[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 169 (Saturday, December 18, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10684-S10685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

TREATY WITH RUSSIA ON MEASURES FOR FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF 
                        STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume debate on the START treaty, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       McCain/Barrasso amendment No. 4814, to amend the preamble 
     to strike language regarding the interrelationship between 
     strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the McCain amendment.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, currently the New START treaty 
establishes limits on missile defense. Placing constraints on future 
U.S. defense capabilities should not be up for debate and should not be 
placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons. Russia is 
trying to force the United States to choose between missile defense and 
the treaty. If that is the case, I choose missile defense. We cannot 
tie our hands behind our back and risk the national security of our 
Nation and our allies.
  This treaty is a bilateral agreement between Russia and the United 
States. It is clear that there is a disagreement about the actual 
agreement made. Russia continues to claim that the treaty successfully 
limits our ability to defend ourselves. Supporters of the treaty claim 
the limitation on missile defense in the preamble is not binding and 
that it is legally insignificant and a throwaway provision.
  We are talking about the preamble. Like the preamble to the 
Constitution, ``we the people,'' this is meaningful. Some things we 
hold dear. The safe and the smart decision would be to eliminate the 
disagreement by getting rid of that provision entirely.
  I urge all colleagues to support the McCain-Barrasso amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment is unnecessary because, as 
General Chilton, who is the commander of U.S Strategic Command, said:

       I can say with confidence that this treaty does not 
     constrain any current or future missile defense.
       Secretary Gates has said that what the Russians wanted to 
     achieve was a restraint. He said this treaty doesn't 
     accomplish that for them.

  Even though the language is completely nonbinding, has no requirement 
in it whatsoever, this amendment requires us to go back to Russia, 
renegotiate the treaty, open whatever advantages or disadvantages they 
may perceive since the negotiation exists, and we would go through a 
prolonged negotiation. We have no verification whatsoever today because 
that ceased on December 5 of last year. We need to hold this treaty 
intact and pass it.
  I yield whatever remaining time I have to the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every one of our military leaders has said 
to the Armed Services Committee and I believe they have reiterated to 
the Foreign Relations Committee that there

[[Page S10685]]

are no constraints in this treaty on missile defense, period, end of 
quote. These are our top military leaders. They are in charge of 
missile defense. They say there are no constraints.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 4814.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Manchin) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 282 Ex.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bunning
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Manchin
  The amendment (No. 4814) was rejected.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 4839

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, is amendment No. 4839 at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Risch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4839.

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To amend the preamble to the Treaty to acknowledge the 
 interrelationship between non-strategic and strategic offensive arms)

       In the preamble to the New START Treaty, insert after 
     ``strategic offensive arms of the Parties,'' the following:
       Acknowledging there is an interrelationship between non-
     strategic and strategic offensive arms, that as the number of 
     strategic offensive arms is reduced this relationship becomes 
     more pronounced and requires an even greater need for 
     transparency and accountability, and that the disparity 
     between the Parties' arsenals could undermine predictability 
     and stability,

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President and fellow Senators, what we are going to do 
is, tomorrow, at noon, we are going to start with amendment No. 4839. 
Amendment No. 4839 deals with the relationship between strategic 
weapons, which this treaty deals with, and tactical weapons, which this 
treaty does not deal with but should. That is essentially the purpose 
of this amendment.
  I think virtually everyone who is involved in this debate has an 
opinion on this, No. 1. But almost everyone agrees that the issue of 
tactical weapons, namely, short-range weapons, is a very serious issue 
and rises to at least the level of the discussion on strategic weapons, 
and perhaps even more so.
  So tomorrow we are going to have a spirited discussion about those 
issues. There has actually been quite a bit of debate already on this, 
and for those of you who are like me, and you take the Congressional 
Record home and read it in the evening, if you go back and look at the 
debates on the various treaties that dealt with nuclear weapons 
treaties, you will see that some very bright people, some of whom are 
still Members of this body, have already spoken on this issue.
  I am looking forward to having this discussion tomorrow.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________