE CONCLUDED, "THAT THERE BE LIMITS THERE, LIMITS THAT WE WOULD ALSO BE BOUND BY, OBVIOUSLY." SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, GENERAL CHILTON IS NOT ONLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE LIMITS IN THIS TREATY, IT WAS HIS ANALYSIS THAT FORMED THE UNDERPINNING FOR THE 700 LIMIT. HE DOESN'T NEED THE STRATEGIC -- THE ADDITIONAL 20 STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN OUR STRONG DETERRENCE. AND OTHER THAN TO KILL THIS TREATY, THERE IS NO REASON TO ADD THESE20 ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS. WE SHOULD RESPECT -- THESE 20 ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS. WE SHOULD RESPECT GENERAL CHILTON'S JUDGMENT THAT THE U.S. CAN MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT AND THAT SUCH A CHANGE WOULD KILL THIS TREATY. I YIELD THE FLOOR AND I THANK THE CHAIR.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:03:23 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

  • 12:03:27 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    I DO WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING -- FURTHER…

    I DO WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING -- FURTHER EXPLAINING MY AMENDMENT NUMBER 4833 AND ALSO TO RESPOND TO THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS. BEFORE DOING THAT, I WOULD ASK IF YOU THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA HAS ANY RESPONSES HE'D LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME AND THEN I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:03:51 PM

    MR. THUNE

    THANK YOU. MADAM PRESIDENT, I THANK THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA FOR GIVING…

    THANK YOU. MADAM PRESIDENT, I THANK THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:03:55 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

  • 12:03:57 PM

    MR. THUNE

    ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND BRIEFLY, IF I MIGHT, TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES.…

    ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND BRIEFLY, IF I MIGHT, TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES. ONE OF THE ISSUES, TOO, THAT GENERAL CHILTON, THE STRATCOM COMMANDER, I THINK TESTIFIED TO WAS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHEATING. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, THERE ARE -- HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH EXAMPLES OF THE RUSSIANS CHEATING ON THESE AGREEMENTS. AND FURTHERMORE, WHAT THEY AGREED TO WAS A -- NOT A -- THE TREATY IS 700 BUT WHAT GENERAL CHILTON AND THE NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN WOULD CALL FOR IS 720. IT'S 240 SUBMARINE-LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILES UP TO 420 ICBMs AND UP TO 60 BOMBERS. NOW, AGAIN, THAT ADDS UP TO 720 AND THAT'S ALL THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS SIMPLY MAKES CONSISTENT WHAT THE NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN, AS OUTLINED BY GENERAL CHILTON AND OTHERS, WOULD BE WITH WHAT THE TREATY REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE AS WELL. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I SAID THIS EARLIER, BUT WE HAVE 856 LAUNCH VEHICLES, DELIVERY VEHICLES IN OUR ARSENAL TODAY. THE TREATY CALLS FOR 700, SO WE'RE MAKING 156 DELIVERY VEHICLE REDUCTION TO GET DOWN TO THE 700 NUMBER. THE RUSSIANS TODAY ARE AT 620. THEY ARE ALREADY BELOW THE 700 NUMBER AND THEY'RE HEADED DOWN EVEN LOWER, TO SOMEWHERE IN THE 400 RANGE. AND SO WE HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONCESSION WITH RESPECT TO DELIVERY VEHICLES AT NO COST WHATSOEVER TO THE RUSSIANS. AND I WOULD POINT OUT ALSO, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT -- THAT THE CONCERN I HAVE, AS I SAID BEFORE, IN TAKING A 720 NUMBER AND REDUCING IT TO 700 ASSUMES, AGAIN, THAT EVEN IF YOU -- IF YOU KEEP THE 240 SUBMARINE-LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILE DELIVERY VEHICLES, ASSUME THAT, AND IF YOU ASSUME 420 ICBMs, YOU WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THE BOMBER INVENTORY DOWN TO 40 TO GET UNDER THE 700 LEVEL. AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THE BOMBERS, THE HEAVY BOMBERS, THAT HAVE GIVEN US THE EXTENDED DETERRENCE. THEY ARE VISIBLE, THEY ARE RECALLABLE, THEY ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL, THEY ARE POLITICAL. YOU CAN PUT THEM INTO A THEATRE, THEY CAN LOITER, THEY CAN PERSIST AND THAT IS A POWERFUL, POWERFUL DETERRENT TO THOSE WHO WOULD LICK TO PROLIFERATE -- LIKE TO PROLIFERATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. AND SO IF WE TAKE OUR BOMBER FLEET AND REDUCE IT DOWN TO THE LEVELS THAT WOULD BE TALKED ABOUT UNDER THIS TREATY, WE ARE PUTTING AT GREAT RISK, IN MY VIEW, MADAM PRESIDENT, THE TRIAD. NOW, A LOT OF THESE BOMBERS NEED TO BE UPDATED AND THEY'RE GETTING OLDER. WE NEED A NEXT-GENERATION BOMBER WHICH I THINK IS GOING TO BE NEED -- IT'S GOING TO BE CRITICAL THAT THAT ALSO BE A NUCLEAR BOMBER. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR TREATY, RELATIVE TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND TO WHAT OUR NEEDS COULD BE IN THE FUTURE, PARTICULARLY AS IT PERTAINS TO BOMBERS, THE NEED FOR EXTENDED DETERRENCE, WE ARE REDUCING TO A LEVEL THAT I THINK MAKES MANY OF US UNCOMFORTABLE AND GETS BELOW THE NUMBER THAT WAS PROSCRIBED IN THE NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN, AS HAS BEEN OUTLINED. 720 AS OPPOSED TO 700. THE 700 NUMBER IS -- IS WELL BELOW WHERE I THINK WE NEED TO BE AND IS IT PUT IN PERIL THE TRIAD, WHICH HAS SERVED US WELL FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IN FACT, IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE COLD WAR, IT WAS THE BOMBERS, THE HEAVY BOMBER, THAT PROVIDED THE BULK OF THE WORK. AND WHEN WE DEVELOPED ICBMs AND SLBMs, NOW SOME OF THE BOMBERS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO CONVENTIONAL USE. THEY'VE BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB IN THAT MISSION AS WELL. BUT IT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EXTENDED DETERRENCE INTO THE FUTURE, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A VERY ROBUST BOMBER FLEET THAT IS NUCLEAR CAPABLE. AND A 700 NUMBER PUTS THAT IN GREAT JEOPARDY. MADAM PRESIDENT, WITH THAT, I'D YIELD BACK TO THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:07:48 PM

    MR. LEVIN

    SENATOR YIELD JUST FOR ONE QUESTION BEFORE HE YIELDS TO THE SENATOR FROM…

    SENATOR YIELD JUST FOR ONE QUESTION BEFORE HE YIELDS TO THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA?

    Show Full Text
  • 12:07:52 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.

  • 12:07:54 PM

    MR. LEVIN

    IF SENATOR THUNE WOULD YIELD FOR A QUESTION. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE…

    IF SENATOR THUNE WOULD YIELD FOR A QUESTION. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE SECTION 1251 REPORT SAYS THAT THE NUMBERS WHICH THEY TALK ABOUT ARE UP TO NUMBERS IN THE CASE OF BOTH ICBMs AND THE NUCLEAR BOMBERS?

    Show Full Text
  • 12:08:07 PM

    MR. THUNE

    IS -- MY UNDERSTANDING, MADAM PRESIDENT, THROUGH THE CHAIR, THAT IS…

    IS -- MY UNDERSTANDING, MADAM PRESIDENT, THROUGH THE CHAIR, THAT IS CORRECT, IT IS UP TO -- IT STATES THE 240 SLBMs, UP TO 420 ICBMs AND UP TO 60 BOMBERS.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:08:17 PM

    MR. LEVIN

    720 NUMBER IS NOT PROSCRIBED BY THE THE1251 REPORT. THAT'S THE TOTAL OF…

    720 NUMBER IS NOT PROSCRIBED BY THE THE1251 REPORT. THAT'S THE TOTAL OF THE THREE NUMBERS, TWO OF WHICH ARE UP-TO NUMBERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

    Show Full Text
  • 12:08:28 PM

    MR. THUNE

    THAT -- MADAM PRESIDENT, AGAIN, TO ANSWER THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN'S…

    THAT -- MADAM PRESIDENT, AGAIN, TO ANSWER THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN'S QUESTION, I BELIEVE TO BE THE CASE. THAT'S WHAT THE 1251 -- IT IS NOT PROCEED SCRIPTIVE. ALL I -- PROSCRIPTIVE. ALL I'M SIMPLY SAYING IF YOU WERE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION, THAT YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE THE ADDITIONAL VEHICLES OUT OF THE BOMBER FLEET, YOU WOULD TAKE THAT FROM 60 DOWN TO 40 AT A TIME WHEN WE HAVE ALMOST 120 BOMBERS IN OUR INVENTORY THAT. IS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE EXTEND TENDEDEDDETERRENCE AND THE BOMBERS ARE THE BEST FORM OF EXTENDED DETERRENCE.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:09:02 PM

    MR. LEVIN

    I THANK THE SENATOR AND I THANK THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

  • 12:09:08 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    MY INTENTION NOW -- I MADE MY PRESENTATION EARLIER ON AND A SIMILAR…

    MY INTENTION NOW -- I MADE MY PRESENTATION EARLIER ON AND A SIMILAR PRESENTATION YESTERDAY, AND THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS RESPONDED -- I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO HIS RESPONSES JUST TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE UNSURE. FIRST OF ALL, THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS EVERY SENATOR ON OUR -- THAT EVERY SENATOR ON OUR SIDE MOST IMPORTANTLY, UNBELIEVABLY EXPERIENCED NEGOTIATORS WHO PUT THIS TREATY TOGETHER HAVE MADE A LIFETIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THESE KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS IN WAYS AND HE WANTED TO EXPAND, WHICH I APPRECIATED, AS TO HOW QUALIFIED THESE PEOPLE WERE. BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE AND I THINK IT WAS ARTICULATED BY THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA DAKOTA, THAT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. WE TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS UP TO US -- NOT SOMEBODY ELSE, US, IS TO PROVIDE FOR A COMMON DEFENSE. AND ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY GIVES US THE -- NOT JUST THE RIGHT BUT THE OBLIGATION FOR ADVICE AND CONSENT. AND -- AND QUITE OFTEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE SMART PEOPLE WHO HAVE AGREED WITH THIS. WELL, THAT LEAVES ONE GROUP OUT AND THAT'S US, AND WE HAPPEN TO BE THE ONES WHO ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE THROUGH OUR ELECTIONS. THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS ALSO SAID THAT THE TREATY ITSELF, SAID, TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, MY AMENDMENT, HE SAID THAT THE -- HE PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREATY ITSELF WHICH WE ALL UNDERSTAND NOW AFTER TWO VOTES THAT IT WOULD -- IT WOULD KILL THE TREATY. WHAT HE'S ESSENTIALLY SAYING, IF YOU AMEND THE TREATY, IT'S DEAD. I THINK AND THAT -- THAT WE -- AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO STOP AND REEVALUATE WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS, NOT JUST THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. AS THE C.R.A. HAS OUTLINED IN ITS STUDY ON THE ROLE OF THE TREATY PROCESS AND THE SENATE, THE AMENDMENTS ARE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE TREATY. THEY AMOUNT, THEREFORE, TO SENATOR COUNTEROFFERS THAT ALTER THE ORIGINAL DEAL AGREED UPON BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE OTHER COUNTRY. IF THE SENATE GIVES ITS CONSENT TO NEW START WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT, THE TREATY IS SENT TO THE RUSSIAN -- TO RUSSIA FOR ITS APPROVAL WITH THE AMENDMENTS. SO BOTH THE RUSSIAN DUMA AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHANGE THE PORTION OF THIS TREATY AND IT'S UP TO BOTH OF THEM TO -- SO THIS REINSERTS US BACK INTO THE PROCESS. AND I -- I FEEL THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR -- OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED US TO BE DOING ON THESE TREATIES AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THE THIRD THING THAT WAS STATED BY THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE TYPE I INSPECTIONS AND THE TYPE II INSPECTIONS. IT'S A NEW ONE. WELL, IT IS A NEW PROCESS BECAUSE TYPE II INSPECTIONS ARE INSPECTIONS ON -- ON FORMERLY DECLARED FACILITIES. OBVIOUSLY ON THE START I TREATY, WE DIDN'T HAVE FORMALLY DECLARED FACILITIES. THEY CAME AS A RESULT OF THE -- OF THE -- OF THE FIRST TREATY. NOW, THE TYPE I REFERS TO INSPECTIONS OF ICBM BASES, SUBMARINE BASES, AIR BASES TO CONFIRM THE ACCURACY OF DECLARED DATA, ON THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED WARHEADS LOCATED IN ICBMs, SLBMs AND HEAVY BOMBERS. AND I -- SO I -- I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS -- THAT TYPE II INSPECTIONS WEREN'T EVEN ADDRESSED IN THE FIRST -- IN THE FIRST TREATY. THE SENATOR ALSO SAID THAT -- HE SAID THAT, WE SAY IT AGAIN, THAT THAT -- HE SAID, "WE OUGHT TO SEND THIS BACK BUT IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL, IN MY JUDGMENT." NOW, HE TALKS ABOUT THE LEVEL, THE SIGNIFICANCE. ALL THESE AMENDMENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT. EACH ONE OF US WHO IS AN AUTHOR HAS A LITTLE BIT OF BIAS AS TO -- BECAUSE WE'VE STUDIED A LITTLE BIT MORE IN OUR PARTICULAR AREA. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT'S MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN VERIFICATION. YOU KNOW, THIS -- THE INTERESTING THING THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA, WAS GENERAL CHILTON'S SUPPORT. AND I'M READING FROM THE REPORT RIGHT NOW. IT SAID, "GENERAL CHILTON'S SUPPORT FOR THE NEW START LEVELS WAS PREDICATED ON NO RUSSIAN CHEATING OR CHANGES IN THE GEOPOLITICAL ENVIRONMENT." WELL, THERE HISTORICALLY THEY'VE BEEN CHEATING ON EVERYTHING. LET ME JUST GO AHEAD AND REREAD WHAT I HAD SAID BEFORE. WE HAD THE MEETING, THE CONVENTION IN 2005 AND THEN AGAIN FIVE YEARS LATER, IN 2010, CAME OUT IN MAY OR JUNE OF THIS YEAR, AND IN THE -- THAT ONE, TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGICAL WEAPON CONVENTION, IN 2005, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CONCLUDED THAT RUSSIA MAINTAINS A MATURE OFFENSIVE BIOLOGICAL WEAPON PROGRAM AND THAT ITS NATURE AND STATUS HAVE NOT CHANGED. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IN 2005. NOW, FIVE YEARS LATER, THE NEW REPORT CAME OUT AND IT SAYS THAT THE -- THE STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT STATES THE RUSSIA CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURE IN DECLARATION SINCE 1992 HAVE NOT SATISFACTORILY DOCUMENTED WHETHER OR NOT ITS BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM WAS TERMINATED. THEREFORE, THEY'RE SAYING THE SAME THING FIVE YEARS LATER AND SO THEY LIED FIVE YEARS AGO AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE WHAT THEY -- OR THEY CHEATED, I SHOULD SAY, AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE -- CHEMICAL WEAPONS, THE SAME THING. IN 2005, THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASSESSED THAT -- QUOTE -- "RUSSIA IS IN VIOLATION OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE ITS DECLARATION WAS INCOMPLETE WITH RESPECT TO DECLARATIONS OF PRODUCTION OF AND DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES." THEN AGAIN IN 2010, FIVE YEARS LATER, THE STATE DEPARTMENT AGAIN STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM RUSSIA RESULTING IN THE UNITED STATES BEING ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIA HAS DECLARED." WELL, AGAIN, IF IT'S -- IF WE'RE PREDICATING ALL THAT GENERAL CHILTON SAID ON THE FACT THAT CHEATING HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN MIRACULOUSLY STOPPED, THEN THIS IS A GREAT REFORM MEASURE AND I -- BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE OF IT BEFORE WE ASSUME THAT THAT IS THE CASE. THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS ALSO STATED THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS TREATY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE UNITED STATES, THIS TREATY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE UNITED STATES IF THE TREATY DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE VERIFICATION MEASURES. SO IT TA/ -- IT TALKS ABOUT ALL OF THESE VERIFICATION MEASURES. THEN HE SAYS, IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF OUR MILITARY, OUR STATE DEPARTMENT AND OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE -- THAT THESE MEASURES ARE ADEQUATE. WELL, THAT MAY BE TRUE WITH THE CURRENT -- THOSE THAT ARE ANSWERING TO OUR PRESIDENT WHO ARE STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS TREATY. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE MILITARY AND THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE PAST, THOSE COMMENTS WHO -- HO THOSE WHO COMMENTED -- THOSE WHO COMMENTED, JAMES BAKER STATES THAT THE START TREATY IS WEAKER THAN ITS PREDECESSOR, TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, AND I HAPPENED TO BE THERE, TESTIFYING THAT THE START TREATY DOES NOT APPEAR AS RIGOROUS OR EXTENSIVE AS THE ONE OF THE DIVERSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER START I. THIS COMPLEX PART OF THE TREATY -- I'M STILL QUOTING -- CRUCIAL WHEN FEWER DEPLOYED NUCLEAR WARHEADS WERE ALLOWED THAN WERE ALLOWED IN THE PAST. INSOFAR AS MILITARY IS CONCERNED, RICHARD PERLE, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, HE STATED ON DECEMBER 2, JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, "THAT THE NEW START HAS VERY WEAK VERIFICATION REGIME. ONE THAT ESTABLISHES A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AND LOWERS OUR STANDARD FOR VERIFICATION." HERE'S THE MILITARY WAY IN. HE GOES ON FURTHER TO SAY "NEW START'S VERIFICATION PROVISIONS WOULD PROVIDE LITTLE OR NO HELP AT DETECTING -- ARE OFF LIMITS TO THE U.S. INSPECTIONS OR HIDDEN FROM OUR U.S. SATELLITES. JAMES WOOLSEY, I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE, I HAVE A BIAS WITH JAMES WOOLSEY. HE'S FROM OKLAHOMA. SOME PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT. HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE FROM 1993 UNTIL 199 1995, HE WAS ADVISER OF THE SALT I NEGOTIATIONS, DELEGATE AT-LARGE TO THE START AND DEFENSE AND SPACE NEGOTIATIONS. HE STATED ON NOVEMBER 15th, THAT THIS TREATY, UNLIKE THE ORIGINAL START TREATY, RUSSIA IS FREE TO ENCRYPT TELEIMTRI -- THERE IS NO LONGER THE REQUIREMENT FOR PERMANENT ON-SITE MONITORING OF RUSSIA'S PRIMARY MISSLE PRODUCTION FACILITY. WHICH UNDER OLD START HELPED US KEEP TRACK-NEW MOBILE MISSLE -- MOBILE MISSLE ENTERING THE SOVIET FORCE. HE GOES ON AND ON AND THAT IS AGREED WITH THE FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF VERIFICATION, COMPLIANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT AND STATE DEPARTMENT AND POINTED OUT ON -- ON THE 12th OF JULY THAT THE NEW START HAS GLARING HOLES IN ITS VERIFICATION REGIME. NEW START IS MUCH LESS VERIFIABLE THAN THE ORIGINAL START. NOW, I ONLY SAY THIS BECAUSE MY FRIEND FROM MASSACHUSETTS TALKED ABOUT THE MILITARY, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. ONE THING THAT'S ENGAINED IN OUR SYSTEM IS WE HAVE -- INGRAINED IN OUR SYSTEM, IF WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, HE HAS A LOT OF INFLUENCE OVER THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE MILITARY. SO I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM SOME VERY WELL-RESPECTED PEOPLE ALONG THOSE LINES. THEN ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS -- OR REBUTTALS THAT THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS HAD AGAINST MY OPENING STATEMENT YESTERDAY WAS THAT BE -- WE HAVE FEWER SITES NOW THAN WE HAD DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE START I TREATY. WELL, THIS IS TRUE, WE DO HAVE FEWER SITES. BUT I THINK AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE TO BE VERY PERSUASIVE BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE AGREE WITH THE FACT, IF YOU HAVE FEWER SITES, YOU NEED MORE INSPECTIONS. FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY JOHN BOLTON STATED ON MAY 3 OF THIS YEAR THAT WHILE VERIFICATION IS IMPORTANT IN ANY ARMS CONTROL TREATY, VERIFICATION BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT AT LOWER WARHEAD LEVELS. BRENT SCOWCROFT WEIGHED IN THE SAME THING, IT PROVIDES A BUFFER BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGH ENOUGH TO BE RELATIVELY INSENSITIVE TO IMPERFECT INTELLIGENCE AND MODEST FORCE CHANGES. AS FORCE LEVELS GO DOWN, THE BALANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER CAN BECOME INCREASINGLY DELICATE AND VULNERABLE TO CHEATING -- VULNERABLE TO CHEATING ON ARMS CONTROL LIMIT CONCERNS ABOUT HIDDEN MISSLES AND THE ACTIONS OF NUCLEAR THIRD PARTIES. IN MAY OF THIS YEAR IN FRONT OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES BAKER, SUMMARIZED THAT THE NEW START VERIFICATION REGIME IS WEAKER THAN THE PREDECESSOR, SAYING -- QUOTE -- "THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR AS RIGOROUS OR EXTENSIVE AS THE ONE THAT VERIFIED THE -- AND THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY IT'S MORE SIGNIFICANT AS YOU REDUCE YOUR NUMBER OF INSPECTED FACILITIES. AND, FURTHER, THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS RESPONDED TO ME BY SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEMAND THE SAME NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS OF OUR MILITARY BASES AS AND WE'D HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO HOST THEM THREE TIMES MORE AS THE INSPECTIONS. WELL, THAT'S TRUE. THIS IS BILATERAL. EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO WE HAVE TO DO TOO. I LIKE THAT IDEA. THAT MEANS -- HE WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT THE INCONVENIENCE WE'D BE GOING TO. BUT MY AMENDMENT APPLIES TO BOTH THE UNITED STATES -- MY AMENDMENT INCREASES THE INSPECTION TO BOTH SIDES WHICH IMPROVES CONFIDENCE, TRUST, AND TRANSPARENCY. IT IMPROVES OUR ABILITY TO CATCH THE RUSSIANS CHEATING AND DETER THE RUSSIANS FROM CHEATING. SO I'M FULLY AWARE THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE TO DO. FURTHERMORE IT WAS STATED THAT BY THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS AND HIS RESPONSE -- IN HIS RESPONSE TO MY STATEMENT -- QUOTE -- "SO I THINK IT'S ONE THING TO ASK OUR STRATIGIC NUCLEAR FORCES TO DO THAT 10 TIMES A YEAR OR LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH. IT'S ANOTHER THING FOR THEM TO BE WAITING FOR 30 INSPECTIONS A YEAR. WE HAVE TWO SUBMARINE BASES, THREE BOMBERS AND THREE ICBM BASES. RUSSIA HAS THREE SUBMARINE BASES AND 12 ICBMs. SO WE'RE NOT ON PARITY THERE. FURTHERMORE HE STATED IN A LETTER FROM SECRETARY GATES SAID THIS LAST SUMMER SAID -- HE STATED HE SENT HIM ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE RUSSIAN WOULD CHEAT ON THIS TREATY IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT. HE SAID, QUOTE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, THE JOINT CHIEFS COMMANDER, THE U.S. STRATIGIC COMMAND AND I ASSESS THE RUSSIANS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT CHEATING. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHEAT. AGAIN, THIS IS THE CONVERSATION THEY'VE HAD. THEY TALKED ABOUT -- HE TALKED ABOUT -- THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS THAT -- A SENATOR: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A MOMENT?

