Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I too want to rise in strong support of the McCain-Barrasso amendment to strike language from the preamble of this treaty to link strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms. This language in the preamble is highly troubling, because it reestablishes an unwise linkage between offensive arms and defensive arms that was broken when the ABM treaty came to an end.

More troubling is the fact that the New START treaty contains specific limitations on missile defense in article V. Moreover, Russia's unilateral statement that the treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively is also extremely troubling.

When viewed together, the New START treaty's preamble, the limitations on missile defense in article V, and Russia's unilateral statement, amount to a Russian attempt to find a leverage point and exert political pressure upon the United States to forestall deploying a robust missile defense capability by threatening to withdraw from the treaty if we seek to increase our missile defense capabilities.

The remedy for this concern is very simple. It is for the Senate to strike the offensive preamble language. That is why I wholeheartedly support the effort to strike this language from the preamble, as well as an amendment to strike paragraph 3 of article V of the treaty.

There have been conflicting statements made about the preamble and its significance. We have heard supporters of the treaty say that the preamble is a throwaway, and it means nothing. Then, on the other hand, you have got people saying that, well, if you change this, if you strike this language, it is a treaty killer. So we are hearing what are essentially contradictory statements that this means everything and it means nothing. That cannot be. So I would say it is critically important that we as a nation continue to quantitatively and qualitatively build up our missile defense systems. We know that rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea are rapidly building up their ballistic missile capabilities to eventually be able to strike our country.

We cannot let another nation have a vote on whether we build up our missile defenses. I am very confident that if Russia threatens to withdraw from this treaty when we seek to qualitatively and quantitatively improve our missile defenses, the administration will cave in to the Russians. We have already seen something such as this happen with the administration abruptly ending the Bush administration's efforts to build a third missile defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic. Why should we have any confidence that they will not do the same thing when something like this happens again?

That is why it is critically important that we remove this language from the preamble to eliminate any pretext by the Russians to threaten to withdraw from the treaty because we are improving our missile defense capabilities.

It is particularly galling that the administration inserted this missile defense language into the treaty, when one considers that Congress made it abundantly clear at the outset of negotiations on this treaty, specifically in section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization bill, that there should be no limitation on United States ballistic missile defense systems.

Specifically, we said:

It is the sense of Congress that the President should maintain the stated position of the United States that the follow-on treaty to the START treaty not include any limitations on the ballistic missile defense systems of the United States.

We also received repeated assurances by senior State Department officials that the treaty would do nothing to constrain missile defense. So I was surprised to see that the treaty ended up containing specific limits on some missile defense options in article V, paragraph 3, as I mentioned earlier, as well as this language in the preamble that we are currently considering in the McCain-Barrasso amendment.

When those of us who criticize this treaty point out that Russia may rely on language in the treaty's preamble as a pretext for withdrawal if the United States builds up its missile defense, the administration response is usually to say, the preamble is not legally binding.

Obviously if this language is not legally binding, then it should not be a big deal to delete it from the preamble. But it can be no accident that Russia used the words ``effective'' and ``viable'' in its unilateral statement that it would view American advances in missile defense as grounds for withdrawal from the treaty, thereby creating a textual hook to the treaty for its position.

The unilateral statement is certainly a sign of how Russia interprets the preamble. I believe, therefore, that there is ample reason to be concerned that this administration will not dedicate itself to deploying a robust missile defense that in any way irks Russia. In the preamble Russia has established a pressure point to dissuade this administration from improving our own missile defense system in a quantitative or qualitative way.

Therefore, it is extremely important that the Senate simply remove that preamble language. I wholeheartedly support the McCain-Barrasso amendment. I urge its passage, and ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THUNE. I would also simply say, again, that I do not think you can have it both ways. You cannot say that this means nothing, and at the same time that it means everything. If it is a throwaway, some language that does not mean anything, that is one thing. But if it is a deal killer for us to suggest that we ought to remove this language, which we think means something, that that is a deal killer, then somehow it means a lot more and it matters a lot more than I think the supporters and proponents of this treaty are letting on.

So I would ask that as we continue the debate, this issue be fully aired. I think we have a lot of people who have come down and talked about it. I think this is at least one amendment that I am aware of on the issue of missile defense. But I do know that in terms of the overall treaty and the concerns that some of us have about it, this issue stands out. The issue of missile defense, when you live in a dangerous world, is a critical issue when it comes to our national security. It is one that we need to take very seriously, and particularly, as has already been mentioned, the threats that we face from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. We cannot do anything that would lessen or weaken our ability to defend our country and our allies from threats from those types of countries.

I would say when it comes to this issue, it would make it a lot easier for those who are advocating support for this treaty if the McCain-Barrasso amendment were adopted. We simply delete it and strike this language, which, if it does not mean anything, should not matter all that much. And if it does mean something and it matters, I think that tells us everything we need to know about what the Russians' intentions are with regard to having that language in the preamble.

Couple that with the statements they have made in the unilateral signing statement, along with the article V language in the treaty itself. This is an issue of great importance, and we should not take it lightly, we should not minimize it. We need to have a full debate on it.

I hope we can stay on this issue. I know of the leader's plan to move tomorrow to some other legislative business. But if this particular agreement is that important to the administration and to this country and to the Senate, then we ought to be able to stay on this, and the legislative items, many of which are political items that are sort of what I would call check-the-box items that the Democratic leadership wants to get voted on, ought to be put off. We can deal with those issues another time, another year.

If we are serious about getting this treaty done, then we ought to stay on it, keep our focus on it, and allow the Senate to have a full, fair debate, open to amendments, and hopefully, ultimately, get this thing disposed of one way or the other.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source