Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for the cooperation we have had throughout this matter. As I said when I started my debate on this amendment, I believe everyone is working in good faith, in the best interests of the United States, to attempt to develop and ratify a treaty that will be in the best interests of the United States.

I was particularly encouraged this morning to hear the chairman of the committee indicate he believes the substance of what we are talking about is an important issue, and I know he believes that. I know the intelligence community believes it. I know a lot of other parties that are involved believe this is a very important issue. We are going to talk about why this is an important issue as we go forward. After all, when we are dealing with a subject such as this, we are talking about the security of the people of the United States of America. It is not a partisan issue. It is not a win or a loss for anyone. It is developing the best we can possibly do to protect the American people.

I am nonetheless disappointed by yesterday's vote regarding missile defense. I am going to talk about that a little bit when I get into the substance of tactical weapons, but the issue of missile defense, just like the issue of strategic versus tactical weapons, is one that has been around for a long time.

It is not new. It is one of a couple of issues that were around 40 years ago when the people who originally brought us to the table with the Russians to do the work that they did. As I said before, those people were real heroes. They were patriots and did a great job of getting us to the table with the Russians, at a time when nuclear weapons was probably the most important issue facing the world.

A lot of us grew up in an era when we remember having air raid drills. I remember going to friends' houses who actually had shelters in their homes, so if indeed there was a nuclear war, they could take shelter. It is hard to believe that was the situation 40 years ago, but it was. Most people today don't have a recollection of what a serious issue that was. Those people who brought us to the table were real patriots. That was 40 years ago.

As I said before, the world has changed greatly in 40 years. Unfortunately, the dialog regarding strategic missiles has not dramatically changed in the last 40 years. We have been focused almost exclusively on numbers and to the great credit of those originally involved and to the credit of the ranking member, Senator Lugar, who is here with me today, those numbers have been dramatically reduced. We started out with each side having over 6,000 weapons that could be launched on the other side. We have continuously ratchetted that back under this treaty to 1,550. I don't want to, in any way, denigrate the fact that we have greatly reduced the number of those strategic weapons on each side.

Having said that, one has to wonder what is the difference between 6,000 and 1,550? If either party pushes the button at 6,000 or at 1,550, the world is over as we know it. So although it is important to talk about numbers, I think that in today's world, because of changing conditions, we should be as much focused on a couple of other--well, at least two other issues, one being the missile defense issue, which we talked about at great length yesterday, and the other is the relationship between strategic and tactical weapons.

Frankly, we have been pacifying the Russians regarding missile defense and regarding strategic versus tactical weapons in order to get these treaties. I understand that when you are doing treaty work, when you are negotiating, it has to be a give-and-take proposition. Having said that, these two issues have moved to the forefront and have moved to importance, compared to simply the bare number of weapons and the verification process. Again, I don't want to denigrate the verification process itself; that is important.

Today, Russia is not the threat to us when it comes to nuclear issues, as it was 40 years ago. Indeed, there was no truly great threat to us other than Russia 40 years ago. However, today, most everybody agrees the likelihood of Russia pushing the button or us pushing the button and destroying each other is very unlikely. We have a 40-year history, where we have been through good times and bad times. Neither party--with the exception of the Cuban missile crisis--has come close to or remotely close to or even threatened to push the button and start a nuclear war.

In my judgment, and I think in the judgment of people who deal with this regularly, Russia is not the nuclear threat it was 40 years ago. But there are threats out there that indeed are as bad and worse than what the Russian threat was 40 years ago. How many people believe the rogue countries, North Korea and Iran, would not threaten us--at the very least threaten us--to push the button if they indeed had the ability to immediately do so. We all know it has been reported in the press that both those countries are working feverishly to get themselves in the position where they can have a nuclear weapon mounted, poised, and ready to go, so that when they sit down at the table with us, they can look us in the eye and say: Look, we will push the button if you don't--fill in the blank.

Our media today mocks and jokes about Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il as being dysfunctional people--I think that is the kindest way of putting it. But they will not be joking about it if they get themselves in the position where they are able to legitimately threaten us with pushing the button or pulling the trigger on us with a nuclear attack.