    Show Full Text
  • 12:22:58 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    A QUESTION. FOR A QUESTION.

  • 12:23:01 PM

    MR. KERRY

    YOU DON'T THINK -- EXCUSE ME.

  • 12:23:15 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    DON'T THINK -- EXCUSE ME.

  • 12:23:19 PM

    MR. KERRY

    OF CHEATING, MADAM PRESIDENT, WHAT HE SAID WAS HE DIDN'T THINK THERE WOULD…

    OF CHEATING, MADAM PRESIDENT, WHAT HE SAID WAS HE DIDN'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT HAD AN IMPACT ON US. AGAIN, THIS IS MILITARY THAT WE CAN GO INTO WHICH WE WILL PROBABLY IN THE CLASSIFIED SESSION. BUT I THINK -- I JUST WANT THAT DISTINCTION TO BE CLEAR.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:23:38 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    MADAM PRESIDENT?

  • 12:28:13 PM

    MR. KYL

    THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

  • 12:39:37 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

  • 12:39:40 PM

    MR. THUNE

    FROM ARIZONA MADE SOME GOOD POINTS, I THINK, ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE…

    FROM ARIZONA MADE SOME GOOD POINTS, I THINK, ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TRIAD IN MAINTAINING OUR -- OUR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY DETERRENCE. I'M INTERESTED IN KNOWING IF THE SENATOR IS AWARE THAT EVEN IF YOU ASSUME THE NUMBERS THAT ARE IN THE 1251 REPORT THAT WOULD TAKE THE NUMBER OF BOMBERS DOWN TO 60 -- AND IT'S UP TO 60, BUT THE TREATY CALLS FOR 700 DELIVERY VEHICLES, WHICH IF YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF THE BOMBERS WOULD TAKE YOU DOWN TO 40. THAT WE HAVE EVEN TAKING IT TO 60 WOULD CUT IN HALF THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR BOMBERS, AND IS THE SENATOR ALSO AWARE THAT BOMBERS ARE THE BEST VEHICLE TO ENFORCE EXTENDED DETERRENTS. THE ICBMs, THE MISSILES THAT WE HAVE, OUR ADVERSARIES SOMETIMES CAN'T SEE THOSE. A BOMBER IS VISIBLE. A BOMBER CAN BE SENT INTO A THEATER. IT HAS THE IMPACT, PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT, POLITICAL IMPACT, IT IS RECALLABLE, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE OUT THERE THAT MAKES THOSE WHO PROLIFERATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EVEN MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CAPABILITY THAT WE HAVE TO RESPOND. AND THE -- THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THAT LEG OF THE TRIAD IS, IN THIS SENATOR'S JUDGMENT, CRITICAL, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE ONE SENATOR IS SAYING HE UNDERSTANDS IT AS WELL. BUT I WANT TO KNOW IF THE SENATOR WAS AWARE THAT THE LIMITS THAT ARE IMPOSED, NOT ONLY IN THE 1251 REPORT BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IN THE TREATY WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR BOMBERS THAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL TODAY.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:41:05 PM

    MR. KYL

    MADAM PRESIDENT, TO SENATOR THUNE, I WASN'T AWARE THAT IT WOULD BE CUT IN…

    MADAM PRESIDENT, TO SENATOR THUNE, I WASN'T AWARE THAT IT WOULD BE CUT IN HALF. I WAS AWARE IT WOULD BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED. AND THAT -- THAT IS A HUGE, HUGE REDUCTION, ESPECIALLY IF THE ADMINISTRATION IS UNWILLING TO COMMIT THAT WE ARE EVEN GOING TO HAVE A NUCLEAR-CAPABLE BOMBER FORCE IN THE NEXT GENERATION OF -- OF OUR TRIAD. THEY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO SAY WE HAVE A GREAT TRIAD TODAY. THAT'S TRUE INSOFAR AS IT GOES, BUT PART OF THAT TRIAD ON THE BOMBER FORCE, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE B-52'S THAT WERE DESIGNED WHEN? BACK IN THE 1950'S AND BUILT IN THE 1960'S AND 1970'S. WE HAVE GOT TO REPLACE ALL THREE LEGS OF OUR TRIAD. THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE SUBMARINE. THAT'S A GOOD THING. BUT THE DECISIONS HAVEN'T BEEN YET MADE ON THE ICBM OR ON THE BOMBER FORCE. AND ONE OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT MODERNIZATION IS THAT MODERNIZATION OF THE NUCLEAR WARHEADS IS FINE -- I MEAN, IT'S NECESSARY, BUT IF WE DON'T ALSO MODERNIZE OUR DELIVERY -- METHOD BY WHICH WE DELIVER THOSE WARHEADS, THEN MODERNIZING OUR WARHEADS IS OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE. AND THE FINAL POINT TO YOUR QUESTION OF SENATOR THUNE, OF COURSE, IS THAT THE OTHER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING RUSSIA AND CHINA, ARE ALL MODERNIZING BOTH THEIR WARHEADS AND THEIR DELIVERY VEHICLES. SO THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT IN THE POSITION WHERE WE'RE DOWN TO A VERY FEW WORKABLE WEAPONS, ESPECIALLY THE BOMBER FORCE, WHICH AS YOU NOTED CAN ALSO BE CALLED BACK, UNLIKE THE MISSILES THAT ARE LAUNCHED EITHER FROM GROUND OR FROM SUBMARINE. ONCE THEY ARE LAUNCHED, THEY ARE LAUNCHED. AT LEAST A BOMBER COULD BE CALLED BACK.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:42:46 PM

    MR. THUNE

    I GUESS THAT THE SENATOR -- THE CONCERN HE RAISED AND THE OBSERVATION I…

    I GUESS THAT THE SENATOR -- THE CONCERN HE RAISED AND THE OBSERVATION I WOULD MAKE AS WELL WITH REGARD TO A FOLLOW-ON BOMBER, NEXT-GENERATION BOMBER, MANY OF OUR BOMBER FLEET TODAY, 47%, I THINK IS PRE-CUBAN MISSILE ERA, SO THEY ARE OLDER, THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED. WE NEED A NEXT GENERATION BOMBER. AND THE QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED ABOUT THE AMBIGUITY COMING OUT OF WHETHER OR NOT A NEXT GENERATION BOMBER WOULD, IN FACT, BE NUCLEAR IS A REAL CONCERN BECAUSE THAT WOULD PUT AT RISK THE EXISTENCE OF THE TRIAD, WHICH I THINK ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY, THE VERSATILITY THAT WE HAVE TODAY IN TERMS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE. AND SO I WOULD ECHO WHAT THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA HAS -- HAS VOICED AS A CONCERN ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION OF NEXT GENERATION BOMBER AND WHETHER OR NOT, ONE, THAT IT WILL BE DONE, AND TWO, THAT IT WILL BE -- THAT IT WILL BE A NUCLEAR BOMBER.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:43:40 PM

    MR. KYL

    PRESIDENT, I WOULD JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING I HOPE THAT WE HAVE JUST A --…

    PRESIDENT, I WOULD JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING I HOPE THAT WE HAVE JUST A -- AT LEAST JUST A SHORT MOMENT OR PERIOD OF DEBATE FOLLOWING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SO BOTH SENATOR THUNE AND SENATOR INHOFE CAN MAKE A BRIEF CLOSING ARGUMENT TO REMIND OUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHAT THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN ALL ABOUT. I REGRET THAT MORE OF OUR COLLEAGUES ARE NOT ON THE FLOOR TO HEAR THE DEBATE.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:44:00 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 12:44:03 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MADAM PRESIDENT, OF COURSE WE WILL ACCOMMODATE HOPEFULLY SOME BRIEF…

    MADAM PRESIDENT, OF COURSE WE WILL ACCOMMODATE HOPEFULLY SOME BRIEF STATEMENTS PRIOR TO THE -- PRIOR TO THE VOTES, AND I'M CONFIDENT WE CAN AGREE ON SOME REASONABLE PERIOD, HOPEFULLY NOT MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO SUMMARIZE. BUT LET ME JUST SAY TO MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA, MADAM PRESIDENT, BECAUSE I HEARD HIM SAYING FAIRLY PASSIONATELY THAT WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING THE SENATE INVOLVED IF IT CAN'T ADVICE AND CONSENT AND CAN'T AMEND THE TREATY. NONE OF US ON OUR SIDE ARE ARGUING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT RIGHT, THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT, THAT THIS IS NOT A WORTHY DEBATE AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T DEBATE A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO -- TO AMEND THE TREATY. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING. IN FACT, IF I THOUGHT IT WAS A FLAWED TREATY AND IF I THOUGHT THERE WERE ENORMOUS GAPS IN IT, I WOULD TRY TO AMEND THE TREATY, I'M SURE. AND I THINK IF THAT WERE TRUE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A 60-30 VOTE AGAINST DOING IT YESTERDAY. 60 SENATORS MADE THE JUDGMENT WE DON'T WANT TO, WE DON'T THINK IT RISES TO THAT LEVEL. SO I WOULD SIMPLY SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, IT'S NOT THAT THE AMENDMENT ISN'T -- YOU KNOW, THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THE DEBATE AND THAT SOMEHOW NOT DOING THIS NOW REJECTS THE NOTION THAT WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING IT. IT'S THAT WE DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD AMENDMENT. WE DON'T THINK THE AMENDMENT RISES TO THE LEVEL WHERE IT RAISES AN ISSUE THAT IT MERITS. -- MERITS SENDING THE TREATY BACK TO THE RUSSIANS. SO WE WOULD RETAIN THAT RIGHT, AND I WOULD PROTECT THAT AS LONG AS I'M A UNITED STATES SENATOR, TO GIVE THAT PROPER ADVICE AND CONSENT. BUT I BELIEVE WE GAVE THE PROPER ADVICE AND CONSENT AND WE REJECTED AN AMENDMENT, AS I HOPE WE WILL REJECT THESE OTHER TWO AMENDMENTS, AND I'LL FURTHER THE ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THAT LATER. I THINK THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS WAITING FOR TIME.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:46:01 PM

    MR. KERRY

    JUST, MADAM PRESIDENT --

  • 12:46:04 PM

    MR. KERRY

    COULD I ASK THE INDULGENCE OF THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA JUST FOR A…

    COULD I ASK THE INDULGENCE OF THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA JUST FOR A MOMENT. LET ME ALSO REITERATE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS CONSTANT QUESTIONING OF THE TRIAD KEEPS COMING FROM, BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, IN TESTIMONY AS WELL AS IN LETTERS, NOT TO MENTION THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE JOINT CHIEFS AND OTHERS HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THEIR COMMITMENT TO A VIABLE, FORWARD-GOING TRIAD. THE TRIAD IS NOT IN QUESTION HERE. THERE WILL BE A TRIAD. WE'RE COMMITTED TO THE TRIAD. AND I'LL HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT LATER. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:46:43 PM

    MR. CASEY

    WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 12:46:47 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 12:46:49 PM

    MR. CASEY

    MADAM PRESIDENT, I RISE TO SPEAK ABOUT TWO OR THREE TOPICS IN THIS DEBATE…

    MADAM PRESIDENT, I RISE TO SPEAK ABOUT TWO OR THREE TOPICS IN THIS DEBATE ON THE START TREATY, BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, ONE THAT SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THE AMENDMENT THAT IS PENDING, AND THAT'S THE QUESTION OF VERIFICATION. THE ABILITY FOR THE UNITED STATES TO VERIFY BY WAY OF INSPECTION AND OTHER MEANS WHAT THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION HAS IN TERMS OF ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY AS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THIS DEBATE, NOTHING IN THIS TREATY WILL IN ANY WAY COMPROMISE THE SAFETY, SECURITY, EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY OF OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL. THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE THAT POINT, AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO THIS DEBATE ABOUT VERIFICATION, INNING IT'S IMPORTANT TO OUTLINE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THIS AMENDMENT AND I THINK WHAT IS, IN FACT, THE CASE IN THE TREATY. THE TREATY ITSELF ALLOWS EACH PARTY UP TO 18 SHORT-NOTICE, ON-SITE INSPECTIONS, AND THAT IS EACH YEAR, WITH UP TO TEN SO-CALLED TYPE I INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED AT OPERATING BASES FOR ICBMs, STRATEGIC NUCLEAR-POWERED BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES, AND FINALLY NUCLEAR-CAPABLE HEAVY BOMBERS. SO THAT'S THE TYPE I INSPECTIONS. UP TO 18 OF THOSE, WHICH ARE SHORT-NOTICE INSPECTIONS. SECONDLY, UNDER THE TYPE II INSPECTIONS, THESE ARE CONDUCTED AT PLACES SUCH AS STORAGE SITES, TEST RANGES, FORMALLY DECLARED FACILITIES, AND CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION FACILITIES. SO SOME HAVE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT WE LOSE ANY VALUABLE ELEMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL START AGREEMENT'S INSPECTION REGIME. THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY, JAMES MILLER, REPLIED TO THAT QUESTION -- A SIMILAR QUESTION THAT I POSED DURING THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE VERIFICATION OF THE NEW START TREATY, THE HEARING THAT I CHAIR. HE SAID THAT UNDER NEW START, WE'LL CONDUCT, AS I SAID A MOMENT AGO, 18 INSPECTIONS PER YEAR FOR 35 SITES. SO 18 INSPECTIONS, 35 RUSSIAN SITES. UNDER START I, THERE WERE 28 INSPECTIONS FOR 70 RUSSIAN FACILITIES. SO WE'RE GOING FROM A REGIME OF VERIFICATION -- REGIME, A VERIFICATION REGIME, WHERE THERE WERE 28 INSPECTIONS FOR 70 SITES TO ONE THAT GOES TO 18 INSPECTIONS FOR 35 SITES. THE RATIO IS ACTUALLY BETTER UNDER THIS TREATY IN ITEMS OF THE NUMBERS OF INSPECTIONS AND SITES. MR. MILLER, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MILLER, SAID THAT THE RATIO OF INSPECTIONS TO FACILITIES IS -- QUOTE -- "IMPROVED UNDER THE NEW START TREATY RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL START TREATY." SO THAT'S UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE MILLER. THAT'S NOT MY WORDS BUT HIS. ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN OF OUR JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, REITERATED THIS POINT ON MARCH THE 26th OF 2010 WHEN HE SAID THAT THE NEW START -- QUOTE -- "FEATURES A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE, TRANSPARENT VERIFICATION METHOD THAT DEMANDS QUICKER DATA EXCHANGES AND NOTIFICATIONS." IN ADDITION, THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT SOME OF THE INSPECTIONS UNDER THE NEW START TREATY ALLOW US TO DO TWO INSPECTIONS AT ONCE. TWO INSPECTIONS AT ONCE, UNLIKE THE FIRST START TREATY. I'D ALSO SAY THAT THE INSPECTION REGIME THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE UNDER THIS TREATY HAS ALSO BEEN CHANGED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT SECURITY ENVIRONMENT AND AN ENHANCED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND MORE THAN A DECADE OF OUR EXPERIENCE IN CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS. THE NEW START INSPECTION REGIME IS SIMPLER AND CHEAPER THAN THAT WHICH WAS CONDUCTED UNDER THE ORIGINAL START TREATY. WE CONDUCT FEWER OVERALL INSPECTIONS UNDER THIS NEW TREATY BECAUSE THERE ARE, IN FACT, FEWER SITES IN RUSSIA TO INSPECT. AND WE'VE GOTTEN BETTER AT INSPECTING. IN THE YEARS WHERE THIS HAS TRANSPIRED. MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE'RE STANDING HERE TODAY ON DECEMBER THE 20th OF 2010, 380 DAYS WITHOUT INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND IN RUSSIA. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'D SAY THAT RATIFICATION OF THIS NEW START TREATY MAKES US SAFER, THAT NOT RATIFYING THIS TREATY, IN FACT, MAKES US LESS SAFE. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR TO -- NOT THE ONLY REASON BUT ONE OF THE REASONS -- IS THAT 380 DAYS HAVE PASSED WITHOUT INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND. THIS IS, IN A WORD, UNACCEPTABLE TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT AS WELL. SO WE NEED A VOTE ON THIS TREATY. AND WHILE I AND MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE WORKED ON THIS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE VIEWS OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A SERIOUS DEBATE DEBATE. WE'VE HAD DAY AFTER DAY NOW OF DEBATE ON THE FLOOR. OF COURSE, ALL OF THE DEBATE HERE OVER THE LAST WEEK, ALMOST A FULL WEEK NOW, ALL OF THAT WAS PRECEDED BY MONTHS AND MONTHS OF WORK ON THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THIS IS NOT NEW. THE PRESIDENT MADE AN AGREEMENT BACK IN THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR. WE PASSED OUT OUT OF OUR COMMITTEE THIS TREATY BACK IN THE FALL. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WORK, MORE THAN 900 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND MORE THAN 900 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. SOMETHING LIKE 20 SEPARATE HEARINGS AMONG THE SEVERAL COMMITTEES. SO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO THIS, AND THIS IS -- THE PACE OF THIS, IN MY JUDGMENT, HAS NOT BEEN TOO FAST BUT IT'S BEEN DONE WITH A SENSE OF URGENCY TO FINALLY, TO FINALLY, AFTER ALL THESE MONTHS OF WORK, ALL THESE MONTHS OF DEBATE, ALL THESE MONTHS OF HEARING, WE'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE WE CAN -- WE CAN RATIFY THIS TREATY. SO I THINK IN THE END THERE'S GOING TO BE BIPARTISAN AND BROAD SUPPORT FOR RATIFICATION AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT VOTE. MY DECISION TO SUPPORT THE NEW START TREATY CAME AFTER INFORMED STUDY OF THIS ISSUE AS A MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, AND IT'S BASED IN LARGE PART ON RELYING UPON AND ASKING QUESTIONS OF FOLKS LIKE ADMIRAL MULLEN, JUST TO NAME ONE. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SPENT YEARS IN THE SERVICE OF THIS COUNTRY CONCERNED ABOUT AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEFENSE AND THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY. SO OFTEN WE HEAR IN THIS CHAMBER THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE OPINION OF COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND AND WE SHOULD. WE HEAR THAT IN THE CONTEXT, HAVE HEARD IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, CONTINUE TO HEAR IT IN THE CONTEXT OVER THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. WE SHOULD RESPECT AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE -- THE DETERMINATIONS AND JUDGMENTS MADE BY COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND. THOSE WHO HAVE DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH MILITARY QUESTIONS AND IN THIS CASE HAVE DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH THE DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY. I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEW START TREATY, WE SHOULD APPLY THE SAME RULE AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO ADMIRAL MULLEN OR ANY OTHER MILITARY LEADER WHO HAS AN OPINION ABOUT THIS TREATY. THE COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND AS IT RELATES TO THIS TREATY, MR. PRESIDENT, HAVE SPOKEN AND THEY HAVE DONE SO WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION AND, I WOULD ARGUE, UNANIMOUSLY. ON THIS VITAL TREATY, IN THIS NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, THEY HAVE SPOKEN WITH ONE VOICE. WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO SECURE OUR COUNTRY. WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING ACTIONS THAT WILL RESULT IN A NUCLEAR ARSENAL THAT WILL BE SAFE, SECURE, EFFECTIVE, AND RELIABLE. AND ONE OF THE STEPS TO GET THERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RATIFY -- RATIFY THIS TREATY. BUT LET ME MOVE TO -- TO ONE OTHER TOPIC, AND I KNOW WE HAVE COLLEAGUES HERE THAT ARE ANXIOUS TO SPEAK. LET ME JUST ASK HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE LEFT.

