Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I would like to add a few comments to those of the Senator from Michigan.

First, I would like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. We are looking at ICBMs reduced from 450 to 420 and in some cases those ICBMs being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they are carrying--modest reductions.

When we look at some relaunch ballistic missiles, we are looking at a fleet of 14 Trident submarines, and we are looking at keeping all 14 of those, reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20--again, a modest reduction. Indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one point in time, and they do not count against the numbers in this treaty.

In bombers, we are looking at 18 Stealth missiles currently--Stealth bombers, and keeping all 18--or B-2s, as they are known. We look at modest reductions in our aging, ancient, antique fleet of B-52s, modest reductions there.

In its entirety, what this represents is modest changes to the existing structure negotiated by a Republican administration and maintenance of verification regimes incredibly important to our national security. In that context, we have to look at various amendments being raised that, if they were sincere about their purpose, would be added to the resolution we are passing. But if their real purpose is to kill the treaty, then of course it comes in the form of an amendment to the treaty, which would effectively, in fact, do that.

So let's look at the structure of the issues that were put forward here.

First, the goal of this START treaty is to address strategic, not short-range tactical nuclear weapons which have never been covered by a treaty, including those negotiated by a Republican administration.

Second, tactical weapons are categorically different from strategic arms because they do not pose an immediate catastrophic threat to the U.S. homeland that strategic weapons do. With shorter range and smaller yield, they are intended for battlefield use.

I would note the quotation of General Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who said:

The most proximate threat to the U.S. are the ICBM and SLBM weapons because they can and are able to target the U.S. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country.

So we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. Tactical weapons do not have the proximate threat that ICBMs and SLBMs do.

I also note that if you look at this from the Russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in Europe. Numerous European nations have tactical weapons which can reach the Soviet--reach the Russian Federation, formerly the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the Russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the United States.

I then note that we have already addressed this issue in the Senate ratification resolution, which states that ``the President should 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 the tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.'' So it is already in the resolution of ratification.

Then I would note that Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton said in a letter:

We agree with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's call in the resolution of Advice and Consent to ratification of the New START treaty to pursue an agreement with the Russians to address them.

Tactical weapons represents a thorny issue because it involves the European powers and it involves disparities of geography. That it is why it has been so hard to link them in the past to a strategic nuclear treaty and why they have not done so in this case. But it is the commitment by the Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary of State, by the President, and by this Senate through this resolution of ratification to pursue this issue that is important, and that is what is before us now.

In terms of addressing this issue, there are changes that need to be made to the language, to the ratification resolution. That would be appropriate. But this treaty, which greatly enhances the security of the United States of America while providing the appropriate verification protocols, is absolutely essential.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source