Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wanted to come down and join Senator Kerry and again recognize his leadership, along with Senator Lugar's, on moving the treaty ratification through the Senate.

I wish to address some of the objections and concerns that are being raised by the critics of the treaty this evening. First, I want to point out that if the Senate were to approve the amendment that Senator McCain and Senator Barrasso are proposing, that effectively kills the treaty. I think those people who support that amendment understand that. So that is No. 1.

Secondly, one of the issues that has been raised in a number of the statements this evening has had to do with the concern about dual track. Can the Senate deal with this issue while we have so much other business to deal with? Well, I happen to think that in the Senate we can deal with more than one issue at a time. I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

In fact, during consideration of the original START treaty back in 1992, a treaty that was much more complicated than the one that is pending before us, at the first time the Senate was considering the START nuclear disarmament agreement, the Senate, on the same day we debated the treaty back in 1992, passed an Interior appropriations bill, a DC appropriations bill, and we debated and held two rollcall votes on the Foreign Operations bill. So the concern that we cannot deal with this while we are dealing with other issues is not borne out by the historic precedent.

One of the other issues that has been raised this evening by the critics is that we do not need to do this right away; there is no overwhelming national security concern to get this passed now.

I would point out that we have a number of military leaders in this country who disagree with that. Yesterday, GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

All the joint chiefs are very much behind the treaty. We need START and we need it badly.

Today GEN Frank Klotz, who is considered one of the military's most experienced and respected nuclear arms experts--he is commander of Air Force global strike command, which is the command that overseas the Air Force's nuclear enterprise--says that the New START treaty with Russia should be ratified immediately.

Again, quoting the general:

I think the START treaty ought to be ratified and it ought to be ratified right now, this week.

With respect to the issues raised about how this treaty impacts missile defense, it is important to point out what some of the most recognized foreign policy, military, national security experts in the country have had to say about this missile defense issue. First, let me quote ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said:

There is nothing in the treaty that prohibits us from developing any kind of missile defense.

Then LTG Patrick O'Reilly, head of the United States Missile Defense Agency, said:

Relative to the recently expired START treaty, the New START treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program ..... I have briefed the Russians personally in Moscow on every aspect of our missile defense development. I believe they understand what that is. And that those plans for development are not limited by this Treaty.

And then Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said:

The treaty will not constrain the U.S. from developing and deploying defenses against ballistic missiles, as we have made clear to the Russian government. The U.S. will continue to deploy and improve the interceptors that defend our homeland. We are also moving forward with plans to field missile defense systems to protect our troops and partners in Europe, the Middle East, and Northeast Asia against the dangerous threats posed by rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Separately from the treaty, we are discussing missile defense cooperation with Russia which we believe is in the interest of both nations. But such talks have nothing to do with imposing any limitations on our programs or deployment plans.

One of the earlier speakers talked about concerns about those within our security umbrella, our allies and NATO, and how they might be affected by the START treaty. The fact is, every one of our NATO allies has come out in support of passage of the New START treaty. They have all said it is in the interest of the NATO countries.

To go back to what some of the experts have said about missile defense, GEN Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said:

As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations and advocacy, I can say with confidence that this treaty does not constrain any current or future missile defense plans.

Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger said:

I don't think it inhibits missile defense in a serious way. I do not think that we will be inhibited by this treaty or even by the Russian pressure with respect to defending ourselves against North Korea and ultimately naturally against Iran.

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry said:

The treaty imposes no meaningful restraints on our ability to develop and deploy ballistic missile defense systems.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said:

The treaty does not unduly restrict our ability to build and deploy an effective missile defense system.

Finally, former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger, and Colin Powell wrote in the Washington Post:

New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses.

The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.

I know we have a lot of experts in the Senate on this issue, but I certainly believe the experts who have spoken about the lack of an impact on our ability as a country to develop a missile defense system are people who should be believed, because they know what they are talking about.

The other thing it is important to point out--and I know Senator Kerry did this earlier--is with respect to the resolution of ratification and some of the concerns that Senator DeMint raised this evening. I want to read what is in this resolution of ratification. This is language that Senator DeMint had amended into the resolution to address the concerns he had:

(2) DEFENDING THE UNITED STATES AND ALLIES AGAINST STRATEGIC ATTACK.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

(A) a paramount obligation of the United States Government is to provide for the defense of the American people, deployed members of the United States Armed Forces, and United States allies against nuclear attacks to the best of its ability;

(B) policies based on ``mutual assured destruction'' or intentional vulnerability can be contrary to the safety and security of both countries, and the United States and the Russian Federation share a common interest in moving cooperatively as soon as possible away from a strategic relationship based on mutual assured destruction;

(C) in a world where biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are proliferating, strategic stability can be enhanced by strategic defensive measures;

(D) accordingly, the United States is and will remain free to reduce the vulnerability to attack by constructing a layered missile defense system capable of countering missiles of all ranges;

(E) the United States will welcome steps by the Russian Federation also to adopt a fundamentally defensive strategic posture that no longer views robust strategic defensive capabilities as undermining the overall strategic balance, and stands ready to cooperate with the Russian Federation on strategic defensive capabilities, as long as such cooperation is aimed at fostering and in no way constrains the defensive capabilities of both sides; and

(F) the United States is committed to improving United States strategic defensive capabilities both quantitatively and qualitatively during the period that the New START Treaty is in effect, and such improvements are consistent with the Treaty.

This is language Senator DeMint proposed that is adopted in the resolution that makes very clear that missile defense is not affected by the treaty.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source