We need to be focusing on the other aspects, starting with missile defense, because if we sit across the table from Kim Jong Il or his representatives or Ahmadinejad and the best we have to offer is a retaliatory strike, that isn't nearly as effective as having an umbrella over the top of us that can knock an errant missile out of the sky. We need a robust missile defense system.

I believe, as we said earlier, that this treaty chills that, because no matter what you say, if you read the unilateral statements made by the parties, the Russians have said that if we go forward with improving, either quantitatively or qualitatively, our missile defense system, this is grounds for withdrawing from this treaty. I don't think we should have a treaty in place that in any way chills the thinking about what we do to protect the American people with a robust missile defense system that could knock out of the sky an attack by either North Korea or Iran or even an accidental launch by the Russians, which, although remote, is a possibility.

Well, today, let's talk about something we can agree on; that is, the importance of tactical weapons in this discussion. As the distinguished chairman mentioned in his opening statement, the importance of the tactical weapons issue is a matter we should be concerned about and we should talk about. I am delighted to hear his offer that, assuming this goes by the bye, we can talk about getting something into the resolution of ratification as opposed to into the treaty.

First, for those who aren't daily speaking on this issue, the difference between strategic and tactical weapons is important. The difference is distance. A strategic weapon can reach your enemy on the other side of the ocean. A tactical weapon is a theater or short-range weapon that can be used on the battlefield. That is the difference between the two. It is a huge difference in a lot of different ways.

Although we all agree it is an important issue, and we all talk about it, nothing is done about it. Indeed, according to the statements that have been made, before we ever sat down at the table with the Russians on this issue, it was agreed we would do nothing about this issue. I hope and I urge that the President, the State Department, and all the others involved will pursue this issue aggressively and quickly once we have this treaty behind us, one way or the other.

What I want to do is to amend the preamble to the treaty, once and for all, that lays this issue on the table and tells the Russians this is an important issue and that we are no longer going to look the other way and ignore this issue. They have an advantage on us on this issue. Everyone agrees with that. But this is what I want to put into the preamble, and it is not extensive. I have heard the chairman say over and over again that the preamble doesn't mean anything or very little. With all due respect, I disagree with that. I compare it to the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, which means a lot and is frequently quoted in court cases on constitutional issues.

This is what I want to put in:

Acknowledging there is an interrelationship between nonstrategic and strategic offensive arms, that as the number of strategic offensive arms is reduced [as this treaty does] this relationship becomes more pronounced and requires an even greater need for transparency and accountability, and the disparity between the parties' arsenals could undermine predictability and stability.

That is a factual statement that, on our side, virtually everybody agrees to. Obviously, the Russians, I suspect, probably agree to that but don't want to talk about it.

Well, the problem, in its simplest terms, is that we are greatly outgunned by the Russians at this time on the tactical front. Right now, on the strategic front, according to media sources we have approximately 2,100 strategic weapons. The Russians have approximately 1,100 strategic weapons. From an intelligence standpoint, I am not confirming those numbers, but that is what is reported in the press--assuming those numbers are accurate or modestly accurate. We, obviously, are not in parity. We are in a little better shape than the Russians from a strategic standpoint.

When you consider that neither of us believe we will reach for use of our strategic weapons, it doesn't make a lot of difference that we have 1,000 more than they do and probably not that much of a difference if either one pulls the trigger. On the tactical side, however, that is a very different ball game. As we all know, we have defense treaties. The biggest one is NATO, but we have defense partnerships with many countries around the world. Under our nuclear defense umbrella, many countries take refuge. It is here that the tactical weapons become important.

On these tactical weapons, as I said, the Russians have a 10-to-1 advantage over us. Just as important, without getting into intelligence details, they have a vast array of weapons, not only a delivery system but the weapons themselves, which again outgun us and is a serious problem.

Thirdly, just as important, they continue cranking out every day new designs, new technology, new development, and new production of these tactical weapons--continuing to add to the disparity between us and the Russians.

Well, this disparity in our nuclear posture is very well demonstrated by the report Congress commissioned, entitled ``America's Strategic Posture.'' It is published in a book and known as the Perry-Schlesinger Commission. I am going to refer to that briefly because I think probably this, as much as anything, is what people use as a guide to describe where we are as far as our posture on nuclear weapons and especially on tactical weapons, which is what I am focusing on with this particular amendment.

