Treaty with Russia on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to follow in a long history of strong, bipartisan support for reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons around the globe. We have a chance to strengthen American national security and restore American leadership on the nuclear agenda. I am hopeful that the Senate will choose the right path and vote in favor of ratification of the New START treaty.

I want to thank Senators Kerry and Lugar for their tireless, impressive work on the New START treaty.

Former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, in explaining his support for the New START Treaty, told our committee earlier this year that the Senate's decision on New START ``will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge.'' Senators Kerry and Lugar have done everything in their power to make this a nonpartisan effort, and I commend them and their staff for their excellent work.

I want to also take a moment to thank the negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller, Ted Warner, their colleagues at the White House, and all the civil servants responsible for negotiating this agreement. Each of them has a lifetime of experience and impressive expertise on nuclear issues, and they all worked hard to navigate this difficult treaty process. America was well-served by your efforts, and we thank you for your leadership.

At the very beginning of this long process, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked the Senate a very important question: Is the United States better off with an agreement or without it? Today, the Senate has to answer this specific question.

We have had a very long, thorough, and vigorous debate, and some Senators may not agree with everything in the treaty text before us, and some may have problems with the process by which we are here today, but let's be clear. The vote today is not about what each of us might have done differently. The vote today is not about abstract numbers or theoretical point scoring. The historic vote today is simple: Do you believe the United States and the world are better off with an agreement or without one?

The Senate--led in a bipartisan fashion by Senators Kerry and Lugar has done an impressive job of meeting its constitutional responsibilities, and I am proud of the work we have done in giving our advice and consent to the New START treaty. The involvement of the Senate over the last year and a half and the debate we have undertaken have been worthy of the world's greatest deliberative body.

I have heard from many of my colleagues that the Senate should not be a rubber stamp in ratifying the New START Treaty--as if to suggest we have not taken our constitutional responsibilities seriously during this process. This could not be further from the truth.

First, the Senate's influence can be seen throughout the treaty document. A number of Senators met with negotiators numerous times prior to the treaty's completion, and some even traveled to Geneva during the negotiations. In many respects, from the very beginning, our negotiators were operating within a framework and boundaries as set by Senators involved in the process. The treaty itself is really a product of collective input from both the executive and congressional branches. The unique insight and input this Congress has provided throughout the negotiation process could not be replicated in any future consideration.

In addition, since we received the treaty, the Senate has done its job and has thoroughly considered this agreement. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held 12 hearings and heard testimony from 21 expert witnesses. The administration has answered over 900 questions for the record. We have also had more floor time for amendments and consideration than any other treaty of its kind. Our vigorous debate on the floor has added nuance and depth to this already thorough body of work.

It is also important to note that the Senate, in providing its advice and consent, actually writes and approves the resolution of ratification to go along with the treaty. This is not an insignificant document. This is the Senate's opportunity to influence the treaty's future interpretation and implementation and our chance to provide the declarations, understandings, and conditions to the treaty. The resolution succinctly and explicitly expresses the Senate's views on New START, and our resolution actually provides some strong statements with respect to many of the concerns raised by critics of the treaty.

For example, on missile defense, the resolution reads very clearly that the United States remains committed to missile defense, and the New START treaty does not constrain that commitment:

The New START Treaty and the ..... unilateral statement of the Russian Federation on missile defense do not limit in any way, and shall not be interpreted as limiting, activities that the U.S. currently plans or that might be required ..... to protect U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. allies from limited ballistic missile attack.

In addition, the DeMint amendment on missile defense in the resolution reads:

The United States is and will remain free to reduce the vulnerability to attack by constructing a layered missile defense capable of countering missiles of all ranges The United States is committed to improving U.S. strategic defensive capabilities both quantitatively ..... and qualitatively and such improvements are consistent with the Treaty.

On tactical nuclear weapons, the resolution reads:

The Senate calls upon the President to pursue ..... an agreement with Russia that would address the disparity between tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles ..... and would secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.

Finally, on strategic-range, nonnuclear weapon systems:

Nothing in the New START Treaty restricts U.S. research, development, testing, and evaluation of strategic-range, non-nuclear weapons ..... [or] prohibits deployments of strategic-range, non-nuclear weapon systems.

The fact is that the Senate has done its constitutional duty and has thoroughly debated and considered this important agreement.

Adding to our extensive internal debate, countless outside experts and former officials have also weighed in on this treaty. New START has the unanimous backing of our Nation's military and its leadership, including Secretary Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the commander of America's Strategic Command, and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. America's military establishment is joined by the support of every living Secretary of State--from Secretary Jim Baker to Secretary Condoleezza Rice--as well as five former Secretaries of Defense, nine former national security advisors, and former Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. The overwhelming consensus from these foreign policy and national security heavyweights has been clear: New START is in America's national security interests.

I think it is important to take a step back and remember the broader picture of the decision before us today. We are no longer talking about abstract numbers, intangible ideas or questions of process. We are talking about real nuclear weapons. We are talking about thousands of the most dangerous weapons in the history of mankind--weapons actually aimed directly at American cities.

Our arsenals are composed primarily of nuclear weapons each yielding between 100 and 1,200 kilotons of power. To give you a sense of the power of these weapons, the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima yielded around 13 kilotons of power. After New START, the United States and Russia will still be allowed an arsenal of 1,550 warheads capable of leveling cities more than five times the size of New Hampshire's largest city of Manchester.

Now, I am under no illusions that the ratification of the New START treaty will somehow by itself meet the threats posed by nuclear weapons around the globe. President Kennedy told us that attainable peace will be ``based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions'' and ``peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.'' He said:

No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of ..... all can provide absolute security ..... But it can ..... offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

New START is a step away from this ``unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable'' environment.

As the first Nation to invent and then use nuclear weapons, the United States has spent the majority of the last half century trying to reduce the risk they pose. Over five decades ago, President Eisenhower committed the United States to meeting its special responsibilities on the nuclear threat. He said:

The United States pledges before you--and therefore before the world--its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma--to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.

Eisenhower's early commitment and America's special responsibility have led to unbroken U.S. leadership in the world on the nuclear agenda. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--the cornerstone of global nonproliferation efforts--was born out of President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Peace'' vision. The original START treaty was a culmination of President Reagan's entreaty to ``trust, but verify'' Russia and its actions. The U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which has led to the deactivation of over 7,500 Russian nuclear warheads, was the result of two visionary and farsighted Senators named Nunn and Lugar.

American leadership on the nuclear agenda makes the world safer. Period.

As Secretaries Kissinger, Schultz, Perry, and Senator Nunn told us in their seminal 2007 opinion piece:

The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era ..... Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers but also a historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage--to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands.

The New START treaty should be the next step on the path of American leadership on the nuclear agenda. If we turn our back on this treaty at this time, we are turning our back on a generation of bipartisan, American leadership in this field, and we cede the field to a more dangerous and more uncertain world.

The debate over New START is now over, and the only choice left before us is this treaty or nothing. Each of us today will decide--yes or no--whether we think we are better off with a treaty or without one.

I hope we will vote on the side of the overwhelming majority of foreign policy and national security experts who have called on us to support this treaty. I hope we will vote on the side of our unanimous military and intelligence communities. I hope we will vote on the side of a legacy of American leadership on the nuclear agenda.

I am hopeful we will follow in the footsteps of the Senate's strong bipartisan history and ratify the New START treaty today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source