    Show Full Text
  • 12:56:01 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR HAS 7 1/2 MINUTES REMAINING.

  • 12:56:04 PM

    MR. CASEY

    YOU. I'M GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE AND I MAY BE ABLE TO DO IT…

    YOU. I'M GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT MISSILE DEFENSE AND I MAY BE ABLE TO DO IT WITHIN THAT TIME OR LESS. I, FIRST OF ALL, WANT TO COMMEND THE WORK BY THIS ADMINISTRATION FOR THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT RECENTLY THAT REITERATED ONCE AGAIN THE UNITED STATES COMMITMENT. I WOULD ARGUE THIS IS AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO MISSILE DEFENSE, CONSISTENT WITH THE GOAL OF HAVING A NUCLEAR ARSENAL AND HAVING A DEFENSE FOR THIS COUNTRY BUT ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL THAT IS SAFE, SECURE, EFFECTIVE AND RELIABLEMENT -- RELIABLE. THIS TREATY, THIS NEW START TREATY, DOES NOT PLACE ANY CONSTRAINTS, NO CONSTRAINTS WHATEVER, ON OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES. OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS, THIS HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR BY CHAIRMAN KERRY ON THE FLOOR MAKING THESE STRONG ARGUMENTS AS WELL AS THOSE MADE REPEATEDLY BY OUR UNIFORMED MILITARY LEADERSHIP. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU SOME FLAVOR OF THAT BY READING THE FOLLOWING FOLLOWING. THIS IS -- THIS IS A -- THIS IS A QUOTATION FROM LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICK O'REILLY, WHO THINKS THAT THE NEW START TREATY COULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY, MORE FLEXIBILITY IN IMPLEMENTING OUR MISSILE DEFENSE DEFENSE -- OUR MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS. HE SAID -- AND I QUOTE -- "THE NEW START TREATY REDUCES CONSTRAINTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM IN SEVERAL AREAS. FOR EXAMPLE, M.D.A.'S IMMEDIATE-RANGE LV-2 TARGET BOOSTER SYSTEM USED IN KEY TESTS TO DEMONSTRATE HOMELAND DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS OF THE NEW EUROPEAN PHASED ADAPTIVE APPROACH WAS ACCOUNTABLE UNDER THE PREVIOUS START TREATY BECAUSE IT EMPLOYED THE FIRST RANGE OF THE NOW-RETIRED TRIDENT I SLBM," AND THEN HE SAYS, "UNDER NEW START, THIS MISSILE IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE. THUS, WE WILL HAVE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN CONDUCTING TESTING WITH REGARD TO LAUNCH LOCATIONS, TELEMETRY COLLECTIONS AND PROCESSING, THUS ALLOWING MORE EFFICIENT TEST ARCHITECTURES AND OPERATIONAL REALISTIC INTERCEPT GEOMETRIES." NOW, THAT'S A -- THAT'S A VERY TECHNICAL SUMMATION BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICK O'REILLY. HE'S THE DIRECTOR OF THE MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY. HE'S NOT JUST SOME -- MAKING SOME CASUAL OBSERVATION IN A -- IN A THINK-TANK OR EVEN AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. WE -- WE LISTEN TO A LOT OF VOICES HERE AND MANY OF THEM ARE RESPECTED VOICES. BUT I THINK WHEN WE'RE LISTENING TO THE MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY DIRECTOR, WHO'S A LIEUTENANT GENERAL, AND WHO TALKS ABOUT THIS NEW START TREATY PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO MISSILE DEFENSE, I THINK WE SHOULD LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY. NOW, I KNOW THAT REPUBLICANS HERE IN WASHINGTON HAVE OVER MANY DAYS NOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TRIED TO ASSERT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT COMMITTED TO MISSILE DEFENSE. THEY ARE WRONG, AND I THINK THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR. THE PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS INALTERABLY COMMITTED, MY WORDS, TO A MISSILE DEFENSE THAT IS EFFECTIVE, AND I WOULD ARGUE AS WELL TO A MISSILE DEFENSE THAT ENSURES THAT WE HAVE A SAFE, SECURE, EFFECTIVE, AND RELIABLE NUCLEAR ARSENAL. IT'S ALSO A MISSILE DEFENSE THAT'S CAPABLE OF GROWING AND ADAPTING TO THREATS POSED BY COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF FOLKS HERE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE STAND UP AND -- AND MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM. WE SHOULD LISTEN TO VOICES THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKING SURE THAT THIS RATIFICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT, WHICH IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT IRAN DOES NOT HAVE THAT CAPABILITY. SO WHAT -- WHAT ARE THESE CAPABILITIES? WELL, HERE'S A QUICK SUMMATION. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 30 GRANDE-BASED INTERCEPTORS AT FORT GREELY ALASKA. DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY FLOURNOY AND GENERAL CARTWRIGHT ASSERTED THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO FURTHER AUGMENT THE GROUND BASE INTERCEPTOR SYSTEMS NOTING THAT THESE -- QUOTE -- "U.S.-BASED DEFENSES WILL BE MADE MORE EFFECTIVE BY THE FORWARD BASING OF T.P.Y. RADAR WHICH WE PLAN BY 2011." THE EUROPEAN PHASE ADAPTIVE APPROACH IS A NETWORK OF INCREASINGLY CAPABLE SENSORS AND STANDARD -- STANDARD MISSLE III INACCEPTORS THOUGH PROVIDE A CAPACITY TO ADDRESS NEAR-TERM THREATS WHILE ALSO DEVELOPING NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO COMBAT FUTURE THREATS. THE FIRST RANGE TO BE COMPLETED IN 2011 WILL DEPLOY AGES SHIPS AND SM-3 INTERCEPTORS IN THE NORTHERN THEATER TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS AND ALLIES FROM SHORT-RANGE REGIONAL BALLISTIC MISSLE THREATS. THE SECOND PHASE EXPECTED TO BE OPERATIONAL BY 2015 WILL BE UPGRADED SEA AND LAND-BASED SM-3 IN BOTH CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN EUROPE TO EXPAND PROTECTION OF THE CONTINENT. THE THIRD PHASE WILL INTRODUCE A MORE CAPABLE VERSION OF THE SM-3 THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT. WHICH WILL PROVIDE FULL PROTECTION FOR OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE FOR SHORT, MEDIUM AND INTERMEDIATE RANGE MISSLES. THE PLAN FOR 2020 WILL FIELD AN EVEN FURTHER IMPROVED SM-3 MISSLES TO AUGMENT CURRENT DEFENSE OF THE U.S. HOMELAND FROM IRANIAN -- IRANIAN LONG-RANGE MISSLES. SO WHETHER YOU LOOK AT IT FROM ANY OF THESE THREE POINTS OF VIEW -- OR EACH OF THESE THREE POINTS OF VIEW, MEANING THE THREE PHASES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN PLACE A SYSTEM WHICH WILL DEFEND OUR HOMELAND AND WILL ALSO HELP OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES. LET ME CONCLUDE WITH ONE QUOTATION. I MENTIONED ADMIRAL MULLEN BEFORE THE JOINT CHIEFS, THIS IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE PHASED ADAPTIVE APPROACH, THE JOINT CHIEFS, COMBAT COMMANDERS, AND I, ALSO FULLY CONCUR WITH THE PHASED ADAPTIVE APPROACH AS OUTLINED IN THE BALLISTIC DEFENSIVE REVIEW REPORT. AS WITH THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW, THE JOINT CHIEFS AND COMBATANT COMMANDERS WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW PROCESS. SO WHETHER IT'S THE JOINT CHIEFS, WHETHER IT'S THE COMBATANT COMMANDERS OR WHETHER IT'S OTHER COMMENTATORS AS WELL, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE RATIFICATION OF THIS TREATY AND CONSISTENT WITH AND AS PART OF AND BECAUSE OF THE RATIFICATION OF THIS TREATY, THAT OUR MISSLE DEFENSE WILL BE AS STRONG AS IT CAN BE AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WITHOUT A DOUBT WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE EVERY STEP NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS SAFE, SECURE, EFFECTIVE, AND RELIABLE. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:04:11 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA'S RECOGNIZED.

  • 01:04:15 PM

    MR. LeMIEUX

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES ON THE NEW START…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES ON THE NEW START TREATY.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:04:18 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR'S RECOGNIZED.

  • 01:04:21 PM

    MR. LeMIEUX

    UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE PENDING AMENDMENT BE SET ASIDE AND AMENDMENT --…

    UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE PENDING AMENDMENT BE SET ASIDE AND AMENDMENT -- TEMPORARILY SET ASIDE AND AMENDMENT 4847 BE CALLED UP.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:04:30 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE SENATOR'S RECOGNIZED.

  • 01:04:35 PM

    THE CLERK

    THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA, MR. LeMIEUX, FOR HIMSELF AN MR. CHAMBLISS…

    THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA, MR. LeMIEUX, FOR HIMSELF AN MR. CHAMBLISS PROPOSES AMENDMENT NUMBER 4847. AT THE END OF ARTICLE 1 --

    Show Full Text
  • 01:04:49 PM

    MR. LeMIEUX

    THE READING OF THE AMENDMENT BE DISPENSED WITH.

  • 01:04:52 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 01:04:54 PM

    MR. LeMIEUX

    I OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEW START TREATY CONCERNING STRATIGIC NUCLEAR…

    I OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEW START TREATY CONCERNING STRATIGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS TREATY AND MANY OF THOSE CONCERNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSED BY MY COLLEAGUES. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURES AND THAT THEY ARE WEAKENED FROM THE PREVIOUS START TREATY. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LINKAGE OF MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS WITH STRATIGIC OFFENSIVE WEAPONS. THOSE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AS WELL. AND I SHARE THEM. BUT THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THIS TREATY IS ITS FAILURE TO DEAL WITH WHAT ARE CALLED TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NOW, TO THOSE OF -- THOSE FOLKS AT HOME WHO ARE LISTENING TO THIS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT READILY APPARENT. TT WASN'T INITIALLY -- IT WASN'T INITIALLY TO ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STRATIGIC NUCLEAR WEAPON AND A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON. A STRATIGIC NUCLEAR WEAPON IS USUALLY CONSIDERED TO BE A LARGE VEHICLE LIKE AN INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSLE, SLBM. IT TRAVELS OVER A LONG RANGE. THEY CAN ALSO BE DELIVERED BY SUBMARINE OR LONG-RANGE BOMBER. A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON IS GENERALLY MUCH SMALLER IN SIZE. IT HAS A SMALLER RANGE. IT HAS A DELIVERY VEHICLE. IT MAY BE ON THE BACK OF A TRUCK, FOR EXAMPLE. IN MANY WAYS, IN THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN TODAY, WHERE WE ARE NOT IN THIS COLD WAR ATMOSPHERE WITH THE FORMER SOVIET UNION, THE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON IS OF MUCH MORE CONCERN THAN THE STRATIGIC. I MEAN, THE GREAT FEAR THAT WE ALL HAVE IS THAT ONE OF THESE NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD GET IN THE HANDS OF A TERRORIST. A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON BY ITS VERY NATURE IS PORTABLE AND IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE -- CAPABLE OF BEING MOVED BY ONE PERSON OR AS I SAID BEFORE ON THE BACK OF A TRUCK. NOW, WHY THIS TREATY DOESN'T DEAL WITH TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS BEYOND ME. I REALIZE THAT IN THE PAST WHEN WE WERE IN THE COLD WAR ENVIRONMENT WITH THE SOVIET UNION, THAT WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE BIG MISSLES THAT COULD CROSS THE OCEAN AN STRIKE OUR COUNTRY -- AND STRIKE OUR COUNTRY. WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MISSLES BEING DELIVERED FROM SUBMARINES. BOMBS THAT COULD HIT THE HOMELAND. THAT MAKES SENSE. WE'RE IN A DEPLETELY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT NOW WHILE WE SHOULD STILL BE CONCERNED WITH THOSE STRATIGIC WEAPONS, THE TACTICAL WEAPONS ARE ACTUALLY MUCH MORE OF A DANGER TO US BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE VERY WEAPONS THAT COULD GET IN THE HANDS AFTER ROGUE NATION. THOSE ARE THE VERY WEAPONS THAT COULD GET IN THE HANDS AFTER TERRORIST. AND THIS WEAPON -- THIS TREATY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL. IT WOULD BE AS IF WEING WITH GOING TO ENTER INTO A TREATY ABOUT -- AS IF WE WERE GOING TO ENTER INTO A TREATY ABOUT GUNS AND WE HAD A BIG NEGOTIATION AND A TREATY WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT LONG ARMS, SHOT GUNS AND RIFLES, BUT WE FAILED TO TALK ABOUT PISTOLS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME BECAUSE THESE ARE THE VERY WEAPONS WE SHOULD BE THE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT. IT ALSO DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY BETWEEN HOW MANY TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS WE HAVE VERSUS HOW MANY TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE. THIS TREATY ABOUT STRATIGIC OR BIGGER LONG-RANGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF THOSE WEAPONS TO EACH COUNTRY TO AROUND 1,500. BUT THE RUSSIANS HAVE 3,000 TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WE HAVE 300. SO THE RUSSIANS HAVE A 10-1 ADVANTAGE OVER US IN TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IF WE APPROVE THIS TREATY, THE RUSSIANS THEN WILL APPROXIMATELY HAVE 4,500 NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WE'LL HAVE 1,800. THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE EITHER. A 10-1 ADVANTAGE ON THE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. SO I THINK THAT IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO REALIZE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A TREATY ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS TREATY. IT WASN'T PART OF THESE START TREATY'S IN THE PAST BECAUSE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WEAPONS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD AND THAT FORMER SOVIET UNION HAD WAS IMMENSE. WHEN WE HAD 20,000 OR 30,000 STRATIGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE FACT THAT THEY HAD 3,000 TACTICALS DIDN'T REALLY MATTER. IT WASN'T AN IMPORTANT NUMBER IN THE OVERALL SCHEME. BUT NOW THAT WE'RE IN THIS NEW WORLD WHERE WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, WHERE WE DON'T WANT TERRORISTS TO GET THESE WEAPONS, PLUS THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING 4,500 AND WE'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING 1,800, IT DOES MATTER. IT MATTERS A LOT. SO WHAT MY AMENDMENT WOULD DO, MR. PRESIDENT, IT SAYS THAT WITHIN A YEAR OF THE RATIFICATION OF THIS TREATY, THE RUSSIANS AND THE UNITED STATES MUST SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON AGREEMENT. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT IT BE RESOLVED WITHIN A YEAR. IT REQUIRES THAT IT BE STARTED. NOW, THAT SEEMS, TO ME, I'M A LITTLE BIAS, BUT THAT SEEMS TO ME EMINENTLY REASONABLE. I'M PROUD THAT ARE SENATOR CHAMBLISS AND SENATOR INHOFE HAVE JOINED ME ON THIS AMENDMENT. WHO CAN BE -- COULD BE AGAINST HAVING THE RUSSIANS AND THE UNITED STATES SIT DOWN WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME OF NEGOTIATIONS AND BEGIN THE NEGOTIATION ON TACTICALS? WHO WOULD BE AGAINST THAT? YOU WILL HEAR FROM MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO ARE DEFENDING THIS TREATY AND VOTING DOWN ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS OFFERED ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT WE CAN'T AMEND THE TREATY BECAUSE IF WE AMEND THE TREATY IT'S A POISON BILL. THE RUSSIANS WILL NOT ACCEPT IT. IF THAT IS TRUE, THEN WE'RE NOT REALLY FULFILLING MUCH OF A FUNCTION HERE, ARE WE. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THERE ARE SOME SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THAT IMBUED TO THE SENATE. ONE OF THEM IS THE TREATY PRIVILEGE, THE TREATY POWER. WHERE ALL TREATIES MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE ON A TWO-THIRDS VOTE. NOW, IF WE CAN'T AMEND IT, ALL WE'RE DOING IS EITHER SAYING YES OR NO. TO ME, THAT LIMITS OUR ABILITY. AND IF MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE THINK THIS IS A POISON PILL, I ASK THEM TO LOOK AT LANGUAGE. I'M JUST PUTTING IN THE TREATY IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THIS THAT WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME THAT WE WOULD SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE AND ENTER INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS ON TACTICALS. NOT A HEAVY LIFT IT SEEMS TO ME. NOW, THEY WILL SAY, LOOK, WE CAN'T DO THIS BECAUSE THE RUSSIAN DUMA, THEIR PARLIAMENTARIAN BODY WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS. WHAT DOES THAT SAY. IF THEIR LEGISLATURE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT, IF THE TREATY IS AS IT IS NOW AS NEGOTIATED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND I HAVE SAID BEFORE, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT'S THERE FOR VERIFICATION. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT MISSLE DEFENSE. BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE, IF IT GOES THE WAY IT'S BEEN DRAFTED AND AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEADERS OF RUSSIA, WITH JUST THIS ONE AMENDMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE TWO SIDES WILL SIT DOWN WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME WILL THE RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT NOT APPROVE THAT? AND IF THEY DON'T APPROVE IT, IF THEY WILL NOT SAY THAT THEY WILL SIT DOWN WAYNE YEAR'S TIME AND -- WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME AND NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE 3,000 TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEY HAVE, ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THOSE WEAPONS, ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO VERIFY WHERE THEY ARE AND ABOUT A REDUCTION OF THEM BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY IN THE 3,000 THEY HAVE TO THE 300 WE HAVE, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE RUSSIANS? WHAT IT SAYS TO ME IS THAT THEY'RE NOT IN GOOD FAITH TRYING TO REALLY COME TO AN AGREEMENT ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WOULD WE WANT THIS TREATY IF THE RUSSIAN DUMA SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO SIT DOWN WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME TO TALK ABOUT TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS? SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT AMENDMENT. AND I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE -- STOOD UP AND SUPPORT THIS TREATY. I THINK THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH IT, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY A FAIR-MINDED PERSON COULDN'T AGREE WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME THE TWO PARTIES SHOULD SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT WHAT, TO ME, IS THE MOST DANGEROUS PART OF OUR NUCLEAR CHALLENGE WITH RUSSIA AND THAT IS THESE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WE CAN'T VERIFY THEM. AND THERE'S A 10-1 ADVANTAGE THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE OVER US. MR. PRESIDENT, MY AMENDMENT IS AT THE DESK. I ASKED THAT IT BE CALLED UP. AND I HOPE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE THIS AMENDMENT AS WE WRAP-UP OUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS TREATY. WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD BACK THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME AND I YIELD BACK THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:13:47 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.

