[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10953-S10955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Amendment No. 4904

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl and the Chair, and now, 
Mr. President, I believe the Corker amendment is the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to again say that we have asked by 
unanimous consent to change this to be the McCain-Lieberman-Corker 
amendment, and we have also added Senators Alexander, Brown of 
Massachusetts,  Murkowski, Johanns, Levin, and Bayh as cosponsors.
  As a matter of tremendous respect and courtesy, I think it would be 
best for Senator McCain to be the first speaker on this amendment that 
he was very involved in developing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Lieberman, 
and Senator Corker, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving--I believe the Senator is 
referring to the amendment that is pending?
  Mr. CORKER. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. It is the pending amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, it is probably not too relevant, but I 
would like to say that this should have been the Lieberman-Corker-
McCain or Corker-Lieberman-McCain amendment because of the distribution 
of effort that has been made on this amendment. Be that as it may, I 
think this amendment makes some improvement that will be very helpful.
  It has two parts. The first requires the President to certify that we 
do not recognize Russia's argument that the treaty can only be 
effective and viable only in conditions where the United States is not 
building up its missile defenses. The statement would also be 
transmitted to the Russians when the instruments of ratification are 
exchanged. Second, the amendment would include in the instrument an 
understanding that the preamble is not legally binding.

[[Page S10954]]

  I think this is a helpful amendment, and I appreciate that it could 
be included by the Senator from Massachusetts, but ultimately it does 
not address my concerns that the Russians believe the treaty could be 
used to limit our missile defense. We should have removed this clause 
from the preamble.
  The message sent by the first part of this amendment is positive, but 
it is not conveyed to the Duma. When we look at the fact--I understand 
why the proponents of this treaty would not want to transmit this 
aspect of the treaty to the Duma for fear of some backlash and perhaps 
problems in the Russian Duma, although it is not a body that is 
renowned for its independence, to say the least. The fact is, it will 
not be transmitted to the Duma. The fact is, if the Russians and the 
United States agreed to a treaty and a part of that treaty was not 
transmitted to the Senate, I think that would be something to which 
most of us would take strong exception.
  I thank Senator Corker. He has worked extremely hard on this issue. 
Joe Lieberman has worked extremely hard, trying to reach a point, 
obviously, that they could agree to support this treaty. Whether they 
eventually do or not is something that I neither know nor would 
predict, but I do think it shows some improvement. I still have various 
concerns, as I have had from the beginning, on the issue of defensive 
missile systems, how it would play, whether it is actually part of the 
treaty and, if so, how enforceable.
  What complicates this more than anything else is the continued 
statements, public statements on American television a short time ago--
Vladimir Putin saying that if we move forward with improving our 
missile defenses, they would take ``appropriate actions.'' Their 
Foreign Minister has made repeated statements--not last year but last 
month--saying one thing and publicly declaring it while on the other 
hand we are assuming this will prevent them from doing what they say 
they will do. That is a contradiction.
  I understand how solemn treaties are, and I understand how binding 
treaties are. I also understand that when the leader of a nation says 
on ``Larry King Live''--God bless you, Larry, for everything you did 
for us--that they will have to take ``appropriate actions'' if we 
improve quantitatively or qualitatively our strategic missile defense 
systems, then obviously you have to give some credence to that, when 
public statements are made. Obviously, in the view of Senator Kerry, 
who has done a masterful job in shepherding this treaty through the 
Senate in the last several days, that is not that meaningful. So we 
just have a fundamental disagreement of opinion. But I can say this: If 
we negotiated a treaty and made certain agreements and the President of 
the United States made public statements on national or international 
television contradicting that, then I think it would give the party we 
are in negotiations with significant pause.
  Not one statement that I have been able to find has a Russian 
leader--either Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, or Prime Minister or 
President--saying they will adhere to the provisions that are in this 
amendment. That is a fundamental contradiction that I am sorry cannot 
be resolved.
  I know what the votes are going to be on this treaty. Again, I 
congratulate Senator Kerry for the incredible job he has done and, 
frankly, his great willingness to talk with me and negotiate with me 
and have dialog and work toward a common goal. He has done that in good 
faith, and I am grateful for the opportunity he has given me to play a 
role, including agreeing to this amendment which I think will improve 
the treaty.
  I wish to say that I know how difficult this has been for Senator 
Corker and other Members on this side.
  I thank Senator Lieberman for the continued hard work he does on this 
issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is very 
helpful.
  With that, I yield to my colleagues, cosponsors of the amendment, if 
that is agreeable to Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senator Corker and I had a vote--
actually, Senator Corker, Senator McCain, and I had a vote on whose 
name should be first on this, and Senator Corker and I won, 2 to 1. 
Senator McCain's name is first because this is an amendment that 
attempts to deal in a unifying way with our concern that the Russians 
misunderstand the impact of this treaty or the impact of our 
development of missile defenses on this treaty and that it is important 
for us to speak out in unity, in a unified and clear voice, to the 
Russians, and no one has made that point more clearly as the treaty has 
been considered than Senator McCain. In fact, he offered an amendment 
earlier in our deliberations on the treaty which I supported, which did 
not pass, which would have removed the section of the preamble that has 
obviously been put in by the Russians in the negotiations which is 
confusing at best and downright mischievous at worst.
  This is the section that says:

       Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between 
     strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that 
     this interrelationship will become more important as 
     strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current 
     strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and 
     effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

  That is the end of the quote from the preamble. It strikes me as I 
read it that it will be a topic of consideration in law schools and 
classes on international law. The first question is, What did it mean? 
But I think the Russians had a particular intent in putting it in 
there, and they know what they wanted it to mean.
  What is troubling is that when the treaty was signed earlier in the 
year in Prague, the Russian Federation issued a statement that 
basically made these same points--that the treaty will be effective and 
viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative 
buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States 
of America.
  But these are two separate categories. This treaty, the START treaty, 
is all about reducing the offensive capabilities, nuclear and delivery 
capabilities of both great powers. We are building a missile defense 
system. It started out as a very controversial matter. It started out a 
long time ago--President Reagan, really, initially, and then serious 
consideration in the 1990s when a lot of people argued against it and 
said it was a waste of money and it would never work technologically, 
that you couldn't create a bullet that would hit a bullet. Yet that is 
exactly what we have done. Thank God that we invested the money and 
that our scientists and military leaders have brought it as far it is 
because one of the great threats that will face the people of the 
United States, our national security, will come from missiles carrying 
weapons of mass destruction fired particularly by rogue nations such as 
Iran and North Korea. It would be irresponsible of us not to have 
developed a capacity to defend against those kinds of missile attacks. 
We have done that.
  The Russians keep wanting to link that to this treaty. It is not 
linked to the treaty. Therefore, I regretted that section was in the 
preamble I read. The United States responded through the State 
Department to that statement by the Russian Government when they signed 
the treaty. But it is really important for us, at the same time the 
instruments of ratification are conveyed to the Russian Government, to 
make a clear and direct statement of our understanding of the total 
nonrelationship between the development of our missile defense 
capability and the START treaty.

  That is what this amendment does. I am privileged to cosponsor it 
with Senator McCain, Senator Corker, and a number of other Members of 
both parties. Basically, it says that before the New START treaty could 
enter into force, the President shall certify to the Senate--basically, 
this is certifying what the President said in a letter sent to Senator 
Reid a few days ago--and at the time of the exchange of instruments of 
ratification shall communicate directly to the Russian Federation that, 
No. 1, we are going to continue development and deployment of a missile 
defense system to defend against missile threats from nations such as--
and I would add ``not limited to''--North Korea and Iran.
  No. 2, what do we mean by qualitative and quantitative improvement

[[Page S10955]]

of such systems that we are going to be continuing? This is very 
important. We define that here to include all phases of the phased 
adaptive approach to missile defenses in Europe embraced now by our 
NATO allies; second, the modernization of the ground-based midcourse 
defense system; and third, the continued development of the two-stage 
ground-based interceptor as a technological and strategic hedge.
  We are being as direct as we can be here to the Russians. Some of my 
colleagues have said--and the record, unfortunately, shows it--that 
their record for complying with treaties is not a good one. We don't 
want to enter into this one with any misunderstandings or covering up 
the truth. We are saying here loudly and clearly that the United States 
is going to continue to develop all of these different forms of missile 
defense to protect our security and that has nothing to do with this 
START treaty.
  I think the third section here is very important. We say:

       The U.S. believes that these systems [missile defense 
     systems] do not and will not threaten the strategic balance 
     with the Russian Federation. Consequently, while the U.S. 
     cannot circumscribe the sovereign rights of the Russian 
     Federation under paragraph 3 of Article XIV of the [START] 
     Treaty--

  Which is the section that gives nations the right to withdraw under 
extraordinary circumstances--nonetheless, if we adopt this, when we 
adopt it, this amendment, we are saying here:

       The United States believes continued improvement and 
     deployment of United States missile defense systems do not 
     constitute a basis for questioning the effectiveness and 
     viability of the Treaty, and therefore would not give rise to 
     circumstances justifying the withdrawal of the Russian 
     Federation from the treaty.