First, let me say the Russians are relying on more tactical nuclear weapons. The Commission report, at page 12, explained that:

As part of its effort to compensate for weaknesses in its conventional forces, Russia's military leaders are putting more emphasis on nonstrategic nuclear forces [what they call NSNF] particularly weapons intended for tactical use on the battlefield. Russia no longer sees itself as capable of defending its vast territory and its nearby interests with conventional forces.

So in very short order, they have explained why the Russians are doing this, why they have us 10-to-1 on this part of the issue, and why they continue to develop it. Well, they do not have the money or the resources or the ability, because of the large territory they have, to defend with conventional forces, and so they reach for these tactical weapons that are smaller and more easily deployed.

There is a description of the tactical nuclear threat in this document at page 13, which, again, I want to quote because I think it says it as concisely as it can be said:

As the Cold War ended, and as noted above, these NSNF--

That is, nonstrategic nuclear forces, short-range weapons--

were reduced under the auspices of the PNIs--

That is, Presidential Nuclear Initiatives--

and also the Treaty on Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces of 1987. Nonetheless, Russia reportedly retains a very large number of such weapons. Senior Russian experts have reported that Russia has 3,800 operational tactical nuclear warheads with a large additional number in reserve. Some Russian military experts have written about use of very low-yield nuclear ``scalpels'' to defeat NATO forces. The combination of new warhead designs, the estimated production capacity for new nuclear warheads, and precision delivery systems, such as the Iskander short-range tactical ballistic missile (known as the SS-26 in the West), open up new possibilities for Russian efforts to threaten to use nuclear weapons to influence regional conflicts.

That is at page 13.

There is a lack of Russian transparency on this particular issue. One of the things this treaty does that we are talking about today--and I think everyone concedes that this is one of the important aspects of this treaty--is it gives us transparency with the Russians, at least to some degree. One could argue the degree, but at least there is some transparency. Not so with tactical weapons.

This is what the Commission said:

Like China, Russia has not shown the transparency that its neighbors and the United States desire on such matters. It has repeatedly rebuffed U.S. proposals for nonstrategic nuclear forces transparency measures and NATO's request for information. And it is no longer in compliance with its PNI commitments.

So that describes the transparency problem, page 13 of this particular report.

There is a need to have effective deterrence against Russian tactical weapons, and again the report points this out.

Even as it works to engage Russia and assure Russia that it need not fear encirclement and containment, the United States needs to assure that deterrence will be effective whenever it is needed. It must also continue to concern itself with stability in its strategic military relationship with Russia. It must continue to safeguard the interest of its allies as it does so. Their assurance that extended deterrence remains credible and effective may require that the United States retain numbers of types of nuclear capabilities that it might not deem necessary if it were concerned only with its own defense.

Again, this provides a description of the serious issue tactical weapons puts on the table.

Well, there is a very substantial concern about the imbalance between strategic and tactical weapons. As I said, on tactical weapons we are not only balanced, but we probably have an advantage of 1,000, but who cares if neither party really believes it is going to be used. So then you turn to the tactical weapons, which are obviously very different.

This is what the Commission says:

But that balance does not exist in nonstrategic nuclear forces, where Russia enjoys a sizable numerical advantage. As noted above, it stores thousands of these weapons in apparent support of possible military operations west of the Urals. The United States deploys a small fraction of that number in support of nuclear sharing agreements in NATO.

Let me say that again: The United States deploys a small fraction of that number in support of nuclear sharing agreements in NATO.

Precise numbers for the U.S. deployments are classified, but their total is only about 5 percent of the total at the height of the Cold War. Strict U.S.-Russian equivalents in NSNF numbers is unnecessary, but the current imbalance is stark and worrisome to some U.S. allies in Central Europe.

And to this Senator personally.

If and as reductions continue in the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons, this imbalance will become more apparent and allies less assured.

Further in this report, they say:

The imbalance favoring Russia is worrisome, including for allies, and it will become more worrisome as the number of strategic weapons is decreased.