  • 01:13:50 PM

    MR. HAGEL

    NEW START RE-ESTABLISHES A STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL VERIFICATION…

    NEW START RE-ESTABLISHES A STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL VERIFICATION REGIME THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. SPECIFICALLY, NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS. IT ENSURES A MEASURE OF PREDICTABILITY AND RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCE DEPLOYMENTS OVER THE LIFE OF THE TREATY. ACCESS AND PREDICTABILITY ALLOW US TO EFFECTIVELY PLAN AND UNDERGO STRATEGIC MODERNIZATION EFFORTS. FAILURE TO RATIFY THE TREATY WILL PREVENT US FROM OBTAINING INFORMATION ON RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES. WITHOUT THE TREATY GOING INTO EFFECT, THE UNITED STATES WILL HAVE NO INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND AND NO ABILITY TO VERIFY RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES. THIS WILL RESULT IN OUR COUNTRY LOSING INSIGHT INTO RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCE DEPLOYMENTS. IT WOULD ALSO COMPLICATE OUR STRATEGIC FORCE STRATEGY AND MODERNIZATION PLANNING EFFORTS, AS WELL AS DRIVE UP COSTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NEED TO CONDUCT INCREASED INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS ON RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCE CAPABILITIES. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF ENERGY STEVEN CHU AND CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR SUPPORT FOR SENATE RATIFICATION OF NEW START. ALL INDICATED THAT RATIFYING THE TREATY PROVIDES OUR COUNTRY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH RUSSIA ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF WHICH RUSSIA HOLDS A SIZABLE ADVANTAGE. TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO THEFT AND MOST LIKELY TO END UP IN THE HANDS OF ROGUE STATES AND TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN RUSSIAN COOPERATION ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHOUT RATIFYING NEW START. THE TREATY WILL NOT AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO APPROVE OUR MISSILE DEFENSES, EITHER QUALITATIVELY OR QUANTITATIVELY, TO DEFEND OUR HOMELAND AGAINST MISSILE ATTACKS AND TO PROTECT OUR DEPLOYED FORCES, ALLIES AND PARTNERS FROM GROWING REGIONAL MISSILE THREATS. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GATES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT OUR FAZED ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO OVERSEAS MISSILE -- OUR FACED ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO OVERSEAS MISSILE DEFENSE IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY THE TREATY. SENATE RATIFICATION OF NEW START WILL DEMONSTRATE THE UNITED STATES IS COMMITTED TO REDUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WHICH IS IMPORTANT AS WE ADVANCE OUR NONPROLIFERATION GOALS. THIS WILL ASSIST US IN OBTAINING INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION CHALLENGES FROM ROGUE STATES SUCH AS IRAN AND NORTH KOREA. IT WILL ALSO SEND A POSITIVE MESSAGE IN ACHIEVING CONSENSUS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES ON NUCLEAR ISSUES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA HOLD OVER 95% OF THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IF THE TWO NATIONS THAT POSSESS THE MOST NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGREE ON VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE AND ARE COMMITTED TO NONPROLIFERATION, IT WILL IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. FAILURE TO RATIFY THE TREATY WILL HAVE A DESTABILIZING -- DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR ABILITY TO INFLUENCE OTHER NATIONS WITH REGARDS TO NONPROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IT WILL ALSO SEND CONFLICTING MESSAGES ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S EMPHASIS AND COMMITMENT TO THE NONPROLIFERATION TREATY. ADDITIONALLY, FAILURE TO RATIFY NEW START WOULD SEND A NEGATIVE SIGNAL TO RUSSIA THAT MAY CAUSE THEM TO NOT SUPPORT OUR OBJECTIVES WITH RESPECT TO DEALING WITH THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM. AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GATES HAS SAID, WITHOUT RATIFICATION, WE PUT AT RISK THE COALITION AND MOMENTUM THAT WE HAVE BUILT TO PRESSURE IRAN. THE DEBATE OVER NEW START HAS FACILITATED A CONSENSUS TO MODERNIZE OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT. THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MR. THOMAS D'AGOSTINO, INDICATED THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR, THERE IS BROAD NATIONAL CONSENSUS ON THE ROLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLAY IN OUR DEFENSE AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT. THE NNSA AND THE THREE NATIONAL LABORATORIES SUPPORT SENATE RATIFICATION OF NEW START, AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR SECURITY AND MODERNIZATION. OUR NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE AND STOCKPILE HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENTED FOR TOO LONG. CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A NUMBER OF NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE SUSTAINMENT PROJECTS, INCLUDING STRENGTHENING OUR NUCLEAR COMMAND AND CONTROL STRUCTURE, CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF OUR TRIAD OF DELIVERY SYSTEMS, MAINTAINING A SAFE, SECURE AND EFFECTIVE STOCKPILE, AND REVITALIZING OUR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE. ON DECEMBER 1, THE DIRECTORS OF THE THREE NUCLEAR NATIONAL LABORATORIES SIGNED A LETTER TO THE SENATE EMPHASIZING THEY WERE VERY PLEASED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO SPEND SPEND $85 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE TO UPGRADE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX. THEY BELIEVE THE REQUESTED AMOUNT WILL FURTHER A BALANCED PROGRAM THAT SUSTAINS THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING BASE. THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET WILL SUPPORT THE ABILITIES TO SUSTAIN THE SAFETY, SECURITY, RELIABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT WITHIN THE LIMIT OF 1,550 DEPLOYED STRATEGIC WARHEADS ESTABLISHED BY NEW START. THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW ALSO RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING A HIGHLY CAPABLE WORK FORCE WITH SPECIALIZED SKILLS TO SUSTAIN THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT. IT EMPHASIZES THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF STOCKPILES STEWARDSHIP -- HANDS-ON WORK ON THE STOCKPILE, THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING BASE, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE LABORATORIES AND PLANTS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY SECRETARY CHU REGARDING OUR ABILITY TO RECRUIT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS. WE NEED TO INFUSE A SENSE OF IMPORTANCE AND FINANCIAL STABILITY TO THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP AND LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM. NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS NEED TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT NUCLEAR LIFE EXTENSION. AN EFFECTIVE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING HUMAN CAPITAL BASE IS NEEDED TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYSTEMS LIFETIME EXTENSION PROGRAMS, INCREASE NUCLEAR WEAPONS RELIABILITY, CERTIFY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHOUT THE NEED TO UNDERGO NUCLEAR TESTING AND PROVIDE ANNUAL STOCKPILE ASSESSMENTS THROUGH WEAPONS SURVEILLANCE. I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WILL JOIN ME IN VOTING TO RATIFY NEW START. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:15:46 PM

    MRS. HAGAN

    NEW START RE-ESTABLISHES A STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL VERIFICATION…

    NEW START RE-ESTABLISHES A STRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL VERIFICATION REGIME THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. SPECIFICALLY, NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS. IT ENSURES A MEASURE OF PREDICTABILITY AND RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCE DEPLOYMENTS OVER THE LIFE OF THE TREATY. ACCESS AND PREDICTABILITY ALLOW US TO EFFECTIVELY PLAN AND UNDERGO STRATEGIC MODERNIZATION EFFORTS. FAILURE TO RATIFY THE TREATY WILL PREVENT US FROM OBTAINING INFORMATION ON RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES. WITHOUT THE TREATY GOING INTO EFFECT, THE UNITED STATES WILL HAVE NO INSPECTORS ON THE GROUND AND NO ABILITY TO VERIFY RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES. THIS WILL RESULT IN OUR COUNTRY LOSING INSIGHT INTO RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCE DEPLOYMENTS. IT WOULD ALSO COMPLICATE OUR STRATEGIC FORCE STRATEGY AND MODERNIZATION PLANNING EFFORTS, AS WELL AS DRIVE UP COSTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NEED TO CONDUCT INCREASED INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS ON RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCE CAPABILITIES. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF ENERGY STEVEN CHU AND CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR SUPPORT FOR SENATE RATIFICATION OF NEW START. ALL INDICATED THAT RATIFYING THE TREATY PROVIDES OUR COUNTRY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH RUSSIA ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF WHICH RUSSIA HOLDS A SIZABLE ADVANTAGE. TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO THEFT AND MOST LIKELY TO END UP IN THE HANDS OF ROGUE STATES AND TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN RUSSIAN COOPERATION ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHOUT RATIFYING NEW START. THE TREATY WILL NOT AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO APPROVE OUR MISSILE DEFENSES, EITHER QUALITATIVELY OR QUANTITATIVELY, TO DEFEND OUR HOMELAND AGAINST MISSILE ATTACKS AND TO PROTECT OUR DEPLOYED FORCES, ALLIES AND PARTNERS FROM GROWING REGIONAL MISSILE THREATS. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GATES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT OUR FAZED ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO OVERSEAS MISSILE -- OUR FACED ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO OVERSEAS MISSILE DEFENSE IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY THE TREATY. SENATE RATIFICATION OF NEW START WILL DEMONSTRATE THE UNITED STATES IS COMMITTED TO REDUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WHICH IS IMPORTANT AS WE ADVANCE OUR NONPROLIFERATION GOALS. THIS WILL ASSIST US IN OBTAINING INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION CHALLENGES FROM ROGUE STATES SUCH AS IRAN AND NORTH KOREA. IT WILL ALSO SEND A POSITIVE MESSAGE IN ACHIEVING CONSENSUS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES ON NUCLEAR ISSUES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA HOLD OVER 95% OF THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IF THE TWO NATIONS THAT POSSESS THE MOST NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGREE ON VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE AND ARE COMMITTED TO NONPROLIFERATION, IT WILL IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. FAILURE TO RATIFY THE TREATY WILL HAVE A DESTABILIZING -- DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR ABILITY TO INFLUENCE OTHER NATIONS WITH REGARDS TO NONPROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IT WILL ALSO SEND CONFLICTING MESSAGES ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S EMPHASIS AND COMMITMENT TO THE NONPROLIFERATION TREATY. ADDITIONALLY, FAILURE TO RATIFY NEW START WOULD SEND A NEGATIVE SIGNAL TO RUSSIA THAT MAY CAUSE THEM TO NOT SUPPORT OUR OBJECTIVES WITH RESPECT TO DEALING WITH THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM. AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GATES HAS SAID, WITHOUT RATIFICATION, WE PUT AT RISK THE COALITION AND MOMENTUM THAT WE HAVE BUILT TO PRESSURE IRAN. THE DEBATE OVER NEW START HAS FACILITATED A CONSENSUS TO MODERNIZE OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT. THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MR. THOMAS D'AGOSTINO, INDICATED THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR, THERE IS BROAD NATIONAL CONSENSUS ON THE ROLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLAY IN OUR DEFENSE AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT. THE NNSA AND THE THREE NATIONAL LABORATORIES SUPPORT SENATE RATIFICATION OF NEW START, AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR SECURITY AND MODERNIZATION. OUR NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE AND STOCKPILE HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENTED FOR TOO LONG. CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A NUMBER OF NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE SUSTAINMENT PROJECTS, INCLUDING STRENGTHENING OUR NUCLEAR COMMAND AND CONTROL STRUCTURE, CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF OUR TRIAD OF DELIVERY SYSTEMS, MAINTAINING A SAFE, SECURE AND EFFECTIVE STOCKPILE, AND REVITALIZING OUR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE. ON DECEMBER 1, THE DIRECTORS OF THE THREE NUCLEAR NATIONAL LABORATORIES SIGNED A LETTER TO THE SENATE EMPHASIZING THEY WERE VERY PLEASED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO SPEND SPEND $85 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE TO UPGRADE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX. THEY BELIEVE THE REQUESTED AMOUNT WILL FURTHER A BALANCED PROGRAM THAT SUSTAINS THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING BASE. THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET WILL SUPPORT THE ABILITIES TO SUSTAIN THE SAFETY, SECURITY, RELIABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT WITHIN THE LIMIT OF 1,550 DEPLOYED STRATEGIC WARHEADS ESTABLISHED BY NEW START. THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW ALSO RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING A HIGHLY CAPABLE WORK FORCE WITH SPECIALIZED SKILLS TO SUSTAIN THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT. IT EMPHASIZES THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF STOCKPILES STEWARDSHIP -- HANDS-ON WORK ON THE STOCKPILE, THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING BASE, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE LABORATORIES AND PLANTS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY SECRETARY CHU REGARDING OUR ABILITY TO RECRUIT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS. WE NEED TO INFUSE A SENSE OF IMPORTANCE AND FINANCIAL STABILITY TO THE STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP AND LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM. NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS NEED TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT NUCLEAR LIFE EXTENSION. AN EFFECTIVE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING HUMAN CAPITAL BASE IS NEEDED TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYSTEMS LIFETIME EXTENSION PROGRAMS, INCREASE NUCLEAR WEAPONS RELIABILITY, CERTIFY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHOUT THE NEED TO UNDERGO NUCLEAR TESTING AND PROVIDE ANNUAL STOCKPILE ASSESSMENTS THROUGH WEAPONS SURVEILLANCE. I HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WILL JOIN ME IN VOTING TO RATIFY NEW START. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:22:55 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS RECOGNIZED.

  • 01:22:57 PM

    MR. CASEY

    THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE JUST FOR A FEW MOMENTS TO COMMENT UPON…

    THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE JUST FOR A FEW MOMENTS TO COMMENT UPON THE AMENDMENT THAT OUR COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA JUST SPOKE ABOUT A FEW MOMENTS AGO. THIS DISCUSSION AND REALLY THE DEBATE WE HAD YESTERDAY ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND HOW THAT WAS ADDRESSED WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LONG DEBATE YESTERDAY. I WANTED TO REITERATE SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS BECAUSE WE HAD THIS -- THIS DEBATE YESTERDAY. IT'S AN IMPORTANT DEBATE. FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU LISTEN TO A COUPLE OF FOLKS WHO HAVE NOT JUST EXPERIENCE BUT HAVE -- HAVE A REAL INTEREST IN OUR URGENT PRIORITY OF ADDRESSING TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THIS -- THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IS, IN FACT, TO RATIFY THIS TREATY. JUST GIVE YOU BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, THE POLISH FOREIGN MINISTER, IF YOU WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A COUNTRY THAT HAS -- THAT HAS MUCH AT STAKE WHEN THE QUESTION IS RAISED ABOUT RUSSIAN OR -- OR RUSSIAN TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS, YOU COULD POINT TO FEW, IF ANY, COUNTRIES THAT HAVE MORE AT STAKE THAN POLAND. THE POLISH FOREIGN MINISTER, MR. SIKORSKY SAID, AND I'M QUOTING -- "WITHOUT A NEW START TREATY IN PLACE, HOLES WILL SOON APPEAR IN THE NUCLEAR UMBRELLA THAT THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES TO POLAND AND OTHER ALLIES UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE WASHINGTON TREATY, THE COLLECTIVE SECURITY GUARANTEE FOR NATO MEMBERS. MOREOVER, NEW START IS A NECESSARY STEPPINGSTONE TO FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIA ABOUT REDUCTIONS IN TACTICAL NUCLEAR ARSENALS AND A PREREQUISITE FOR SUCCESSFUL REVIVAL OF THE TREATY ON CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE." SO THAT'S THE -- THAT'S NOT A COMMENTATOR HERE IN WASHINGTON. THAT'S THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF POLAND WHO HAS -- HIS COUNTRY HAS A LOT AT STAKE IN THIS DEBATE. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE -- WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TREATY AND WHAT'S IN THE TREATY OR WHAT WOULD COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE TREATY, BUT IT'S NOT AS IF THESE -- THESE ARGUMENTS JUST LANDED HERE WHEN THE BILL LANDED ON THE FLOOR. WE HAD MONTHS AND MONTHS OF HEARINGS IN THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE. OUR RANKING MEMBER, SENATOR LUGAR, WAS NOT JUST THERE FOR THOSE HEARINGS BUT -- BUT PLAYED A LEADING ROLE IN REACHING THE POINT -- HELPING US REACH THE POINT WHERE WE ARE NOW. WE HAVE A TREATY ON THE FLOOR BECAUSE OF HIS GOOD WORK OVER MANY, MANY MONTHS, AND I WOULD ARGUE IN HIS CASE MANY YEARS ON THIS ISSUE. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE PRESIDING OFFICER. SITTING IN THOSE HEARINGS AND ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE RELEVANT -- THE RELEVANT PARTIES, MANY OF THEM MILITARY LEADERS. BUT I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD -- AND I'LL CLOSE WITH THIS -- THAT THE -- THE VOTE BY THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE INCLUDED A RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION. SUBSECTION 11 ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS SAYS, AND I QUOTE -- "THE SENATE CALLS UPON THE PRESIDENT TO PURSUE FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH ALLIES AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES AND WOULD SECURE AND REDUCE TACTICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN A VERIFIABLE MANNER." IT'S RIGHT IN THE RESOLUTION, AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT ADDRESSES SQUARELY THIS AMENDMENT. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:26:47 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

  • 01:26:49 PM

    MR. REID

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE NAMES THAT I REFER TO THE CLERK NOW --…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE NAMES THAT I REFER TO THE CLERK NOW -- THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE OFFICE EMPLOYEES, BE GRANTED FLOOR PRIVILEGES DURING TODAY'S CLOSED SESSION AND THE LIST BE PRINTED IN THE RECORD.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:27:09 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

  • 01:27:11 PM

    MR. REID

    THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

  • 01:27:26 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    CLERK WILL REPORT.

  • 01:27:30 PM

    THE CLERK

    TO AMEND THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT AND THE…

    TO AMEND THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT AND THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT TO IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:27:44 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED AND THE SENATE WILL PROCEED…

    WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED AND THE SENATE WILL PROCEED WITH ACT.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:27:48 PM

    MR. REID

    THE CASE, MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE KERRY-SNOWE…

    THE CASE, MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE KERRY-SNOWE AMENDMENT AT THE DESK BE AGREED TO, THE BILL AS AMENDED BE READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED AND THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE. THAT ANY STATEMENTS RELATE TO GO THIS MATTER APPEAR AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RECORD AS IF GIVEN.

    Show Full Text
  • 01:28:01 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • 01:28:13 PM

    MR. REID

    MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. PRESIDENT, THE HOUR OF 1:30 HAVING ARRIVED OR…

    MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. PRESIDENT, THE HOUR OF 1:30 HAVING ARRIVED OR SHORTLY WILL ARRIVE, THAT WE WILL RECESS PENDING THE CALL OF THE CHAIR, IS THAT RIGHT, UNTIL THE CLOSED SESSION IS COMPLETED?

    Show Full Text
  • 01:28:25 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE…

    PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE WILL NOW

    Show Full Text
  • 05:08:20 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL:

  • 05:08:29 PM

    Quorum Call

  • 05:15:38 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

  • 05:15:41 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL IN PROGRESS BE VITIATED.

