[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 171 (Monday, December 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Page S10775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              Byron Dorgan

  Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator from South Dakota is here. I know he 
wishes to speak. I will not be long. I wish to take advantage of this 
moment with the Senator from North Dakota on the floor to say a couple 
of things.
  First of all, I am very grateful to him personally for the comments 
he has made about both my efforts and the efforts of Senator Lugar. I 
appreciate them enormously. But more importantly, the Senator is going 
to be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. I wish to say 
there are few Senators who combine as many qualities of ability as does 
the Senator from North Dakota. He is one of the most articulate Members 
of the Senate. He is one of the most diligent Members of the Senate. He 
is one of the most thoughtful Members of the Senate.
  I have had the pleasure of serving with him on the Commerce 
Committee. I have seen how creative and determined he is with respect 
to the interests of consumers on Internet issues, on fairness issues, 
consumer issues in which he has taken an enormous interest. He has been 
head of the policy committee for I think almost 10 years or so. He has 
been responsible for making sure the rest of us are informed on issues. 
He has kept us up to date on the latest thinking. He has put together 
very provocative weekly meetings with some of the best minds in the 
country so we think about these things.
  So I wanted to say to the Senator from North Dakota personally 
through the Chair how well served I think the citizens of North Dakota 
have been, how grateful we are for his service, and how extraordinarily 
lucky we have been to have someone representing one of the great 50 
States as effectively as he has. I think he has been a superb Senator, 
and he will be much missed here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to an amendment I have 
pending at the desk, but before I do that, I wish to make some general 
observations as well about where we are with regard to this process 
because there has been a lot said about Republicans not wanting to vote 
on this or trying to delay this. But I think one would have to admit 
that we have now talked about missile defense, which I think is a very 
valid issue with respect to this treaty. There are very significant 
areas of disagreement with regard to how it treats missile defense. We 
have had a discussion about tactical weapons, which, in my judgment, 
also is a very important issue relative to our national security 
interests and the interests of our allies around the world. We have had 
a debate about verification, about which the amendment of Senator 
Inhofe is currently pending. Those are all very valid and substantive 
issues to debate and discuss with regard to this treaty.
  The amendment I will offer will deal with the issue of delivery 
vehicles, which is something that is important as well where this 
treaty is concerned.
  So I would simply say that it is consistent with our role in the U.S. 
Senate to provide advice and consent. If it were just consent, if that 
is what the Founders intended, we could rubberstamp this. But we have a 
role in this process, and that role is to look at these issues in great 
detail and make sure the national security interests of the United 
States are well served by a treaty of this importance.
  So I think the words of the treaty matter, and I think the words of 
the preamble matter. I am not going to relitigate the debate we have 
already had on missile defense, but I believe that if we have language 
in a preamble to a document such as this, not unlike the preamble we 
have in our Constitution which is frequently quoted, it has meaning. To 
suggest that the preamble doesn't mean anything, that it is a throwaway 
and has throwaway language, to me really misses the point. Obviously, 
it matters to someone. It matters greatly to the Russians, and I don't 
think, if it didn't, it would be in there. That is why I believe that 
having this linkage between offensive strategic arms and defensive 
strategic arms in the preamble--it is in there for a reason. Somebody 
wanted it in there, obviously, and I think it certainly has weight and 
consequence beyond what has been suggested here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I would also argue as well that the signing statement we have already 
talked about where the Russians made it very clear in the signing 
statement, in Prague on April 8 of 2010, that the treaty can operate 
and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from 
developing its missile defense capabilities qualitatively or 
quantitatively--if you tie that back to article XIV of the withdrawal 
clause of the treaty where it talks about being able to withdraw for 
exceptional circumstances, you can certainly see the pretext by which 
the Russians may decide to withdraw from this treaty.
  So missile defense is not an inconsequential issue. It is a very 
important issue with regard to this treaty, and the amendment that was 
offered on Saturday and voted on attempted to address that. 
Unfortunately, that failed. I hope we have subsequent opportunities to 
get at the issue of missile defense because I certainly think it is an 
unresolved issue in my view and in the view of many of us.