Which, of course, is what we are trying to do with this treaty.

Dealing with this imbalance is urgent and, indeed, some commissioners would give priority to this over taking further steps to reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons.

Obviously for the reasons I said because nobody believes we will ever reach to the strategic nuclear weapons to use them.

U.S. policy should seek reductions in Russian tactical weapons. I think everyone agrees on that, and that is precisely what I am attempting to do with this amendment to the preamble.

The Strategic Posture Commission says:

U.S. policy should be guided by two principles. First, the United States should seek substantial reductions in the large force of Russian nonstrategic nuclear forces (Non-Strategic Nuclear Forces). Second, no changes to the U.S. force posture should be made without comprehensive consultation with all its U.S. allies (and within NATO as such). All allies depending on the U.S. nuclear umbrella should be assured that any changes in its forces do not imply a weakening of the U.S. extended nuclear deterrence guarantees. They could perceive a weakening if the United States (and NATO) does not maintain other features of the current extended nuclear deterrence arrangements than the day-to-day presence of U.S. nuclear bombs. Some allies have made it clear to the commission that such consultations would play a positive role in renewing confidence in U.S. security assurances.

Finally, the Perry-Schlesinger Commission endorsed tactical weapons reductions talks.

The Commission said:

The commission is prepared strongly to endorse negotiations with Russia in order to proceed jointly to further reductions in our nuclear forces as part of a cooperative effort to stabilize relations, stop proliferation, and promote predictability and transparency. The large Russian arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons must be considered in this regard.

Well, obviously everyone is concerned. I am not the only one concerned. Obviously, the Commission isn't the only one concerned about this. Members of this body are and have been for a long time concerned about this.

My distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, wrote to the Secretary of State on December 3, 2010, and she stated:

The characteristics of tactical nuclear weapons, particularly their vulnerability for theft and misuse for nuclear terrorism, make reducing their numbers important now.

Senator Collins focused on another aspect of this that we haven't really talked about that much, but certainly strategic weapons have very little opportunity--in fact, in the United States, no opportunity--for access by terrorists. Not so much on the other side. But clearly there is a great difference between tactical and strategic weapons, primarily because of the way they are deployed.

Senator Collins also said:

President Obama's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review echoes the concern of nuclear terrorism. ``The threat of nuclear war has become remote, but risk of nuclear attack has increased. Today's most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism. Al-Qaida and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons.''

That probably summarizes as clearly as anything the discussion I had at the outset about the difference of 40 years ago versus today and underscores what, in my judgment, is so important about moving this dialog forward instead of staying in the rut of where we were 40 years ago and focusing just on numbers.

Again, it is not just the Republican side of the aisle. Almost a decade ago, the SORT treaty, or Moscow treaty--another nuclear arms reduction treaty--was discussed here on the floor of the Senate, and a number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle raised this exact question regarding tactical weapons and also underscored how important it was to take on this issue. Again, even though we have advanced 40 years, nothing has happened, and nothing has happened in the last decade. About 10 years ago, the distinguished Members of this body underscored how important it was to take this issue on, and nothing has happened.

Then-Senator Biden said on July 9, 2002, in this Chamber:

My question is, if the impetus for this treaty was going down to 1,700 to 2,200, related to the bottom line of what our consensus in our government said we are going to need for our security, and the rationale for the treaty was in part to avoid this kind of debate that took place over tactical nuclear weapons, then it sort of reflects that this is what the President thinks are the most important things to proceed on relative to nuclear weapons. Does he think that dealing with the tactical nuclear weapons are not that relevant or that important now, or that things as they are relative to tactical nuclear stockpiles are OK? Talk to me about that? You understand where I am going?

Well, I do, Mr. Vice President, because that is where I am going today, but nothing has happened over the last decade.

My distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, said in this Chamber, when we were talking about that treaty:

And this treaty deals with only strategic nuclear weapons, not theater nuclear weapons. There are thousands and thousands of theater nuclear weapons, such as the nuclear weapons that go on the tips of artillery shells. That is not part of the agreement. It has nothing to do with this agreement.

He was right then, and he is right now as to this agreement.