  • 05:15:46 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN 45 MINUTES, WE'LL BE HAVING A COUPLE OF…

    IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN 45 MINUTES, WE'LL BE HAVING A COUPLE OF VOTES, ONE ON MY AMENDMENT NUMBER 4833, AND ONE ON THE THUNE AMENDMENT 4841, HAVING TO DO WITH THE DELIVERY SYSTEM, MINE HAVING TO DO WITH VERIFICATION. AND I -- I -- THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE 45 MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED IT PRETTY THOROUGHLY. I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF VERIFICATION. THERE ARE ONLY 180 INSPECTIONS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE NEW START TREATY, AND THAT'S OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 18 PER YEAR. VERSUS THE 600 INSPECTIONS OVER 15 YEARS IN START I. IF YOU DO YOUR MATH THERE, THAT WOULD BE 40 A YEAR IN START I DOWN TO 18 A YEAR IN START II, OR IN NEW START. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR THAT IS THAT WE HAVE FEWER SITES TO INSPECT, AND FOR THAT REASON, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE AS MANY INSPECTIONS. I WOULD JUST DISAGREE WITH THAT PRETTY STRONGLY. ONE THING THAT ALL THE EXPERTS SEEM TO HAVE IN COMMON AND AGREEING IS THAT THE -- ONCE YOU GET DOWN TO FEWER SITES, THAT THE VERIFICATION BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT. JOHN BOLTON HAD SAID ON MAY 3, HE SAID -- QUOTE -- "WHILE VERIFICATION IS IMPORTANT IN ANY ARMS CONTROL TREATY, IT BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AT LOWER WARHEAD LEVELS." AND I THINK THEY ALL AGREE. BRENT SCOWCROFT SAID THE SAME THING. HE SAID -- "CURRENT FORCE LEVELS PROVIDE A KIND OF BUFFER BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGH ENOUGH TO BE RELATIVELY INSENSITIVE TO IMPERFECT INTELLIGENCE AND MODEST FORCE CHANGES. AS FORCE LEVELS GO DOWN, THE BALANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER CAN BECOME INCREASINGLY DELICATE, AND VULNERABLE TO CHEATING, TO CHEATING ON ARMS CONTROL LIMITS. CONCERNS ABOUT HIDDEN MISSILES AND THE OTHER ACTIONS." SO HE'S SAYING THE SAME THING. JAMES BAKER SAID THE SAME THING. HE SAID THAT -- WHEN TESTIFYING JUST RECENTLY, THAT THE NEW START VERIFICATION PROGRAM DOES NOT APPEAR AS RIGOROUS OR EXTENSIVE AS THE ONE THAT VERIFIED THE NUMEROUS AND DIVERSE TREATY OBLIGATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS UNDER START I. THIS COMPLEX PART OF THE TREATY IS EVEN MORE CRUCIAL WHEN FEWER DEPLOYED NUCLEAR WARHEADS ARE ALLOWED THAN WERE ALLOWED IN THE PAST. DO YOUR MATH AND IT FIGURES OUT. IF YOU HAVE 10 WARHEADS, YOU ARE -- THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE INSPECTING AND THEY HIDE ONE, THAT'S JUST 10% OF THEM. IF IT GETS DOWN TO TWO AND THEY HIDE ONE OF THEM, THAT'S 50% OF THEM. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE MORE, NOT LESS. OF COURSE, THIS IS LESS. IN FACT, IF YOU DO THE MATH A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, THE -- AS WAS SAID BY THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, HE SAID, AND I'M QUOTING HIM NOW -- QUOTE -- "SO I THINK IT'S ONE THING TO ASK OUR STRATEGIC FORCES TO DO THAT TEN TIMES A YEAR OR LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH. IT'S ANOTHER THING TO BE WAITING FOR 30 INSPECTIONS A YEAR." WE HAVE -- AGAIN, QUOTING HIM -- QUOTE -- "WE HAVE TWO SUBMARINE BASES, THREE BOMBER BASES AND THREE ICBM BASES. NOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, RUSSIA HAS THREE, THREE AND 12. SO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE 18 AND WE WOULD HAVE EIGHT. WHICH MEANS IF YOU DO THE MATH FURTHER THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CITE TO INSPECT OUR ONE SITE EVERY TWO YEARS WHILE WE WOULD ABLE BE ABLE -- ONLY BE ABLE TO INSPECT EVERY TWO YEARS, THEY WOULD BE INSPECTING IT EVERY ONE YEAR. SO THAT'S THE REASON WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS. THE OTHER IS -- PEOPLE KEEP FORGETTING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FUN TO TALK ABOUT, BUT THE FACT IS THAT THEY CHEAT AND WE DON'T. THIS HAS BEEN -- EVERYONE HAS TALKED ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS SET UP TO TRY TO MEASURE WHO IS CHEATING, WHO IS NOT CHEATING. WE HAD THE START TREATY'S JOINT COMPLIANCE AND INSPECTION COMMISSION. THAT COMMISSION REPORTED -- THEY ACTUALLY HAD TWO REPORTS. ONE REPORT WAS IN 2005, ONE IN 2010. THE REPORT IN 2005 THAT WAS ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT CONCLUDED, AND I'M QUOTING FROM THE REPORT OF 2005, RUSSIA MAINTAINS A MATURE OFFENSIVE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM, AND THAT IS ITS NATURE AND STATUS HAVE NOT CHANGED. THAT WAS AFTER IT HAD BEEN IN FORCE FOR FIVE YEARS. THAT WAS 2005. IN 2010, THAT SAME COMMISSION COMES BACK AND THE REPORT STATES RUSSIA'S CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURE DECLARATIONS SINCE 1992 HAVE NOT SATISFACTORILY DOCUMENTED WHETHER ITS BIOLOGICAL WEAPON PROGRAM WAS TERMINATED. AGAIN, SO WE HAVE THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM THAT IS REPORTED IN 2005 AND 2010, SAYING THAT THE PROGRAM IS NOT -- THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE CHEATING. THAT'S -- IF YOU SIGN AN AGREEMENT, THEN YOU'RE CHEATING. THAT MAKES SENSE. CHEMICAL WEAPONS, SAME THING. 2005, THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASSESSED THAT RUSSIA IS IN VIOLATION OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE ITS DECLARATION WAS INCOMPLETE WITH RESPECT TO DECLARATION OF PRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IN 2005, THAT THEY ARE CHEATING ON THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY MADE, THEIR TREATY OBLIGATIONS. THEN THAT SAME COMMISSION IN 2010 STILL TALKING ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS SAID THE STATE DEPARTMENT AGAIN STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM RUSSIA RESULTING IN THE UNITED STATES BEING UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER RUSSIA HAS DECLARED ALL OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILE, ALL CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND ALL OF ITS CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES. SO, AGAIN, THEY STATE IN 2010 THAT THEY ARE STILL CHEATING. SO IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE -- THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS SAID WELL, WAIT A MINUTE NOW. WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING THAT THEY HAVE TO DO AND UNDER YOUR AMENDMENT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE TIMES AS MANY INSPECTIONS, THAT WE HAVE TO DO THREE TIMES AS MANY AND THEY HAVE TO DO THREE TIMES AS MANY. WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THEM HERE. I SAID YES, THAT'S MY POINT. WE NEED TO HAVE MORE INSPECTIONS, AND WE WANT THESE INSPECTIONS TO TAKE PLACE, AND WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE RUSSIANS ALSO ADHERE TO THEIR COMMITMENT FOR INSPECTIONS, WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER DONE IN THE PAST. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, WE -- WE SEE THAT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS. AND I DON'T THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT USING THE ARGUMENT THAT WE CAN'T CHANGE SOMETHING AS YOU'RE CHANGING THE TREATY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE TREATY. THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS THING. THE MILITARY AND ALL THESE OTHERS IN PUTTING THIS THING TOGETHER. WELL, GUESS WHO IS LEFT OUT? US. THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2, SAYS THAT WE IN THE SENATE ARE SUPPOSED TO RATIFY THE ADVICE AND CONSENT. WELL, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BUT WE HAVEN'T COULDN'TED YET. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. SO THE PROCESS WORKS THIS WAY. IF WE DO PASS AN AMENDMENT SUCH AS MY AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE VOTED ON IN JUST A FEW MINUTES TO TRIPLE THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE TREATY, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT MEANS IT WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DUMAA IN RUSSIA, AND THEY THEN WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TREATY AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S -- THAT THEY WOULD AGREE WITH IT, AND IF NOT HAVE THEM MAKE A CHANGE. THEN IT COMES BACK TO US. IT GOES BACK AND FORTH, AND THIS IS WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS HAD ANTICIPATED WOULD HAPPEN. BECAUSE OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT, THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS TALKS ABOUT WHO ARE DRAFTING THIS, THAT ONE THING THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON, THEY ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE. WE ARE. WE WERE BOTH ELECTED. I SAY TO THE CHAIR, HE WAS ELECTED, I WAS ELECTED. AND THEREFORE, WE ARE -- WE ARE THE EARS AND THE EYES AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PUBLIC, AND I THINK THAT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. IT'S VERY CLEARLY STATED. SO WE DO HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS. ONE THING THAT'S KIND OF IN THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MY AMENDMENT TRIPLES THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS UNDER THE NEW START FROM THE TYPES UNDER THE START I TREATY, WE HAD TWO TYPES OF INSPECTIONS. THIS IS CRITICAL. TYPE ONE REFERS TO INSPECTIONS OF THE B.M.W. BASES -- THE I.B.M. BASES, SUBMARINE BASES, AIR BASES. THESE ARE THE DELIVERY SYSTEMS TO DEMONSTRATE VERY CLEARLY THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE SITES AND SEE IF THEY ARE CARRYING OUT THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY. TYPE TWO REFERS TO INSPECTIONS AT FORMALLY DECLARED FACILITIES. NOW, THEY SAY THAT WE HAVE MORE -- WE HAVE MORE INSPECTIONS RIGHT NOW. THAT'S BECAUSE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TYPE TWO FACILITIES IN -- IN START I TREATY BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT FORMALLY DECLARED FACILITIES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FACILITIES THAT ARE CLOSED DOWN. AND SO WE WANT TO INSPECT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE CLOSED DOWN. SO THAT THE TEST THAT THEY USE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CLOSED DOWN IS THE -- IS THAT THEY TALK ABOUT DEGREE. THAT'S HOW YOU SATISFY TO SEE WHETHER IT'S TYPE TWO SIDES HAVE BEEN TREATED PROPERLY. THEY CAN HAVE DEBRIS LEFT OVER FROM CLOSING ONE SITE AND THEN CLOSE -- AND THEN LEAVE FIVE OPEN THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED AND SCATTER THE DEBRIS AROUND AND USE IT AGAIN. THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DO. NOW, I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD, SINCE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TWO VOTES COMING UP AT 6:00, ON THE THUNE AMENDMENT AS WELL AS MY AMENDMENT, IF THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT HIS, AND THEN I WOULD BE GLAD TO RESUME MY DISCUSSION.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:26:09 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

  • 05:26:11 PM

    MR. THUNE

    I THANK THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA FOR YIELDING SOME TIME. WE'RE GOING TO…

    I THANK THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA FOR YIELDING SOME TIME. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON HIS AMENDMENT AND THEN ON THE AMENDMENT THAT I OFFER. BOTH ADDRESS IMPORTANT SUBJECTS IN THIS TREATY. THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA IS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF VERIFICATION AND POINTING OUT THE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE TREATY WITH REGARD TO THAT VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND THE AMENDMENT THAT I WILL HAVE VOTED ON DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF DELIVERY VEHICLES, WHICH IN MY VIEWMENT IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT -- IN MY VIEW IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THIS TREATY AS WELL. AS I SAID EARLIER TODAY ON THE FLOOR, WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND VERY SIMPLE. IT JUST INCREASES THE NUMBER OF DEPLOYED DELIVERY VEHICLES WHICH ARE THE BOMBERS, THE SUBMARINES AND THE ICBMs ALLOWED FOR IN THE TREATY FROM 700 TO 720. AND JUST IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND ABOUT WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT, I WANT TO INFORM MY COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE ABOUT WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THAT NUMBER UP TO 720. I ASKED AT AN ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING AT WHAT POINT BETWEEN THE RANGE OF 500 AND 1,100 DELIVERY SYSTEMS THAT GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT, THE VIRUSES CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WOULD BE COMFORTABLE AND WHERE WE WOULD -- WHERE WE WOULD AVOID MAKING OUR TRIAD INTO A DIAD. HE SAID, AND I QUOTE -- "I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED IF WE GOT DOWN BELOW THOSE LEVELS ABOUT MIDPOINT. "MEANING HE WOULD BE CONCERNED IF THE NEGOTIATED NUMBER FELL BELOW ABOUT 800 DELIVERY VEHICLES. NOW, THEY HAVE MADE A DISTINCTION, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS, BETWEEN DEPLOYED AND NONDEPLOYED, THAT THERE ARE 800 THERE, AND HE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY SAID HE COULD LIVE WITH A 700 DEPLOYED NUMBER. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THE CONCERN THAT WAS VOICED INITIALLY ABOUT DROPPING DOWN BELOW THAT MIDPOINT LEVEL I THINK SUGGESTS THAT WE NEED TO AT LEAST INCREASE UP TO WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION'S -- I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT THEIR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN, NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN SETTLED AND THAT WAS 720 DELIVERY VEHICLES. AND SO THE AMENDMENT RAISES FROM 700 TO 720 THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES. AS I SAID EARLIER IN MY REMARK, THE -- IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE 1251 REPORT SAYS, IT SAYS UP TO 60 NUCLEAR CAPABLE BOMBERS, UP TO 420 DEPLOYED ICBMs AND 240 DEPLOYED SUBMARINE LAUNCH BALLISTIC MISSILES ON 14 SUBMARINES. AND SO I'D LIKE TO, IF I MIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT, --

    Show Full Text
  • 05:29:34 PM

    MR. THUNE

    IF I MIGHT JUST CONTINUE. SO IF YOU ADD UP TO 60 BOMBERS, UP TO 420 ICBMs…

    IF I MIGHT JUST CONTINUE. SO IF YOU ADD UP TO 60 BOMBERS, UP TO 420 ICBMs AND 240 DEPLOYED SLBMs, YOU GET A NUMBER OF 720 DELIVERY VEHICLES. THAT'S WHAT THE NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN CALLS FOR, AND YET THE TREATY STIPULATES SPECIFIES 700 DELIVERY VEHICLES. AND SO THERE IS A 20 DELIVERY VEHICLE GAP THERE WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND FRANKLY, IF YOU ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT WHERE DOES THE -- WOULD THOSE REDUCTIONS COME FROM -- AND OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD COME FROM EITHER ICBMs OR BOMBERS. PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE BOMBERS. IF YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BOMBERS FROM THE 60 SPECIFIED IN THE NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN TO GET DOWN UNDER 700, YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE THE BOMBERS FROM 60 DOWN TO 40. AS I SAID EARLIER TODAY, WE HAVE ABOUT 96 B-52 NUCLEAR BOMBERS, ABOUT 20 B-2 NUCLEAR BOMBERS THOSE ARE TOTAL DEPLOYED AND NONTKHROEUFPLTD YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE BOMBERS WE CAN DEPLOY AT ANY TIME IN THE TREATY IF YOU GET IT DOWN TO THE 700 NUMBER. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD COME OUT OF ICBMs OR COME OUT OF BOMBERS TO GET FROM 720 DOWN TO 700 COULD BE A COMBINATION OF BOTH. THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS WE HAVE A BOMBER FLEET THAT IS AGING. MOST OF OUR BOMBERS ARE PRE-CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS ERA BOMBERS. ABOUT 47% OF THEM ARE. WE NEED A NEXT GENERATION BOMBER THAT WILL FULFILL THAT ROLE, SURVIVABLE IN THE MODERN AIR DEFENSES WE'RE GOING TO ENCOUNTER, SOPHISTICATED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS BEING EMPLOYED BY SOME OF OUR POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES AROUND THE WORLD. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT WE NEED IN TERMS OF A NEXT GENERATION BOMBER, WE NEED TO FIELD ONE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. AND IT NEEDS TO BE NUCLEAR. WHEN ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE NEXT BOMBER WOULD BE A NUCLEAR BOMBER, THE MILITARY AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE BEEN VERY AMBIGUOUS ON THAT POINT. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER CLEARLY WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FOLLOW-ON BOMBER WOULD IN FACT BE A TPHAOERBG BOMBER -- A NUCLEAR BOMBER WHICH WOULD SUGGEST TO ME THE BOMBER WING OF THE TRIAD IS A LOT LESS THAN THE OTHER TWO LEGS OF THE TRIAD. THAT BEING SAID, LET'S ASSUME FOR THE MOMENT IF WE HAVE UP TO 60 BOMBERS, WE HAVE UP TO 420 ICBMs AND 240 SUBMARINE LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILES. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 720 NUMBER, NOT A 700 NUMBER. THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS DEBATE IS IMPORTANT AND WHY WE TRY TO MAKE CONSISTENT AND GET THOSE TWO NUMBERS TO MATCH UP. THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE, MR. PRESIDENT, IS THAT WITH REGARD TO DELIVERY VEHICLES IN THE TREATY, WE START OUT RIGHT NOW WITH ABOUT 856 DELIVERY VEHICLES IF YOU ADD UP ICBMs, SUBMARINE LAUNCH BALLISTIC MISSILES AND HEAVY BOMBERS. WE WILL END UP DOWN AT 700. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT 15 OF OUR DELIVERY VEHICLES, RETIRE THOSE AND GET DOWN TO THAT 700 NUMBER. THE RUSSIANS, ON THE OTHER HAND, START AT ABOUT 620. THEY ARE ALREADY WELL BELOW THE 700 NUMBER CALLED FOR IN THE TREATY. AND IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THROUGH ATTRITION, AND THEY WILL PROBABLY GET DOWN TO SOMEWHERE IN THE 400'S IN THE DELIVERY VEHICLES. SO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION IN THE TREATY COSTS THEM NOTHING. WE GIVE UP 156 DELIVERY VEHICLES. THEY GIVE UP NOTHING. IN FACT, THEY CAN COME UP TO THE 700 NUMBER. THEY CAN INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES THEY CURRENTLY HAVE TO COME UP WITH THAT 700 NUMBER. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE THAT EXISTS TODAY AND THE DISPARITY THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES AND THE NUMBER THE UNITED STATES HAS AT OUR DISPOSAL AND THE NUMBER CALLED FOR IN THE TREATY AND WHY THAT DISPARITY IS SO IMPORTANT. NOW, JUST ONE FINAL POINT IF I MIGHT WITH REGARD TO THE NUCLEAR POSTURE OF THE COUNTRY. WE ALSO HAVE TO DEFEND NOT ONLY THE UNITED STATES, BUT ABOUT 30 OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT FALL UNDER THE NUCLEAR UMBRELLA AND UNDER OUR DETERRENTS. THE RUSSIANS HAVE NONE. THESE DELIVERY VEHICLE NUMBERS BECOME EVEN MORE IMPORTANT WHEN YOU -- GIVEN THE GEOGRAPHIC REALITIES THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS TO DEAL WITH IN TERMS OF OUR STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES AND WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTED TO DO IN TERMS OF PROVIDING EXTENDED DETERRENTS NOT ONLY TO THE UNITED STATES BUT TO MANY OF OUR ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD. SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN THIS TREATY DEBATE, THIS PARTICULAR PART OF IT, THAT WE GET A VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT, MR. PRESIDENT. AND IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT IF WE HAVE TO, THIS AMENDMENT GETS ADOPTED, IT WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE RUSSIANS. THAT'S PART OF OUR ROLE, ADVICE AND CONSENT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. IF IT WERE JUST CONSENT, WE WOULD BE NOTHING MORE THAN A RUBBER STAMP. WE HAVE A CRITICAL ROLE HERE AND THAT IS TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES AND WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT TO PROVIDE OUR ADVICE. IN A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY WE VOTE ON AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD INCREASE FROM 720 THE NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES SPECIFIED IN THE TREATY. THAT WOULD BE A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AMENDMENT AND ONE THAT WOULD THEN GO BACK OBVIOUSLY TO THE RUSSIANS, BUT CERTAINLY CONSISTENT WITH THE SENATE'S TRADITIONAL HISTORIC ROLE OF ADVICE AND CONSENT. DEFENSE SECRETARY SCHLESINGER, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY SCHLESINGER TESTIFIED TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IN APRIL 2010 -- AND I QUOTE -- "AS TO THE STATED CONTEXT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE NUMBERS SPECIFIED ARE ADEQUATE THOUGH BARELY SO." END QUOTE. WELL, BARELY SO DOES NOT SEEM TO BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANT OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN DEFENDING AMERICA'S VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AS WELL AS THOSE OF MANY OF OUR ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD. I DON'T THINK SETTLING FOR BARELY ENOUGH OR BARELY SO IS SUFFICIENT. AND SO I WOULD HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WOULD SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK, AS I SAID EARLIER, THE TRIAD IS CRITICAL TO OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT AND MAINTAINING BOTH ICBMs AND SLBMs, BUT THEN ALSO HAVING A VERY ROBUST BOMBER COMPONENT OF THAT IS CRITICAL. AND THAT'S WHY INVESTING IN A NEXT GENERATION, A FOLLOW-ON BOMBER THAT IS NUCLEAR IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THAT THE AMBIGUITY THAT SURROUNDS THE QUESTION, THE UNCERTAINTY THAT SURROUNDS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A FOLLOW ON BOMBER WOULD BE NUCLEAR SPEAKS VOLUME ABOUT THE COMMITMENT TO THAT LEG OF THE TRIAD. BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT BOMBERS ARE THE BEST FORM OF EXTENDED DETERRENCE. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THOSE WHO WOULD PROLIFERATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PAY ATTENTION, YOU SEND A BOMBER IN. A BOMBER IS VERY VISIBLE. IT IS RECALLABLE. SURVIVABLE. IT BRINGS GREAT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ADVANTAGE TO OUR COUNTRY WHEN IT COMES TO TRYING TO DISCOURAGE PROLIFERATION BY OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD. AND SO I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. IT IS AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT. THE DELIVERY VEHICLE ISSUE IS, TO ME, CRITICAL TO THIS DEBATE NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF OF THE NUMBERS BUT ALSO THE MODERNIZATION OF THOSE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF TRIAD. THE TRIAD OVER TIME HAS GIVEN US GREAT SURVIVABILITY, GREAT FLEXIBILITY. IF EVER CALLED UPON, WE WANT TO BE AS PREPARED AS WE POSSIBLY CAN TO ENCOUNTER ANY THREAT THAT MIGHT EXIST TO THE UNITED STATES, ANY NUCLEAR THREAT THAT MIGHT EXIST TO THE UNITED STATES. I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I WILL YIELD BACK TIME AND YIELD TO THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA WHO I THINK WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE VERIFICATION ISSUE AS WE LEAD UP TO THE 6:00 VOTE.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:37:55 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