  We are trying to manage our relationship with the Russian Federation 
in a way that is conducive to the security of our country and the 
security of the world.
  We disagree with the Russians on an awful lot of things, including 
human rights and values and freedom of the press--which the current 
government in Russia has so aggressively suppressed. So we want to be 
honest with them and direct with them and not enter into this important 
treaty with any illusions. I believe we have said that clearly. If it 
passes, it will be presented to the Russian Government directly.
  I am very pleased we have a broad, bipartisan group supporting this. 
It is a unified way to conclude our deliberations here before we go to 
vote on ratification, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Begich as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am thrilled to join with Senator McCain 
and Senator Lieberman in an amendment dealing with missile defense. 
This is a subject that has been discussed ever since this treaty was 
first presented.
  I cannot think of a better way to end this debate. I thank Senator 
Kerry for having the patience of Job, having worked through this. 
Somebody mentioned deals and where they have been taking place. They 
have been taking place on the Senate floor. We have been working on 
this for a long time. We have gone through intelligence briefings. We 
have gone through incredible numbers of hearings. I think this has been 
done exactly in the right way.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership. I thank Senator Lugar for his 
leadership on nuclear armaments in general. The Senator has been 
pursuing that for years.
  So we have before us an amendment on missile defense. Again, it has 
been discussed in great detail. This says three things. Senator 
Lieberman certainly talked about much of the detail, but the President 
the other day sent us a letter declaring, in very strident ways, his 
commitment to both the phased-adaptive approach to missile defense, 
which will take place in Europe, and our ground-based interceptors. He 
has said that absolutely in strident terms.
  What this amendment does is certifies to Congress--he certifies to 
Congress--that he is going to continue those efforts. He will continue 
those efforts on phased-adaptive approach and ground-based 
interceptors.
  Second, we have been concerned about what Russia thinks as it relates 
to this treaty. When we exchange the instruments of ratification, when 
we exchange the documents when ratifying this treaty, they are going to 
be told that we, in fact, are continuing to pursue our missile defenses 
in every way possible, and that in no way affects our relationship from 
that standpoint as it relates to this treaty. I think that is 
incredibly strong.
  Then, third, we have talked about this preamble, and every one of us 
knows the preamble is nonbinding. But as an understanding of this 
treaty going forward, we are telling the Russians that the preamble 
absolutely is not binding and that we are pursuing these missile 
defense applications that have been discussed. I am proud to join with 
Senator McCain, with Senator Lieberman, two people who care as deeply 
about our national security as anybody in the United States, certainly 
in this Senate. I am proud to have the other Members of the Senate who 
have joined in.
  Let me just say in closing, I think it is absolutely appropriate that 
the last two amendments we address are the Kyl amendment which deals 
with modernization--the President has made incredible investments in 
modernization that have come about through this entire process, a 
commitment to ensure that the nuclear arsenal we have is one that 
operates, that is reliable, that is safe.
  I think people know we have 1,550 deployed warheads--after this 
treaty goes into effect, over a long period of time, we reduce to that 
number, but that we have roughly 3,500 other warheads that, again, will 
continue to be modernized and made available, if necessary.
  So I want to say that in accepting the Kyl amendment and all of the 
things that have come with it--the letter from the appropriators and 
accepting this missile defense amendment--if that ends up being the 
case, and I hope it will be by unanimous consent shortly, I think what 
we have done throughout this entire process has strengthened our 
country's national security.
  I can say: Look, this is called the New START, but I could call this 
the Missile Defense and Nuclear Modernization Act of 2010 because all 
of these things have come into play to make our country safer. I want 
to thank the chairman. I want to thank the administration for walking 
through, over the last 6 months, and helping us cross t's and dot i's. 
I think this treaty is good for our country. I think this treaty 
enhances our national security. I thank the chairman for the way he has 
worked with us to get it into that position, certainly Senators McCain 
and Lieberman for helping take the lead on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.