Senator Reed, the Senator from Rhode Island, stated:

The treaty does not specifically address the problem of tactical weapons or MIRV'd ICBMs. The number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons is believed to be between 8,000 and 15,000, while the United States has approximately 2,000. Russian tactical nuclear weapons are subject to fewer safeguards and more prone to theft and proliferation. These are the proverbial suitcase weapons, often discussed in the press, which are the ones that are most mobile, most difficult to trace and detect. And the treaty does not deal with these weapons at all.

Senator Reed was right then on that treaty, and he is right on this treaty.

Regarding that treaty, Senator Conrad stated:

I was therefore disappointed that a requirement for Russian tactical warhead dismantlement and United States inspection rights were not part of the treaty of Moscow.

Well, he was right, and I share his disappointment today on this, and I think everyone shares that disappointment. That is what I am trying to move forward with this particular amendment.

Senator Conrad went on to say:

The disconnect between the ability of the United States to maintain current strategic force levels almost indefinitely, and Russia's inevitable strategic nuclear decline due do economic realities, gave our side enormous leverage that I believe we should have used to win Russian concessions on tactical nuclear arms. While I am encouraged that the resolution of ratification before us includes a declaration on accurate accounting and security, it does not mention Russian tactical nuclear reductions. I have prepared a corrective amendment and would welcome the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Thank you, Senator Conrad. I expect him to come through the door any moment and join me as a cosponsor on this amendment. He had an amendment to the last treaty and that is exactly what I am trying to do on this treaty.

Finally, Senator Feinstein, in talking about that treaty, said:

[T]he treaty does not address tactical nuclear weapons. As my colleagues know, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the number, location, and secure storage of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Smaller and more portable than strategic weapons, they are vulnerable to theft or sale to terrorist groups. Yet the treaty does not even mention them. This is a glaring oversight and the dangers posed by tactical nuclear weapons--especially now in the post-September 11 world of global terrorism--warrants the immediate attention and action by both Russia and the United States.

She also said:

This treaty marks an important step forward in the relationship between the United States and Russia and reduces the dangers posed by strategic nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the treaty does not go far enough and I believe its flaws must be addressed if we truly want to make the threat of nuclear war a thing of the past.

What has changed in the last 8 years, indeed in the last 40 years, when it comes to tactical weapons? Not much. As my colleague said 8 years ago, we should have had, in these negotiations, tremendous leverage over the Russians on this particular issue. We have a 1,000-warhead advantage on them. They are already under the numbers, and I am still not clear what we got when we agreed that the number would be 1,550, when they were already below it and we had to get down to 1,550. I am not sure what we got for that. But it would seem to me at least we should have gotten something in that regard and that something should have had to do with tactical weapons.

As I am winding down, let me correct one thing that is out there in the public domain and that is the State Department's Web site. The State Department has a Web site up that addresses this treaty and deals with many questions surrounding this treaty and has answers for the public, for the media, and for anyone who wants to go there and learn about this particular issue.

I wish to focus on one particular aspect of that; that is, the part that deals with tactical weapons that I am dealing with. The State Department Web site posts--I suppose it is under ``frequently asked questions,'' the question: ``Why doesn't the New START Treaty cover tactical weapons?''

That is a good question: ``Why doesn't the new START treaty cover tactical weapons?''

It goes on and states that:

From the outset, as agreed by Presidents Obama and [the President of Russia] ..... the issue of tactical weapons was not raised.

I guess that begs the question: Why wasn't it? But nonetheless, the question is still out there: Why doesn't it address that? This is what they state:

Deferring negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons until after a START successor agreement had been concluded was also the recommendation of the Perry-Schlesinger Strategic Posture Commission.

That is an inaccurate statement. You recall, as I read from the Perry-Schlesinger Report, that is an inaccurate statement. Some members of the Perry-Schlesinger Commission were disturbed by the fact that the Web site said they had recommended they put this off.

On December 17, 2010, half a dozen members of that Commission wrote to Senator Kerry and ranking member Senator Lugar and were protesting that particular statement on the Web site. I am going to quote from this letter. I am going to put the letter in the Record, but I am going to quote some small parts. The letter said:

As Members of the Strategic Posture Commission, we write to provide our own reality check that this does not resemble the recommendation the commission made on Russian tactical nuclear weapons.