  • 05:38:00 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    I CONCUR IN EVERYTHING THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA SAID, AND I JOIN HIM…

    I CONCUR IN EVERYTHING THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA SAID, AND I JOIN HIM IN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO VOTE FAVORABLY ON HIS AMENDMENT. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY, THE OTHER SIDE, HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO A LOT MORE TESTING, A LOT MORE MODERNIZATION THAN WE HAVE. I'M VERY MUCH CONCERNED. I WANT TO ELABORATE ON ONE THING. THE FACT THAT THERE IS -- THAT THE OTHER SIDE -- AND I READ ALL THE QUOTES FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2005 AND 2010 TO DEMONSTRATE VERY CLEARLY THAT THE RUSSIANS WOULD SIGN A TREATY AND THEN THEY'LL CHEAT. THEY WON'T COMPLY WITH THE TREATY. WE SAW IT IN THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY, IN THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TREATY, WE SAW IT IN START I. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS. IN TERMS OF VERIFICATION, WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING WHERE WE ARE CONVINCED KNOWING FULL WELL IN ADVANCE THEY'RE GOING TO CHEAT. THAT BRINGS UP ONE THING I HAVEN'T MENTIONED BEFORE IN THIS TREATY. AND THAT IS THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN NOTIFICATION AND ACTUALLY CAUSING AN INSPECTION UNDER THE START I TREATY WAS NINE HOURS, AND IT'S GONE UP TO 24 HOURS IN THIS TREATY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO HIDE SO WE WON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK AND WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FIND SOMETHING, WHY GIVE THEM THREE TIMES AS MUCH TIME AS WE DID UNDER START I WHEN WE KNOW MORE TODAY ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY CHEAT THAN WE KNEW BEFORE. THE SECOND THING IS IT BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE INSPECTIONS AND AS THERE ARE FEWER FACILITIES TO INSPECT, EACH ONE BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT. AND WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE -- EVERYONE SEEMS TO AGREE WITH THAT. FORMER SECRETARY HAROLD BROWN EXPLAINED THIS IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE. THAT WAS WAY BACK IN 1991. HE SAID VERIFICATION WOULD BECOME EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AS THE NUMBER OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON EACH SIDE DECREASES BECAUSE UNCERTAINTIES OF A GIVEN SIZE BECOMES A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL FORCE. I THINK I USED THE EXAMPLE THAT IF YOU HAD 10 AND CHEAT ON 1, THAT'S 10%. BUT IF YOU HAVE 2 AND CHEAT ON ONE THAT,'S 50%. THAT STATEMENT IS AGREED WITH BY JOHN BOLTON WHO SAID -- QUOTE -- "WHILE VERIFICATION IS IMPORTANT IN ANY ARMS CONTROL TREATY, VERIFICATION BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AT LOWER WARHEAD LEVELS." AGAIN HE AGREED. SCOWCROFT, SAME THING. HE SAID AS FORCE LEVELS GO DOWN, THE BALANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER CAN BECOME INCREASINGLY DELICATE AND VULNERABLE TO CHEATING ON ARMS CONTROL LIMITS, CONCERNS ABOUT HIDDEN MISSILES AND THE ACTIONS OF NUCLEAR THIRD PARTIES. SO I THINK EVERYONE DOES UNDERSTAND AND DOES AGREE THAT AS THEY DECREASE, THEN EACH ONE BECOMES MORE SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF BEING INSPECTED. WHEN WE, IN THIS AMENDMENT WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM THE 180 INSPECTIONS OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD TO -- WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER NEW START VERSUS THE OLD ONE WHICH IS 600 INSPECTIONS OVER 15 YEARS. DO THE MATH ON THAT AND YOU COME UP WITH 18 INSPECTIONS A YEAR AS OPPOSED TO 40 INSPECTIONS A YEAR. NOW THEY SAY -- THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY THERE ARE ONLY 36 SITES WHICH MEANS IF THIS IS TRUE, WE WOULD ONLY GET TO INSPECT THERE -- EACH SITE IN RUSSIA ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. WHILE THE MATH WORKS OUT, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO OUR SITES ONCE EVERY YEAR. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS, ABOUT WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. WE TALKED ABOUT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT THE PRIME ROLE, BUT WE HAVE TO ADVISE AND CONSENT. I SAW SOMETHING RECENTLY, JUST TODAY I THINK IT IS, THAT CAME OUT -- YES, IT WAS JUST TODAY. IT CAME OUT FROM FOREIGN MINISTER CERTIFICATE -- SERGEY LAVROV. HE SAID I CAN ONLY KWUPBD SCORE THE STRATEGIC NUCLEAR TREATY WORKED OUT ON OUR VIEW OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES. LAVROV IS SAYING IN AN INTERVIEW, IT CANNOT BE OPENED UP AND BECOME THE SUBJECT OF NEW NEGOTIATIONS. WHO IS THIS GUY TELLING US WHAT WE CAN DO UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION? AND I FIND IT ALMOST LAUGHABLE BECAUSE IT'S AS IF ALL HE HAS TO DO IS SAY THAT AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW COURSE. HE SAID RUSSIAN LAWMAKERS WOULD CLOSELY EXAMINE THE U.S. RATIFICATION RESOLUTION, AND ANY DECLARATIONS OR NOTES ACCOMPANYING IT TO ENSURE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE MADE. AND IF CHANGES ARE MADE, THEN THEY HAVE NOT KEPT -- UPHELD THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. I ONLY REMIND YOU THAT C.R.S. OUTLINED IN ITS STUDY, IT SAID THE ROLE OF THE SENATE IN A TREATY PROCESS -- QUOTE -- "AMENDS AMENDMENTS OR PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE TREATY. THEY AMOUNT, THEREFORE, TO SENATE COUNTEROFFERS THAT ALTER THE ORIGINAL DEAL AGREED TO BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE OTHER COUNTRY. IF THE SENATE GIVES ITS CONSENT TO NEW START WITH AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT, THE TREATY IS SENT BACK OVER TO RUSSIA AND THE DUMA MEETS, AND THEY DECIDE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. AND THEN OF COURSE THEY MAKE CHANGES AND THEN IT COMES BACK OVER HERE. THIS IS SOMETHING GOING ON FOR 200 YEARS. WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN ARE WE IN A ABORTION WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, AND WE -- SUDDEN ARE WE IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT AND WE LOOK AT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AS SOMETHING IN THE PAST. I FEEL WE HAVE THIS OBLIGATION. I KNOW EVERY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE AMENDED THE TREATY HAS BEEN DEFEATED. IT'S BEEN DEFEATED, QUITE FRANKLY -- WELL NOT NECESSARILY PARTY LINES BUT BEEN DEFEATED BY AND LARGE BY PARTY LINES. THIS IS SOMETHING VERY CONCERNING TO ME. THE OTHER THING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRIPLING THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS UNDER THE NEW START, WE'VE HEARD IT SAID SEVERAL TIMES THERE ARE FEWER SIDES. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE TYPE II -- KEEP IN MIND TYPE I OF A SITE REFERS TO INSPECTIONS OF C.B.M. BASIS, SUMMARY BASIS, AIR BASIS, THOSE FACILITIES THAT ARE ACTIVE TODAY.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:45:16 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

  • 05:45:26 PM

    MR. KERRY

    PRESIDENT, HOW MUCH TIME IS REMAINING?

  • 05:45:29 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, WE HAVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES -- 14 MINUTES AND…

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, WE HAVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES -- 14 MINUTES AND 45 SECONDS.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:45:34 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, DID MY COLLEAGUE NEED TO FINISH UP A SENTENCE OR A THOUGHT?…

    MR. PRESIDENT, DID MY COLLEAGUE NEED TO FINISH UP A SENTENCE OR A THOUGHT? I'M HAPPY TO YIELD HIM A MINUTE, IF HE DID. ALL RIGHT. WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA FOR THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY AND AGAIN TODAY ABOUT VERIFICATION. AND I KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE THAT HE THINKS IS CRITICAL. I THINK EVERY SENATOR HERE IS ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE STRONGEST VERIFICATION REGIME POSSIBLE. THE FACT IS, THIS TREATY, THE NEW START TREATY, HAS EXACTLY THAT. IT HAS AN EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION SYSTEM. HAS IT GOT A PERFECT VERIFICATION SYSTEM? THERE'S NO TREATY THAT'S EVER BEEN PASSED OR ONE THAT COULD NEGOTIATE THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT ONE-SIDED AND BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT. BUT IT HAS AN EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE USED EVER SINCE PRESIDENT REAGAN NEGOTIATED THOSE TREATIES AND ONE OF OUR GREAT ARMS CONTROL STATESMEN, PAUL NINZE, RULELY DEFINED THAT CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION. SO I WANT TO QUOTE WHAT SECRETARY GATES HAS SAID ABOUT THIS. AND I DON'T NODE TO REMIND COLLEAGUES, BUT I GUESS PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WHO DON'T NECESSARILY FOCUS ON IT MIGHT BE IMCTED TO KNOW THAT OF COURSE SECRETARY -- IMPACTED TO KNOW THAT OF COURSE SECRETARY GATES WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, AND HE WAS HELD OVER AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND BY EVERYBODY'S JUDGMENT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, HE IS A MAN OF GREAT CREDIBILITY AND DISTINCT WHO HAS WORKED THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT LAYERS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. IT IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE I THINK WE HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR. AND HE SAID IN A LETTER THAT HE WROTE TO SENATOR ISAKSON THIS SUMMER, HE SAID, "I BELIEVE THAT THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE NEW START TREATY, ALONG WITH OTHER VERIFICATION MECHANISMS, PROVIDES A FIRM BASIS FOR VERIFYING RUSSIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS WHILE ALSO PROVIDING IMPORTANT INSIGHTS INTO THE SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF RUSSIAN STRATEGIC FORCES." NOW, I KNOW THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS, AND HE HAS SEVERAL TIMES RAISED THE QUESTION OF CUTTING THE INSPECTIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL START TO THE NEW START. SO I WANT TO WALK THROUGH IT AGAIN, SO WE'RE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. COMPARING THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS UNDER START I TO THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS UNDER NEW START IS LITERALLY AN APPLES-TO-ORANGES COMPARISON -- FOR THREE REASONS. REASON ONE: TODAY WE ONLY CONDUCT INSPECTIONS IN ONE COUNTRY INSTEAD OF FOUR. UNDER START I, WE HAD BYELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN, UKRAINE, AND RUSSIA.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:48:30 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST?

  • 05:48:33 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I'D BE HAPPY TO AS LONG AS I DON'T LOSE RIGHT TO THE FLOOR.

  • 05:48:37 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SNO SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

  • 05:48:40 PM

    MR. INHOFE

    THE TIME BE EXTENDED FOR 10 MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES ADID I BELIEVE FOR THE…

    THE TIME BE EXTENDED FOR 10 MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES ADID I BELIEVE FOR THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS AND FIVE MINUTES ADID I BELIEVE FOR THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:48:52 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    IS THERE OBJECTION? CARLUCCI I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OW FOLKS ARE OKAY…

    IS THERE OBJECTION? CARLUCCI I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OW FOLKS ARE OKAY BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE PLANNING SCHEDULES AROUND IT.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:49:01 PM

    MR. KERRY

    WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR FOLKS ARE OKAY BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE PLANNING…

    WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR FOLKS ARE OKAY BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE PLANNING SCHEDULES AROUND IT. NO OBJECTION, MR. PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: NO OBJECTION.

    Show Full Text
  • 05:49:09 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: NO OBJECTION. WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 05:49:15 PM

    MR. KERRY

    THE SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER.

  • 05:51:53 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S JUST NOT A UNANIMOUS ACCURATE THAT THERE WAS ANY SUCH…

    MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S JUST NOT A UNANIMOUS ACCURATE THAT THERE WAS ANY SUCH ASSUMPTION WHATSOEVER. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A VERIFICATION STRUCTURE HERE. AND IT'S WHY WE'RE TAKING THIS DISCUSSION SO SERIOUSLY. BECAUSE WE DON'T TAKE PEOPLE AT THEIR WORD. WE HAVE TO VERIFY. AND THAT'S WHAT THE VERIFICATION REGIME IS FOR. LET ME ALSO BE CLEAR WHAT SECRETARY GATES SAID HERE. SENATOR INHOFE QUOTED THE SECRETARY SAYING THAT THE RUSSIANS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE ANY MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT CHEATING UNDER THIS VERIFICATION REGIME. THAT'S THE JUDGMENT OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY THINK OR THAT WE THINK THAT THEY MIGHT NOT TRY TO CHEAT. IT MEANS THAT IF THEY DO, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE -- IF IT'S MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT, WE WILL SEE IT, WE WILL KNOW IT, WE WILL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND SO WE CAN RESPOND, AS SECRETARY GATES HAS, BY INCREASING THE SIZE OF OUR FORCE, BY INCREASING THE ALERT LEVEL OF SSBN'S, ON BOMBERS. THERE ARE ALL KIND OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO RESPOND THE MINUTE WE NOTICE THAT KIND OF MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT EVENT. YOU HAVE SO IT IS MY JUDGMENT THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE US ANYTHING IN THE WAY OF ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE, BUT IT CERTAINLY WILL GIVES MONTHS OF UNNECESSARY AND EVEN COUNTERPRODUCTIVE RENEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY. AND THAT MEANS BY REACHING FOR THREE TIMES OF THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS, WE WOULD GUARANTEE THAT FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS WE'VE ZERO, ABSOLUTELY NONE. THAT'S THE TRADE-OFF. I THINK WE NEED TO GET OUR VERIFICATION TEAM BACK IN PLACE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S MOST IMPERATIVE IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY. NOW, I ALSO WANT TO THANK SENATOR THUNE, THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA, FOR HIS AMENDMENT, AND I THANK HIM ALSO FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT THESE NUMBERS WITH RESPECT TO MISSILES AND BOMBERS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT. I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER PLACE WHERE IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO LISTEN TO OUR MILITARY. THEY'VE MADE THE JUDGMENTS HERE, AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT HOW THEY'VE MADE THOSE JUDGMENTS. AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO QUERY THEM, AND THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY WORKING GROUP, AND THEY HAVE ARRIVED AT THE JUDGMENT -- NOT A POLITICAL JUDGMENT, AT A MILITARY JUDGMENT THAT THE TREATY'S LIMIT OF 700 DELIVERY VEHICLES IS PERFECTLY ADEQUATE TO DEFEND OUR NATION AND OUR ALLIES AT THE SAME TIME N.AS GENERAL JAMES CARTWRIGHT SAID -- AND HE HIMSELF WAS A FORMER STRATEGIC COMMANDER, HE SAID -- QUOTE -- "I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY FOR ANY THREAT THAT WE SEE TODAY OR MIGHT EMERGE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE." THIS AMENDMENT SEEKS TO INSERT SORT OF OUR ARBITRARY JUDGMENT, OH, WE OUGHT TO HAVE 20 ADDITIONAL. BUT I'D REMIND SENATORS WHAT LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK CLOTS, THE COMMANDER OF THE AIR FORCE GLOBAL STRIKE FORCE COMMAND SAID. THAT IS THE COMMAND THAT OVERSEES ICBMs AND BOMBERS. AND JUST LAST FRIDAY HE SAID, "I THINK THE START TREATY OUGHT TO BE RATIFIED, AND IT OUGHT TO BE RATIFIED NOW. " "THIS WEEK. THE MILITARY CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONDUCTED A VERY, VERY THOROUGH REVIEW OF OUR NUCLEAR POSTURE, INCLUDING DETAILED FORCE-ON-FORCE ANALYSES. WE SHARED SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION IN THE CLASSIFIED SESSION EARLIER. OUR NUCLEAR COMMANDERS HAVE DONE THE MATH. THEY'VE RUN THE SCENARIOS, AND THEY'VE CONCLUDED THAT WE ONLY NEED 700 DELIVERY VEHICLES. GENERAL CHILTON, THE HEAD OF THE STRATEGIC COMMAND SAID THE FOLLOWING: "THE OPTIONS WE PROVIDED IN THIS PROCESS FOCUSED ON ENSURING AMERICA'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO DETER POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES, ASSURE OUR ALICE AND SUSTAIN STRATEGIC STABILITY FOR AS LONG AS NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXIST. THIS RIGOROUS APPROACH, ROOTED IN DETERRENT STRATEGY AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSARY CAPABILITIES, SUPPORTS BOTH THE GREED-UPON LIMITS IN NEW START AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW." NOW, I DO KNOW THAT THE SENATOR EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO FIELD PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE SYSTEMS. MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S TRUE THAT CONVENTIONALLY ARMED ICBMs WILL COUNT TOWARD THE TREATY'S LIMITS. BUT, AGAIN, LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT THE MILITARY SAYS. SECRETARY GATES STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT -- QUOTE -- "SHOULD WE DECIDE TO DEPLOY THEM, COUNTING THIS SMALL NUMBER OF CONVENTIONAL STRATEGIC SYSTEMS AND THEIR WARHEADS TOWARD THE TREATY LIMITS WILL NOT PREVENT THE UNITED STATES FROM MAINTAINING A ROBUST NUCLEAR DETERRENT." ADMIRAL MULLEN SAID, AS FAR BACK AS MARCH THAT THE TREATY PROTECTS OUR ABILITY TO DEVELOP A CONVENTIONAL GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY, SHOULD THAT BE REQUIRED. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT TO OUR RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION, CONDITION 6, UNDERSTANDING 3, AND DECLARATION 3, ALL OF WHICH GO TOWARD PRESERVING OUR ABILITY TO DEPLOY CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL-STRIKE FORCES. FINALLY, THE SENATOR RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE MOVING FROM A TRIAD TO A DIAD. I WANT TO BE ESPECIALLY CLEAR ON THIS POINT. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS STATED FORCEFULLY -- AND AGAIN TODAY REITERATED IN A LETTER SENT TO US BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, ADMIRAL MULLEN -- IN WHICH HE REITERATES THE ADMINISTRATION'S COMMITMENT TO THE TRIAD. AS IT SAID IN THE UPDATE SECTION OF THE 1251 REPORT, AND I QUOTE, "THE ADMINISTRATION REMAINS COMMITTED TO THE SUSTAINMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF U.S. STRATEGIC DELIVERY SYSTEMS. REGARDING HEAVY BOMBERS," WHICH THE SENATOR MENTIONED, THAT SAME REPORT SAYS D.O.D. PLANS TO SUSTAIN A HEAVY BOMBER LEG OF THE STRATEGIC TRIAD FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE AND IS COMMITTED TO THE MODERNIZATION OF THE HEAVY BOMBER FORCE. TO BE CLEAR, OUR EXISTING NUCLEAR-CAPABLE BOMBERS WILL BE IN OPERATION AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS AND PROBABLY, AT MOST, THIS TREATY COULD BE A 10- TO 15-YEAR TREATY. SO OUR EXISTING BOMB LETTERS OUTLIVE THIS TREATY AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT WE'RE COMMITTED TO THE TRIAD IN THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION, INCLUDING OUR NUCLEAR BOMBERS. I MIGHT ADD, THEY'VE ALSO SAID THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CLOSE BASES, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BOMBERS. SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE CONCERN ON THESE POINTS, AND P THIS TREATY -- THIS AMENDMENT, ONCE AGAIN, IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WOULD FORCE THE RENEGOTIATION OF THE ENTIRE TREATY. I MIGHT JUST MENTION FOR MY COLLEAGUES, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US, WE CAN ALL REMEMBER NEGOTIATING AROUND HERE MANY, MANY TIMES ON DIFFERENT BILLS, DIFFERENT PIECES OF LEGISLATION. WE ALWAYS BEGIN THAT NEGOTIATION -- I CAN REMEMBER VERY WELL WITH SENATOR GEORGE MITCHELL WHEN HE WAS MAJORITY LEADER AND WE DID THE VERY COMPLICATED CLEAN AIR ACT REAUTHORIZATION IN 1990. AND HE WOULD BEGIN EVERY AUTHORIZATION BY REMINDING PEOPLE THAT NOTHING IS AGREED UPON UNTIL EVERYTHING IS AGREED UPON. WE NEGOTIATE THAT WAY HERE ALL THE TIME. SO IF ALL OF A SUDDEN NOTHING IS AGREED UPON AND THAT IS THE TWHAI THIS TREATY WAS NEGOTIATED -- IF NOTHING IS AGREED UPON UNTIL EVERYTHING IS AGREED UPON, WHEN YOU TAKE ONE PIECE OUT OF THERE AND CHANGE IT UNILATERALLY, NOTHING IS AGREED UPON. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU REOPEN ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES WHICH ARE SOME OF THEM CONTENTIOUS, WHICH WERE DIRVETION WHICH MEME MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON AND WHICH WILL CERTAINLY AFFECT OUR RELATIONSHIP AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IF THIS WEREN'T IF THIS WERE SO -- WERE SO SUBSTANTIVE THAT I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE BUYING A PICK IN A PEKE, THEN I WOULD SAY OKAY, WE HAVE TO DO THIS. BUT ON SECURITY PEOPLE, OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMUNITY, OUR INTENSE COMMUNITY, THERE ISN'T ANYBODY WHO WORKS ON THIS DAY TO DAY, OUR STRATEGIC COMMAND, OUR NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND, ALL OF THEM SAY RATIFY THIS TREATY AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO DO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:00:52 PM

    MR. KYL

    MADAM PRESIDENT, I WONDER IF I MIGHT ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY VERY BRIEFLY…

    MADAM PRESIDENT, I WONDER IF I MIGHT ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY VERY BRIEFLY WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM MASSACHUSETTS AND THEN PROPOUND A UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:00:59 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.

