Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before the Senate at this moment is the New START treaty, an agreement between the United States and Russia. This is an effort to try to make this a safer world, to make certain that the nuclear weapons that are in this world are carefully monitored, that they are watched and inspected, and that we reduce any urge to expand nuclear weaponry. It is an attempt to make this is a safer world.

The President worked long and hard on this. He brought it for consideration months ago, almost 7 months ago, and we have had hundreds--at least 200 hearings. I am sorry, let me restate that. We have had many Senate hearings--I don't have the exact number before me, but I will get it--on this matter. We have had many efforts at every level to bring experts from across America and from around the world to support our effort and bring this matter before us.

What troubles me, Madam President, is the same thing we discussed earlier at a press conference. We brought this matter to the floor of the Senate over 24 hours ago. Yet speaker after speaker on the Republican side has used this time on the floor of the Senate to come and complain that they do not have any time to speak on the floor of the Senate. They can't have it both ways. They can't come and give a speech about the treaty, yet say the reason we shouldn't take it up is they don't have an opportunity to speak on the treaty. They do have an opportunity to speak on the treaty, and they have had it for more than 24 hours.

I asked Senator Kerry, as he left the floor: I know the Republicans want to offer amendments to this treaty. How many amendments have been filed?

He said: I will check, but I think only one amendment has been filed.

His staff has said that is the current situation--one amendment by Senator McCain. Here we are, 26 hours into this debate, and one amendment has been filed and no amendments have been called. Yet speaker after speaker comes from the Republican side of the aisle and says: The problem with this treaty is we don't have time to speak--as they speak--and we don't have time to offer amendments--as they fail to offer amendments.

So one has to step back and say that maybe the problem is not a problem of time; maybe the problem is they just don't want to see this treaty passed.

Thank goodness for Senator Lugar of Indiana, who has spoken up in favor of this treaty. I said earlier at the press conference and would say again with him on the floor that there aren't a handful of people in America who are as expert as he is on this issue of nuclear arms and the safety of those that currently exist. There was a time when people across America thought his name was Senator Nunn-Lugar because they kept hearing Nunn-Lugar, Nunn-Lugar. It was a time when Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, and Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, really led this Nation and this world in taking an honest look at nuclear weapons to see how we can make sure they are safe and don't threaten our future. Senator Lugar knows--because he said as much publicly--that this treaty moves us in the direction of a safer world.

During the height of the Cold War, there were enough nuclear weapons on our planet to destroy all life many times over. Thank goodness the Soviet Union is gone and we are in a new era, a more peaceful era. Still, 20 years later, both Russia and the United States have thousands of nuclear weapons in their arsenals--far more than either side needs for maintaining security.

In an era of terrorist threats, we are faced with new challenges, including a nuclear-armed Pakistan with al-Qaida operating within its borders and countries such as Iran and North Korea pursuing their own nuclear programs.

This week, we have a chance to make a difference--to reduce the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons in a way that not only makes us safer but also strengthens America's authority in persuading other nations around the world to halt their destabilizing practices.

Senator Lugar said:

START would strengthen our nonproliferation diplomacy worldwide, limit potential arms competition, and help us focus our defense resources effectively.

What a succinct description of a critically important measure before us. Yet day after day--2 days now--hour after hour, Senate Republicans come to the floor and say we just don't have time to do this.

Efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons have always been bipartisan in the past, and they should be bipartisan today. As they say, partisanship should end at the water's edge whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. If it is good for America, if it makes us safer; if it moves us forward in the goal of a more peaceful world, we should stand together with both parties working on it. Unfortunately, the opposition we have heard over and over on the floor has been from the other side.

I thank Senator John Kerry. I tell you, this man is a dogged and determined legislator, and he has been working this issue harder than I have ever seen him work anything in my life, for the last several weeks, to get to this moment where we bring it up on the floor. He understands that last December when the START I treaty expired, it left the United States without key inspectors in Russia and reduced important security transparency.

I would say to Senator Kerry, the modern patron saint of the Republican Party is Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan, in a few words, summarized his view when it came to negotiating: Trust, but verify. For 376 days, we have been unable to verify what is going on in Russia with their nuclear weapons. We don't know if they are being held safely--treaty compliant. We just don't know. How can we be safer as a nation in blissful ignorance of what is happening?

This New START treaty President Obama brings to us will put inspectors on the ground in Russia and in the United States to make certain both sides live up to the treaty obligations. That is essential. It is something Russian President Medvedev called a ``truly historic event.'' President Obama said at the signing that this is ``an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.'' I couldn't agree with them more.

Here is the number I was searching for earlier. The Senate has conducted 21 hearings and briefings on the New START treaty--a significant number of opportunities to debate and assess the treaty.

In September, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations overwhelmingly approved the treaty on a bipartisan basis. The people supporting this treaty across the board, Democrats and Republicans, represent the best minds in America in recent history on the subject.

They include current administration officials, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, as well as Madeleine Albright, former Senator Chuck Hagel, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, James Schlesinger, George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, and John Warner. At least seven generals and admirals who commanded our nuclear forces feel the same way.

This does not restrict the United States when it comes to missile defense. It is very clear it does not. It is one of the things that has been said, but the people who say it ignore the obvious. It was several weeks ago when we had a NATO meeting on missile defense moving forward to make our Nation safer, and the Russians were engaged in that dialog. It was a historic breakthrough. They ignored that when they raised that issue.

As Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has said, the new treaty will impose ``no limits on us'' when it comes to missile defense.

There is a concern, as well, expressed that the treaty does nothing to address the issue of tactical nuclear weapons, where the Russians apparently outnumber us. I agree it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, especially from a nonproliferation viewpoint, since many of these weapons are deployed in undisclosed locations. However, this treaty, like the Moscow Treaty and the original START agreement, deliberately and rightly focuses on strategic nuclear weapons.

Bipartisanship on issues of national security has been the hallmark of our Nation. Even in the toughest of times and in the most desperate political circumstances we have come together.

For example, in 1992, just after the Cold War came to an end, the Senate ratified the first strategic arms reduction treaty by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 6. Of my Republican Senators who are still here today who were in attendance for the vote--Senators Bond, Cochran, Grassley, Hatch, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, and Shelby--all voted in support.

In 1996, the Senate voted 87 to 4 in support of START II, including the votes of Republican Senators Bennett, Bond, Cochran, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, and Snowe.

In 2002, the Senate voted 95 to 0--that is right, 95 to 0--in support of the Moscow Treaty, and 26 of the 27 Republicans there at the time are still here today and they voted in support of that treaty.

At the peak of the Cold War, the stockpile of nuclear weapons held by all nuclear weapons states was some 70,000 warheads, 1.6 million times the power of the bomb at Hiroshima. We have reduced the number of those weapons by more than two-thirds. Yet today the combined nuclear weapon capability is still equal to 150,000 of the nuclear bombs used in World War II.

Today we have an opportunity to further reduce this threat in a responsible bipartisan way. I do not know when this session will end tonight, but I will say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: You have ample opportunity to debate. You have ample opportunity to offer amendments.

Time is not a good excuse. We have been in session now, this day and yesterday--we started at about 3:30. Only one amendment has been filed on the Republican side. If they truly want to engage us in an important debate about this treaty issue, do it now. Don't put it off. We have to reach the point where we can verify what is being done in Russia to make this a safer nation and to move us toward a more peaceful world.

Source