It goes on to say:

The Commission specifically said on page 67 of its report that, ``The imbalance favoring Russia is worrisome, including for allies, and it will become more worrisome as the number of strategic weapons is decreased. Dealing with this imbalance is urgent and, indeed, some commissioners would give priority to this over taking further steps to reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of December 17 I referred to, to Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, from members of the Strategic Posture Commission.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. Let me conclude. Here we are, 40 years later and, indeed, a decade later than our most recent foray into this. Other than the raw reduction of numbers of strategic weapons, not a whole lot has changed. But the world has changed dramatically and I urge and I suggest our approach with Russia on these very important issues needs to, likewise, change--and it has not.

Once again, in this Senator's humble opinion and that of a number of other Senators also, we have been bested by the Russians on the missile defense issue. They have convinced us that if we even think about improving, either quantitative or qualitatively, missile defense issues, they will withdraw.

Once again, they convinced us before we ever sat down at table that they would not talk about nuclear weapons.

That is wrong. That is wrongheaded thinking. It was wrong to approach this treaty with that type of thing on the table. So when we are all done and the high-fiving starts and the champagne bottles are opened and the fancy documents are signed, before everybody gets all worked up about what a great and glorious thing this treaty is, I would say it is missing some important things. No. 1 is missile defense, and I guess we already crossed that bridge yesterday; but the other is the oh-so-important issue of tactical weapons.

Fellow Senators, this is your opportunity. If you want to press the reset button with Russia, this gives you your opportunity to press the reset button with Russia and take up this issue that is so important and, indeed, in the minds of many, more important than the issue of strategic weapons.

I yield the floor to Senator Kyl.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, under the UC, I believe I have the last 10 minutes. Am I correct on that? I think that was the UC.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair believes that is correct.

Mr. RISCH. So when I finish, at the conclusion of the 10 minutes, we will vote? Is that my understanding?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair believes that is correct. Correction. The Senator from Massachusetts still has 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. RISCH. My understanding is he can use that at any time and I get the last 10.

Mr. KERRY. Unless the Senator says something completely outrageous, which he has managed not to do in the course of the last 3 hours, I have no intention of using the time. But I reserve it to preserve my rights. I would be happy to yield it back after the Senator speaks, depending on him.

Mr. RISCH. I thank the Senator. I will try not to disappoint in that regard.

Mr. President, fellow Senators, distinguished chairman and ranking member, I think certainly we have had a civil and a good airing of an issue that is of considerable concern to, I think, every Member of this body. I am a little disappointed in that we started out acknowledging it was a very deep and serious concern to every Member of this body, as it was to the commission, in their Report on America's Strategic Posture.

I felt that along the line a little bit the concern was denigrated. I want to back up on that one more time and say that, in my judgment, and in the judgment of members of this commission, the issue of tactical weapons exceeds, in severity, in concern, the issue of strategic weapons.

I understand one might argue that you are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as opposed to which is of the most concern. But I come back to the reasons I gave as to why I think the tactical issue is important more than the strategic issue. That is, on the strategic issue, we are in about the same position we were 40 years ago, with the exception, and admittedly an important exception, that the raw numbers are down. When we started this 40 years ago, each party had about 6,000 warheads. As I said, if either party pulled the trigger and launched 6,000 or some significant part of that, obviously that is the deterrence that each party was counting on that neither would do that.

Today we are down to--and with all due respect to my good friend from Massachusetts, the numbers reported in the press are 1,100 and 2,100. I understand there is intelligence information that we cannot go into here. But, in any event, I think most people would agree that we have the advantage in numbers from a strategic standpoint.

Indeed, if the numbers are even close to that, the--whether it is 6,000 warheads or 1,000 warheads, when someone pulls the trigger, the party is over for this world. So focusing on the raw numbers, when we have got a 40-year history that we are not going to do that and they are not going to do that, and most people agree that neither side is inclined to pull the trigger, what are the real concerns?