  • 06:01:02 PM

    MR. KYL

    THERE ARE TWO VOTES SCHEDULED IN A FEW MINUTES ON THE THUNE AMENDMENT AND…

    THERE ARE TWO VOTES SCHEDULED IN A FEW MINUTES ON THE THUNE AMENDMENT AND THE INHOFE AMENDMENT. HAVE WE LOCKED IN THE LeMIEUX AMENDMENT YET?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:01:11 PM

    MR. KERRY

    NO.

  • 06:01:15 PM

    MR. KYL

    SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, DOES MY COLLEAGUE ANTICIPATE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT…

    SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, DOES MY COLLEAGUE ANTICIPATE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE WOULD BE A THIRD VOTE TONIGHT DEPENDING UPON WHETHER SENATOR LA SMIEW READY TO HAVE THAT VOTE -- LeMIEUX IS READY TO HAVE THAT VOTE?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:01:27 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I SUSPECT THE MAJORITY LEADER WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE IF…

    I SUSPECT THE MAJORITY LEADER WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE IF WE CAN. BUTMR. KYL: BUT IT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED YET? AT SOME POINT, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS, THERE COULD THEORETICALLY BE A THIRD AMENDMENT TONIGHT IF SENATOR LeMIEUX IS READY TO HAVE THAT VOTE AND IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION BY ANY OTHER MEMBER. AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO, AS I INFORMED MY COLLEAGUE, I HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS HERE OF THE FIVE AMENDMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO GET PENDING AND LET ME JUST MAKE THAT REQUEST AT THIS TIME. THEY ARE AMENDMENTS NUMBER 4900 4900 -- THAT'S THE McCAIN AMENDMENT -- AMENDMENT NUMBER 4893, KYL AMENDMENT; AMENDMENT NUMBER 4892, KYL AMENDMENT; AMENDMENT NUMBER 4867, KYL AMENDMENT; AND AMENDMENT NUMBER 4860, KYL AMENDMENT. NOW, THESE ARE ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. AND WHAT I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS THAT WITHOUT -- I'LL JUST READ IT HERE. THAT IT BE IN ORDER TO CALL UP FIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT FOLLOWING THESE BE THE ONLY AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION AT THIS TIME AND ASK CONSENT THAT FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED, THAT THE SENATE THEN RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE TREATY. AND BEFORE MY COLLEAGUE RESPONDS, I WOULD ALSO SAY THIS. I BELIEVE THERE ARE ONLY OTHER -- FOUR OTHER AMENDMENTS PENDING, ONE OF THEM IS MINE AND I WILL AGREE NOT TO WAIVE MY RIGHT TO BRING THAT UP. I CAN'T SAY FOR THE OTHERS AND I NEED TO TALK TO THOSE MEMBERS DURING THE VOTE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WOULD WANT VOTES ON THEIR AMENDMENTS OR NOT. BUT IN ANY EVENT, THERE ARE NO MORE THAN THREE OF THEM, SO IT'S A LOCKED-IN NUMBER.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:03:06 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 06:03:08 PM

    MR. KERRY

    THE RIGHT TO EXPOB I DON'T INTEND TO. -- OBJECT AND I DON'T INTEND TO. I…

    THE RIGHT TO EXPOB I DON'T INTEND TO. -- OBJECT AND I DON'T INTEND TO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT AS WE MOVE TO THESE AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION, WE'RE GOING TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT THEN TO GO BACK ONLY TO THOSE THREE THAT ARE PENDING AND THE SENATOR HAS AGREED TO MAKE A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO SEE IF THAT CAN BE REDUCED TO SIMPLY ONE. IS THAT ACCURATE?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:03:30 PM

    MR. KYL

    NO, I'M SAYING THAT ONE OF THEM IS MINE AND I WILL JUST ELIMINATE IT RIGHT…

    NO, I'M SAYING THAT ONE OF THEM IS MINE AND I WILL JUST ELIMINATE IT RIGHT NOW.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:03:35 PM

    MR. KERRY

    UNDERSTOOD, MADAM PRESIDENT, I UNDERSTAND THE SENATOR IN OUR CONVERSATION…

    UNDERSTOOD, MADAM PRESIDENT, I UNDERSTAND THE SENATOR IN OUR CONVERSATION EARLIER SAID HE WAS GOING TO TRY AND SEE IF THE OTHER TWO COULD ALSO MAKE THE SAME DECISION THAT HE HAS MADE 10 THAT WE, IN EFFECT, HAVE ONLY ONE ACTUALLY ON THE TREATY ITSELF.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:03:48 PM

    MR. KYL

    I -- IF THAT WAS AN IMPRESSION, I -- I WILL TELL YOU I DIDN'T -- I DON'T…

    I -- IF THAT WAS AN IMPRESSION, I -- I WILL TELL YOU I DIDN'T -- I DON'T THINK I CAN DO THAT BUT IN ANY EVENT, I DID NOT INTEND TO TRY TO DO THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE WERE FOUR ALL TOLD. I WOULD ELIMINATE MY ONE AND THERE WOULD BE A FIXED NUMBER OF ONLY THREE POSSIBILITIES AFTER THAT.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:04:06 PM

    MR. KERRY

    PRESIDENT, COULD WE THEN SAY FOR THE RECORD WHICH AMENDMENT IS BEING…

    PRESIDENT, COULD WE THEN SAY FOR THE RECORD WHICH AMENDMENT IS BEING WITHDRAWN AT THIS POINT?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:04:16 PM

    MR. KYL

    ONLY KYL AMENDMENT REMAINING PENDING TO THE TREATY.

  • 06:04:20 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    IF THE SENATOR WOULD HOLD. THERE IS NO KYL AMENDMENT PENDING.

  • 06:04:25 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT -- MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I COULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, I -- THE…

    MR. PRESIDENT -- MADAM PRESIDENT, IF I COULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, I -- THE MAJORITY LEADER WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH US IN THIS PROCESS. SO I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO, IF I COULD ASK MY COLLEAGUE TO DO THIS, AND THERE'S NOTHING -- THERE'S NO -- I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE MOMENT IF WE CAN JUST TO WORK THROUGH THIS WITH THE MAJORITY LEADER AND WE COULD DO IT DURING THE VOTES AND THEN AT THE END OF THE VOTES, WE CAN HOPEFULLY PROPOUND SOMETHING THAT HAS HIS ENGAGEMENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:04:53 PM

    MR. KYL

    I CAN TELL MY COLLEAGUE THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD BE AGREEING NOT TO…

    I CAN TELL MY COLLEAGUE THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD BE AGREEING NOT TO BRING UP IS AMENDMENT NUMBER 4854. I MISSPOKE WHEN I SAID IT'S PENDING. IT IS FILED. TO THE TREATY ITSELF.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:05:05 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I THANK THE SENATOR. THAT HELPS US A LOT. THAT CLARIFIES IT. WHAT I'D LIKE…

    I THANK THE SENATOR. THAT HELPS US A LOT. THAT CLARIFIES IT. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS WORK WITH THE MAJORITY LEADER AND THE -- AND THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA AND I'M SURE WE COULD COME TOGETHER ON THIS AND THEN AT THE END OF THE VOTE, WE CAN PROPOUND AN APPROPRIATE --

    Show Full Text
  • 06:05:23 PM

    MR. KYL

    I'M NOT WILLING TO WITHDRAW MY AGREEMENT, WHAT I'M OF IS WE'RE NOT GOING…

    I'M NOT WILLING TO WITHDRAW MY AGREEMENT, WHAT I'M OF IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET A UNANIMOUS CONSENT BEFORE THE CLOTURE VOTE ON THE TREATY AND WE'RE GOING TO GET ICED OUT HERE. MADAM PRESIDENT, I'VE PROPOUNDED A UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO READ IT AGAIN. IF THERE'S AN OBJECTION, FINE. BUT DIE WANT TO GET AGREEMENT ON THIS, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:05:44 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA COULD REPEAT HIS REQUEST, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

  • 06:05:48 PM

    MR. KYL

    HAPPY TO. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT IT BE IN ORDER TO CALL UP FIVE…

    HAPPY TO. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT IT BE IN ORDER TO CALL UP FIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION, PROVIDED FURTHER THAT FOLLOWING THESE BE THE ONLY AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION AT THIS TIME AND ASK CONSENT THAT FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED, THAT THE SENATE THEN RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE TREATY.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:06:05 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MADAM PRESIDENT, RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT.

  • 06:06:09 PM

    MR. KERRY

    PERSONALLY AM SUPPORTIVE OF OUR TRYING TO DO THAT. I HAVE SAID TO THE…

    PERSONALLY AM SUPPORTIVE OF OUR TRYING TO DO THAT. I HAVE SAID TO THE SENATOR IN GOOD FAITH, MADAM PRESIDENT, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME -- WE NEED TO HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. WE'RE WORKING ON THEM. I'M CONFIDENT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE HIS REQUEST BUT I'M IN A POSITION WHERE I NEED TO HAVE THE INPUT OF THE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO THAT. I WILL PERSONALLY ADVOCATE THAT WE DO IT SO AT THIS MOMENT ONLY, I MUST OBJECT TO THAT REQUEST BUT I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO TRYING TO PROPOUND IT AFTER THE VOTES.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:06:44 PM

    MR. KYL

    THE EXPLANATION. ORDINARY THERE WILL WOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMATION GIVEN TO…

    THE EXPLANATION. ORDINARY THERE WILL WOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE TWO LEADERS AND WE DID NOT DO THIS IN THIS CASE SO I DO APPRECIATE HIS COMMENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:06:54 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

  • 06:06:57 PM

    MR. THUNE

    IS I STILL HAVE A FEW MINUTES IN WHICH TO WRAP UP THE DEBATE ON THIS…

    IS I STILL HAVE A FEW MINUTES IN WHICH TO WRAP UP THE DEBATE ON THIS AMENDMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:07:08 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    ALL OF THE TIME HAS BEEN USED.

  • 06:07:11 PM

    MR. THUNE

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO JUST SUMMARIZE A…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO JUST SUMMARIZE A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE. I HAD FIVE MINUTES WHICH I THINK JUST GOT BURNED.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:07:18 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 06:07:20 PM

    MR. THUNE

    YOU. MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS…

    YOU. MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS DELIVERY VEHICLE AMENDMENT, AND THE FIRST ONE IS THIS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN OBSERVED TODAY THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE AND THE SUPPORTERS OF THE TREATY HAVE SAID IT WILL NOT IMPACT PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THAT THE 700 NUMBER OF DELIVERY VEHICLES, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WERE TO MOUNT A CONVENTIONAL WARHEAD ON AN ICBM TO STRIKE A TARGET IN SOME GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT'S HARD TO HIT AND WE NEEDED TO GET THERE IN A SHORT ORDER, THE ICBM CURRENTLY IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT. IF WE DO THAT, IT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR DELIVERY VEHICLES WE HAVE ONE-FOR-ONE. SO IF WE WERE TO DO THAT ON 20 EYES ICBMs, WE WERE TO MOUNT CONVENTIONAL WARHEADS ON THOSE, IT WOULD REDUCE BY 20 THE NUMBER OF NUCLEAR DELIVERY VEHICLES THAT WE WOULD HAVE. THAT IS A FACT IN THE TREATY. AND THE FINAL I'LL MAKE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF 700, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT THAT SOME MILITARY PERSONNEL IN THE COUNTRY SUPPORT THAT NUMBER, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECALL THAT GENERAL CHILTON'S SUPPORT FROM THE NEW START LEVELS WAS PREDICATED, MADAM PRESIDENT, ON NO RUSSIAN CHEATING. HE TESTIFIED TO THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON APRIL 292nd, 2010, THAT ONE OF THE -- 22nd, 2010, THAT ONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE WHEN THE POSTURE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED WAS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE RUSSIANS IN THE POST-NEGOTIATION TIME PERIOD WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE TREATY, END QUOTE. WE ALL KNOW, IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT MANY TIMES HERE ON THE FLOOR, HOW RUSSIA IS A SERIAL VIOLATOR OF ARMS CONTROL COMMITMENTS. AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AS WE DISCUSS THE 700 NUMBER THAT PEOPLE BEAR IN MIND THAT THAT NUMBER WAS AGREED UPON BY OUR MILITARY COMMANDERS ASSUMING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHEATING BY THE RUSSIANS. AND THERE STILL IS A CONFLICT, MADAM PRESIDENT, BETWEEN THE 720 CALLED FOR IN THE NUCLEAR FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN AND THE 700 IN THE TREATY AND ALL I'M SIMPLY SAYING IS LET'S MAKE THOSE TWO NUMBERS CONSISTENT, LET'S GET THE 700 NUMBER UP TO 720. AND I THINK WITH THAT, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WILL YIELD MY TIME AND ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:09:25 PM

    MR. KERRY

    THE REMAINDER OF OUR TIME. A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?

  • 06:09:58 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    IS THERE AN OBJECTION TO ASKING FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS? WITHOUT OBJECTION,…

    IS THERE AN OBJECTION TO ASKING FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS? WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE QUESTION IS ON THE INHOFE AMENDMENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:10:00 PM

    Senate Vote 285 - On the Amendment (Inhofe Amdt No 4833)

    To increase the number of Type One and Type Two inspections allowed under the Treaty.

    Amendment Rejected (33 - 64)
    Yea
    Nay

    Vote Details: Yea - 33
    Republican - 33

    Vote Details: Nay - 63
    Republican - 8
    Democratic - 53
    Independent - 2

    Vote Details: Not Voting - 3
    Democratic - 2
    Republican - 1

  • 06:10:27 PM

    MR. THUNE

    REQUEST THE YEAS AND NAYS ON THE INHOFE AMENDMENT.

  • 06:10:30 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE…

    IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. VOTE: VOTE: VOTE:

    Show Full Text
  • 06:32:37 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR WISHING…

    PRESIDING OFFICER: ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR WISHING TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? HEARING NONE, THE YEAS ARE 33, THE NAYS --

    Show Full Text
  • 06:33:03 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY OTHER SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR…

    OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY OTHER SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR WISHING TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? HEARING NONE, THE YEAS ARE 33, THE NAYS ARE 64. THE AMENDMENT IS DEFEATED. A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:33:22 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    ARE NOW TWO MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED --

  • 06:33:33 PM

    MR. REID

    OF SENATORS, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE THUNE…

    OF SENATORS, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE THUNE AMENDMENT BE TEN MINUTES IN DURATION. EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT OBJECTION.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:33:42 PM

    MR. THUNE

    SENATOR LeMIEUX HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT IS PENDING. I WOULD ASK THAT THAT…

    SENATOR LeMIEUX HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT IS PENDING. I WOULD ASK THAT THAT VOTE FOLLOW THE THUNE AMENDMENT AND THAT ALSO BE TEN MINUTES IN ORDER.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:33:59 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS THE FLOOR.

  • 06:34:03 PM

    MR. REID

    IS THERE OBJECTION?

  • 06:34:37 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THERE OBJECTION?

  • 06:34:40 PM

    MR. REID

    ALSO SAY, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT THAT WILL VERY LIKELY BE THE LAST VOTE…

    ALSO SAY, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT THAT WILL VERY LIKELY BE THE LAST VOTE TONIGHT. I HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SENATOR KYL AND SENATOR KERRY. THEY ARE GOING TO MEET EARLY IN THE MORNING TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING ON THIS. THE ONE MESSAGE I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE GETS HERE, I SNOW EVERYONE HAS LOTS OF THINGS TO DO THIS WEEK, BUT ON THIS MOST IMPORTANT TREATY, NO ONE NEEDS TO FEEL THAT THEY ARE BEING JAMMED ON TIME. AS BUSY AS WE ALL ARE AND AS MANY THINGS AS WE WANT TO DO IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. SO IF ANYONE HAS ANY ISSUES THAT THEY STILL WANT TO DEAL WITH, TALK TO SENATOR KERRY OR SENATOR KYL OR SENATOR LUGAR WHO IS THE COMANAGER ON THE OTHER SIDE.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:35:29 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. WHO YIELDS TIME?

  • 06:36:00 PM

    Senate Vote 286 - On the Amendment (Thune Amdt No 4841)

    To modify the deployed delivery vehicle limits of the Treaty.

    Amendment Rejected (33 - 64)
    Yea
    Nay

    Vote Details: Yea - 33
    Republican - 33

    Vote Details: Nay - 63
    Republican - 8
    Democratic - 53
    Independent - 2

    Vote Details: Not Voting - 3
    Democratic - 2
    Republican - 1

  • 06:36:05 PM

    MR. REID

    I YIELD BACK THE TWO MINUTES ON OUR SIDE.

  • 06:36:08 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION. ALL TIME IS YIELDED BACK. THE QUESTION IS ON THE THUNE…

    WITHOUT OBJECTION. ALL TIME IS YIELDED BACK. THE QUESTION IS ON THE THUNE AMENDMENT. THE YEAS AND NAYS HAVE BEEN ORDERED. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. VOTE: VOTE:

    Show Full Text
  • 06:50:23 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE…

    OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE?

    Show Full Text
  • 06:50:38 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    HEARING NORNTION THE YEAS ARE 33, THE NAYS ARE 64 -- HEARING NONE, THE…

    HEARING NORNTION THE YEAS ARE 33, THE NAYS ARE 64 -- HEARING NONE, THE YEAS ARE 33, THE NAYS ARE 64. THE AMENDMENT IS DEFEATED.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:50:52 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THERE ARE NOW FOUR MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO A VOTE ON THE…

    OFFICER: THERE ARE NOW FOUR MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO A VOTE ON THE LeMIEUX AMENDMENT. THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. THE SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:51:10 PM

    MR. LeMIEUX

    MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS AMENDMENT SAYS SIMPLY ONE THING, THAT WITHIN ONE…

    MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS AMENDMENT SAYS SIMPLY ONE THING, THAT WITHIN ONE YEAR'S TIME OF THE RATIFICATION OF THIS TREATY, THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA WOULD SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS TREATY. WHY DO I BRING THIS FORWARD? BECAUSE WE KNOW, AND WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT IT TODAY IN OUR CLOSED SESSION, THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS DISPARITY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT OUR COUNTRY HAS AT 300 AND THE RUSSIANS HAVE AT 3,000. 10-1. IF THIS TREATY IS RATIFIED, THE RUSSIANS WILL HAVE 4,500 NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE WILL HAVE 1,800. THIS IS NOT A POISON PILL. YOU WILL HEAR THAT. IT'S NOT. IT DOES NOT CHANGE A MATERIAL TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. IT JUST SAYS, WITHIN A YEAR'S TIME, WE WILL SIT DOWN AND ENTER INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS. AND WE NEED TO PUT IT IN THE TREATY BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. IF WE SEND THIS TREATY WITH THIS AMENDMENT BACK TO THE RUSSIAN DUMA AND THEY DON'T APPROVE IT, WHAT DOES THAT SAY? IT SAYS THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY'VE GOT A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE OVER US. IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. IT'S SOMETHING I THINK ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE TO. IT'S NOT A POISON PILL AND LET'S APPROVE IT. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:52:20 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 06:52:30 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I'LL BE VERY, VERY BRIEF.