The real concerns are an accidental launch from them, although remote, possible, but, more importantly, an intentional launch by a rogue nation. Obviously one would look at North Korea or one would look at Iran in that regard.

In my judgment, the two issues that need to be focused on are the defensive missile issue and the tactical nuclear weapons issue.

Let me say I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts and Senator Levin, that geography is such that the issue of tactical weapons is substantially more important on a direct basis to the Russians than it is to us. After all, we are insulated by oceans on each side of us to the east and the west, which the Russians do not enjoy, and they have a several hundred-year history of seeing invasions come by land and intermediately, which we do not have.

So in that regard I will concede certainly that the tactical issue is important for them. And the good Senator from Massachusetts makes a good point in that I think they would like to relocate, if they could, their tactical weapons to be focused more on the Chinese threat and perhaps more on the threat from the south, from other countries. We ought to help them out in that regard by entering into negotiations in that regard on the tactical weapons.

But I come back to the tactical weapons are an

important issue. Senator Levin says they are a concern. Senator Levin says, we should not kill this treaty simply because of a concern, and I agree with Senator Levin. I have not, from day one, said we ought to kill this treaty. I have said from day one, everyone has convinced me, and I think virtually everyone else, that we are much better off with a treaty than we are without a treaty.

I think everyone has worked in good faith in that regard. But, on the other hand, having said that, I do not think we should then throw in the towel and say: Well, okay, we will agree to any treaty. That brings me to the point of where we are. We are exercising our constitutional right that every one of us--not only our right but our duty as a Senator, to advise and consent on this treaty and any other treaty that is put in front of us, and that is where I have problems.

The position we have been put in is these negotiations have gone on, the treaty has been negotiated, it has been signed by the President, and it has been put in front of us, and what we are told is, it is a take it or leave it. If you do not vote for this, you are voting to kill the treaty.

I disagree with that. I think simply because we amend the preamble to this treaty is not a killer. Indeed, my good friend from Massachusetts keeps telling us, the preamble does not mean anything, it is a throw-away, the language is a throw-away, it does not mean anything.

Well, it does mean something, particularly when it comes to the context in which you interpret and you react to the treaty. So to everyone here, I say, you have the opportunity to set the restart button with Russia, and we can do it by focusing on what is an extremely important issue, which most everyone here agrees is an extremely important issue, but nobody ever does anything about it.

So let's tell the negotiators: Go back to the table and at least agree that the interrelationship between the strategic and tactical weapons is an important issue, and we are not going to go on as we have over the last 40 years. The times have changed. We trust you are not going to pull the trigger on us, and you trust that we are not going to pull the trigger on you. But this issue of tactical weapons where we enjoy, if you would, a 10-to-1 disadvantage to the Russians, we have tactical weapons that are out there that can be much more easily gotten ahold of by terrorists than strategic weapons. We have tactical weapons that continue to be designed, continue to be manufactured, and continue to be deployed by the other side, in violation of their admittedly individual Presidential initiatives, which needs to be addressed.

It is so important that people on this commission said that it should be addressed before strategic weapons. You have the opportunity to put that in here. There is no intent to kill this. It is an intent to make it better. We have the right. We have the duty. We must advise and consent. I urge that my colleagues vote in favor of this very good amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. Has the time expired?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has slightly less than a minute left.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, as I yield back----

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, is the next vote going to be on this amendment or are the judges going to be voted on first?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The next vote is on the Risch amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will yield back the time momentarily. I want to say one thing. The commission report that the Senator refers to and has held up, the two principal authors are former Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, who says: The absence of the tactical nuclear should not detract from the merits of this treaty, and he is in favor of our ratifying this treaty, and Jim Schlesinger, who was his coauthor, who worked with Republican Presidents as a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, said, ``The ratification of this treaty is obligatory.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I say to Senator Kerry, I respect that. I would remind everyone that I filed a letter dated December 17 to Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar from six members of the commission, including James Schlesinger, which says that:

Dealing with this imbalance is urgent--

Referring to the tactical weapons--

Dealing with this imbalance is urgent, and, indeed, some Commissioners would give priority to this over taking further steps to reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons.

I agree. I thank the good chairman and ranking member for a very good dialogue on this particular issue.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source