  • 06:52:34 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER.

  • 06:52:39 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE SENATOR HERE. ALL OF US AGREE…

    I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE SENATOR HERE. ALL OF US AGREE I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS TREATY WITH RUSSIA. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS, ACCORDING TO OUR NATO ALLY, ACCORDING TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY REPRESENTATIVES, WILL ACTUALLY PREVENT US FROM GETTING TO THE PLACE WHERE WE NEGOTIATE THAT BECAUSE THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET THE RUSSIANS TO THE TABLE IS PASS THE START TREATY. IF YOU PASS THE NEW START TREATY TREATY, WE CAN ENGAGE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. IF YOU DON'T PASS IT, THEY'LL HAVE NO CONFIDENCE YOU SIMPLY GO BACK TO GROUND ZERO AND BEGIN NEGOTIATING ALL THE PRE-START ITEMS AGAIN BEFORE YOU COULD EVER GET THERE. WE JUST CAN'T PASS THIS UNILATERALLY AND ORDER THEM TO GET THERE. WE HAVE TO GET INTO THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. THE WAY TO DO THAT IS PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE START TREATY AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THOSE AGREEMENTS. WE HAVE THAT IN THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT URGES THE PRESIDENT AND EMBRACES THIS NOTION OF THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. I CONGRATULATE HIM FOR WANTING TO TARGET IT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO TARGET AND WE WILL DO IT IN THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. I YIELD BACK ANY TIME.

    Show Full Text
  • 06:53:52 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT.

  • 06:53:59 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE…

    PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE APPEARS TO BE. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. VOTE:

    Show Full Text
  • 06:54:00 PM

    Senate Vote 287 - On the Amendment (LeMieux Amdt No 4847)

    To amend the Treaty to require negotiations to address the disparity between tactical nuclear weapon stockpiles.

    Amendment Rejected (35 - 62)
    Yea
    Nay

    Vote Details: Yea - 35
    Republican - 35

    Vote Details: Nay - 61
    Republican - 6
    Democratic - 53
    Independent - 2

    Vote Details: Not Voting - 3
    Democratic - 2
    Republican - 1

  • 07:08:22 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY OTHER SENATORS WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE…

    PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY OTHER SENATORS WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE? SEEING MORNING THE YEAS ARE 35, THE NAYS ARE 62. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED MAJORITY.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:08:55 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.

  • 07:09:05 PM

    MR. GRASSLEY

    FOR LESS THAN SEVEN MINUTES -- OR ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES AS IF IN MORNING…

    FOR LESS THAN SEVEN MINUTES -- OR ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:09:11 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. IS THERE AN OBJECTION? HEARING NONE,…

    THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. IS THERE AN OBJECTION? HEARING NONE, WITHOUT OBJECTION.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:09:27 PM

    MR. GRASSLEY

    I SPEAK TODAY TO HONOR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PEOPLE OF IOWA AND THE SENATE…

    I SPEAK TODAY TO HONOR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PEOPLE OF IOWA AND THE SENATE WHO'S RETIRING THAT'S BEEN ON MY STAFF FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. TODAY I WANT TO THANK --

    Show Full Text
  • 07:09:41 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    ORDER IN THE SENATE. PLEASE CARRY YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUT OF THE WELL.

  • 07:09:45 PM

    MR. GRASSLEY

    TODAY I WANT TO THANK A LONGTIME MEMBER OF MY STAFF WHO IS RETIRING FROM…

    TODAY I WANT TO THANK A LONGTIME MEMBER OF MY STAFF WHO IS RETIRING FROM THE SENATE. MARY DAY BEGAN WORKING IN MY CEDAR RAPIDS OFFICE IN 1987 AS A CONSTITUENT SERVICES SPECIALIST, AND IN 1996 TOOK OVER THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BEING A REGIONAL DIRECTOR BASED IN THE SAME OFFICE. YOU'D BE HARD-PRESSED TO FIND SOMEBODY IN THE REGION WHO DOESN'T KNOW MARY DAY. IT'S NO WONDER. SHE IS A TIRELESS WORKER FOR THE 14th-COUNTRY AREA IN EASTERN IOWA -- 14-COUNTY AREA IN EASTERN IOWA AND HER INFECTIOUS SENSE OF HUMOR, GENUINE DEMEANOR AND KINDNESS WAS SOUGHT BY THOSE SHE CAME ACROSS IN HER DAILY TRAVELS AROUND THE REGION. THERE ISN'T ANYBODY WHO KNOWS THE PULSE OF THE COMMUNITY LIKE MARY. SHE'S BEEN THROUGH THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. SHE'S SEEN HISTORIC FLOODS AND BUSINESS DOWNTURNS. THROUGH IT ALL, MARY HAS REMAINED A GOOD-HEARTED, CONSCIENTIOUS AND EFFECTIVE STAFF MEMBER. WE SPENT MANY HOURS OVER THE YEARS TRAVELING FROM COUNTY TO TO COUNTY IN HER REGION. MARY WASN'T ALWAYS THE MOST SPIRITED OR ACTIVE PERSON IN THE EARLY HOURS OF THE DAY, BUT SHE WAS FOREVER RELIABLE AND DEPENDABLE, NO MATTER WHAT HOUR OF THE DAY. NOT ONLY HAS MARY BEEN DEDICATED TO THE PEOPLE OF IOWA BUT SHE HAS ALSO SERVED AS A MENTOR, CONFIDANT AND FRIEND TO OTHERS ON MY STAFF. HER COLLEAGUES SAY THAT MARY WAS THEIR GO-TO PERSON. SHE KNEW THE BUREAUCRACY INSIDE AND OUT AND HAD SOUND ADVICE ON HOW TO HANDLE JUST ABOUT ANY SITUATION. THE PEOPLE OF IOWA HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO HAVE SOMEBODY LIKE MARY DAY WORKING ON THEIR STAFF FOR THE PAST 23 YEARS. I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO HAVE HER REPRESENT ME IN SUCH A WELL-RESPECTED AND HONEST MANNER MANNER. SO THANK YOU, MARY, FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR ME AND THE PEOPLE OF IOWA AND AS A SERVANT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. I ALSO RISE TODAY, MR. PRESIDENT, TO PAY TRIBUTE TO A FRIEND AND A TRUSTED ADVISOR. WYTHE WILEY --

    Show Full Text
  • 07:12:09 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: JUST A MOMENT, SENATOR. CAN WE HAVE ORDER IN THE CHAMBER, PLEASE.…

    OFFICER: JUST A MOMENT, SENATOR. CAN WE HAVE ORDER IN THE CHAMBER, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:12:14 PM

    MR. GRASSLEY

    START OVER, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE TODAY TO PAY TRIBUTE TO A FRIEND AND…

    START OVER, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE TODAY TO PAY TRIBUTE TO A FRIEND AND TRUSTED ADVISOR. WYTHE WILIE HEROICALLY LOST A TWO-YEAR BATTLE WITH CANCER ON SATURDAY. WYTHE WILIE WAS A PERSON WHO LEFT A MARK. IF YOU EVER MET HIM, YOU'D BE HARD-PRESSED TO FORGET HIM. HE WAS A IOWA FARM BOY THROUGH AND THROUGH, WHETHER HE WAS LIVING IN DES MOINES OR CEDAR RAPIDS. HE VALUED HIS FRIENDSHIPS AND HE VALUED EVERYBODY HE MET ALONG HIS LIFE'S JOURNEY. WYTHE HAD A PASSION FOR AGRICULTURE AND PARTICULARLY FOR CATTLE BUSINESS BUT ALSO FOR POLITICS. HE HAD ONE OF THE MOST ASTUTE POLITICAL MINDS I'VE EVER MET. TO SIT AND TALK POLITICS WITH WYTHE WAS AN INVIGORATING ENDEAVOR. HIS POLITICAL SENSE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL NEVER FAILED TO BRING ADDITIONAL INSIGHT TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN. THERE'S A SAYING AMONG MY FORMER AND CURRENT STAFF, "ONCE A GRASSLEY STAFFER, ALWAYS A GRASSLEY STAFFER." WELL, WYTHE WAS THE EPITOME OF THAT MODEL. HE WORKED ON MY IOWA STAFF FROM 1981-1987. WHEN HE LEFT, HE HAD ALREADY LEFT HIS MARK BUT HE WAS FAR -- HE WAS FAR FROM HELPING PEOPLE OF IOWA. DURING THE TIME ON MY STAFF AND YEARS SINCE THEN, WYTHE HELPED ME BY HEADING A COMMITTEE TO VET FEDERAL JUDICIAL U.S. ATTORNEY AND U.S. MARSHAL NOMINEES. EVEN WHEN HE WAS INVOLVED IN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, WYTHE'S HEART WAS ALWAYS WITH HIS FAMILY FARM. NO MATTER WHERE HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER TOOK HIM, HE CONTINUED TO RUN THE CENTURY-OLD FARM NEAR MAKOKUOTA. CATTLEMEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND IOWA KNEW FEW SUPPORTERS WHO FOUGHT FOR THEIR INTERESTS MORE THAN WYTHE DID. HE WAS PRESIDENT BOTH OF THE IOWA CATTLEMEN ASSOCIATION AND ALSO THEIR NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AS PRESIDENT OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S CALLED THE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION. HE WAS IN THAT POSITION TIRELESS IN HIS ADVOCACY TO GIVE IOWA BEEF PRODUCERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BENEFIT FROM THE MARKET. I HAVE A LOT OF GOOD MEMORIES OF WYTHE, INCLUDING HOW HE STOLE THE TAX COUNCIL FROM MY WASHINGTON OFFICE AND -- COUNSEL FROM MY WASHINGTON OFFICE AND ENDED UP MARRYING HER. THEY DIDN'T THINK I KNEW MUCH ABOUT IT BUT I KNEW WHEN SUSAN STARTED SPENDING MORE AND MORE TIME IN IOWA. WYTHE AND SUSAN WERE ONE OF THE FIRST OF SEVERAL GRASSLEY OFFICE ROMANCES AND SET A PRECEDENT FOR YEARS TO COME. ONE LAST MEMORY THAT I'LL NEVER FORGET IS THAT WHEN I LEARNED THAT HE WAS SUPPORTING MY CANDIDACY FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN 1980, AT THAT TIME, WYTHE WORKED FOR THE GOVERNOR, WHO HAD BACKED MY OPPONENT IN THE PRIMARY -- PRIMARY. I CAN NEVER THANK HIM ENOUGH FOR HIS TRUST IN ME. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WASN'T AN EASY THING TO DO BECAUSE OF HIS CLOSENESS TO THE GOVERNOR AT THAT TIME. WYTHE REMAINED A LOYAL FRIEND AND TRUSTED ADVISER UP TO HIS DEATH AND FOR THAT I AM FOREVER THANKFUL. I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?

    Show Full Text
  • 07:15:51 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.

  • 07:15:56 PM

    MR. CORKER

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER 4904 TO THE RESOLUTION OF…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER 4904 TO THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION BE BROUGHT UP AS PENDING.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:16:13 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE AN OBJECTION?

  • 07:16:19 PM

    MR. KYL

    TO OBJECT. DID SENATOR CORKER ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT?

  • 07:16:24 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    . TO CALL UP THE AMENDMENT.

  • 07:16:28 PM

    MR. KYL

    THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

  • 07:16:33 PM

    MR. CORKER

    THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

  • 07:16:35 PM

    MR. KYL

    MR. PRESIDENT, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING -- MIGHT I ASK THE SENATOR FROM…

    MR. PRESIDENT, WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING -- MIGHT I ASK THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE WHETHER HE'D TALKED TO ONE OF THE SENATORS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA ABOUT THIS?

    Show Full Text
  • 07:16:55 PM

    MR. CORKER

    HAD NOT. I ATTEMPTED TO DO SO. HE WAS OFF THE FLOOR BY THE TIME --

  • 07:17:01 PM

    MR. KYL

    ANY OBJECTIONS AS LONG AS WE RETURN TO THE TREATY SO THOSE WHO RETURN TO…

    ANY OBJECTIONS AS LONG AS WE RETURN TO THE TREATY SO THOSE WHO RETURN TO THE TREATY WOULD THEORETICALLY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS PROTECTED --

    Show Full Text
  • 07:17:20 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THERE ANY OBJECTION?

  • 07:17:22 PM

    MR. KYL

    NOT OBJECT. I WOULD SIMPLY NOTE THAT I THINK WE WILL NEED TO HAVE AN…

    NOT OBJECT. I WOULD SIMPLY NOTE THAT I THINK WE WILL NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING HERE THAT WE WILL NEED TO WORK THROUGH WITH OUR OTHER INTERESTED COLLEAGUES A WAY FORWARD ON THESE THINGS AND HAVING EXPRESSED THAT AS A MATTER OF GOOD FAITH, I SUSPECT THAT WE CAN DO THAT.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:17:40 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

  • 07:17:45 PM

    MR. CORKER

    I COULD, I ALSO WOULD LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ACCEPT THE PLOD…

    I COULD, I ALSO WOULD LIKE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ACCEPT THE PLOD INDICATIONS. IT -- MODIFICATIONS. IT IS MODIFIED SLIGHTLY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. WAS THERE A CHANGE?

    Show Full Text
  • 07:18:20 PM

    MR. CORKER

    I SPEAK? IT WAS A MODIFICATION THAT THE STAFF OR CHAIRMAN HAD SUGGESTED.

  • 07:18:42 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE NO OBJECTION.

  • 07:18:45 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

  • 07:18:47 PM

    THE CLERK

    THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE, MR. CORKER, PROPOSES AMENDMENT 4904, AS…

    THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE, MR. CORKER, PROPOSES AMENDMENT 4904, AS MODIFIED.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:18:54 PM

    MR. CORKER

    YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ALSO I'D LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT NOW THAT WE…

    YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ALSO I'D LIKE TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT NOW THAT WE RETURN TO THE TREATY ITSELF.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:19:01 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATE IS ON THE TREATY.

  • 07:19:07 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.

  • 07:19:10 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL:

  • 07:23:51 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 07:23:53 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL PROCEEDINGS BE DISPENSED WITH.

  • 07:23:59 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PROCEED AS IF IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND AS IF…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PROCEED AS IF IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS IN ORDER TO PROCESS SOME CLEARED LEGISLATIVE ITEMS.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:24:08 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BE…

    MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4748 AND THE SENATE PROCEED TO ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:24:21 PM

    THE CLERK

    TO AMEND THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF…

    TO AMEND THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006 TO REQUIRE A NORTHERN BORDER COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:24:36 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THERE OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING TO THE MEASURE? IF NOT, THE COMMITTEE IS…

    THERE OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING TO THE MEASURE? IF NOT, THE COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED AND THE SENATE WILL PROCEED.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:24:43 PM

    MR. KERRY

    ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT A SCHUMER SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS AT THE…

    ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT A SCHUMER SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS AT THE DESK, BE AGREED TO THE BILL, AS AMENDED, BE READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE, WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE AND ANY STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE BILL BE PLACED IN THE RECORD IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AS IF READ.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:25:01 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 07:25:05 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE HOMELAND SECURITY AND…

    MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1746, AND THE SENATE PROCEED TO ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:25:20 PM

    THE CLERK

    TO AMEND THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE…

    TO AMEND THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE PREDISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:25:34 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING TO THE MEASURE? IF NOT, THE…

    OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING TO THE MEASURE? IF NOT, THE COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED AND THE SENATE WILL PROCEED.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:25:42 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE LIEBERMAN SUBSTITUTE…

    MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE LIEBERMAN SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS AT DESK BE AGREED TO, THE BILL AS AMENDED BE READ THREE TIMES AND PASSED, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE MATTER BE PLACED IN THE RECORD AS IF RETD. -- AS IF READ.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:25:59 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED FROM…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6412 AND SENATE PROCEED TO ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:26:09 PM

    THE CLERK

    TO AMEND TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE TO REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO…

    TO AMEND TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE TO REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SHARE CRIMINAL RECORDS WITH STATE SENTENCING COMMISSIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:26:20 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING TO THE MEASURE? IF NOT,…

    OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING TO THE MEASURE? IF NOT, COMMITTEE IS DISCHARGED AND THE SENATE WILL PROCEED.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:26:29 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE BILL BE READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED, THE…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE BILL BE READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID ON THE TABLE WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE AND ANY STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE BILL BE PLACED IN THE RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AS IF READ.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:26:46 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.

  • 07:26:48 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL:…

    THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL: MR.

    Show Full Text
  • 07:29:32 PM

    Quorum Call

  • 08:06:08 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

  • 08:06:10 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.

  • 08:06:15 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED EN BLOC…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BE DISCHARGED EN BLOC OF THE FOLLOWING NOMINATIONS: PN2353 AND P.N.2349, THAT THE SENATE THEN PROCEED EN BLOC TO THE NOMINATIONS, THAT THE NOMINATIONS BE CONFIRMED EN BLOC AND THE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE TABLE, THAT ANY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE NOMINATIONS APPEAR AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RECORD AS IF READ. THE PRESIDENT BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF THE SENATE'S ACTION AND THE SENATE THEN RESUME LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

    Show Full Text
  • 08:06:47 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

    WITHOUT OBJECTION.

  • 08:06:50 PM

    MR. KERRY

    PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AFTER ANY LEADER TIME ON TUESDAY,…

    PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AFTER ANY LEADER TIME ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER DECEMBER 21st, SENATOR ALEXANDER BE RECOGNIZED FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES. ING THAT FOLLOWING HIS REMARKS, THE SENATE THE HOUSE MESSAGE WITH RESPECT TO H.R. 3082 AND THAT THE TIME UNTIL 10:15 A.M. BE DIVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 10 MINUTES UNDER THE CONTROL OF SENATOR INOUYE OR DESIGNEE, 15 MINUTES UNDER THE CONTROL OF SENATOR McCAIN. THAT UPON THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME, THE SENATE THEN PROCEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE REID MOTION TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3082 WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 4885. FURTHER THAT UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE VOTE, SENATOR SPECTER THEN BE RECOGNIZED FOR HIS FAREWELL SPEECH. THAT ANY TIME UTILIZED BY SENATOR SPECTER COUNT POSTCLOTURE IF APPLICABLE.

    Show Full Text
  • 08:07:50 PM

    MR. KERRY

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN THE SENATE COMPLETES ITS BUSINESS TODAY,…

    I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN THE SENATE COMPLETES ITS BUSINESS TODAY, IT ADJOURN UNTIL 9:30 A.M. ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21st, THAT FOLLOWING THE PRAYER AND PLEDGE, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS BE APPROVED TO DATE, THE MORNING HOUR BE DEEMED EXPIRED, THE TIME FOR THE TWO LEADERS BE RESERVED UNTIL LATER IN THE DAY, AND THAT FOLLOWING ANY LEADER REMARKS, SENATOR ALEXANDER BE RECOGNIZED IN MORNING BUSINESS FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES AND THAT FOLLOWING HIS REMARKS THE SENATE RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO CONCUR WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE MESSAGE ON H.R. 3082 AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER.

    Show Full Text
  • 08:08:26 PM

    MR. KERRY

    MR. PRESIDENT, SENATORS SHOULD EXPECT THE FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY TO BEGIN…

    MR. PRESIDENT, SENATORS SHOULD EXPECT THE FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY TO BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 A.M. TOMORROW. THAT VOTE WILL BE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE MOTION TO CONCUR WITH RESPECT TO H.R. 3082, WHICH IS THE VEHICLE FOR THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION. FOLLOWING THE VOTE, SENATOR SPECTER WILL DELIVER HIS FAREWELL REMARKS TO THE SENATE. UPON DISPOSITION OF THE C.R., THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE NEW START TREATY. WE ALSO HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO CONSIDER THE PEARSON AND MARTINEZ NOMINATIONS AND WE COULD DEBATE ON THOSE TOMORROW AFTERNOON. SO IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE SENATE, I ASK THAT IT ADJOURN UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER.

    Show Full Text
  • 08:09:13 PM

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER

Briefings for December 20, 2010

  • No Briefings Covered
View all Congressional News Conferences

Hearings for December 20, 2010

Today
  • No Hearings Covered
View All Senate Hearings

Statistics

115th Congress - Senate
Total Hours: 1668 (After 506 days)
  • Debate1019 Hours
  • Quorum Calls384 Hours
  • Votes265 Hours

Click a category within the legend to toggle its visibility.

Source: Resume of Congressional Activity (senate.gov)