[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10961-S10963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6540
So I ask, as if in legislative session and as if in morning business,
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 6540, which was received from the House and is at
the desk; that the bill be read three times and passed; the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate;
and any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the loyalty of my
colleague from Washington for the Boeing facility that is there. I just
want to say that other workers are involved, including 48,000 new jobs
that would be created if the plant in Alabama were to be the one
selected in this competition.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I would note that we
voted a number of years ago unanimously to have a competition. There
are only two companies in the world that can make this kind of
aircraft. It is a commercial aircraft, not a highly sophisticated
defense system such as a fighter. The EADS team committed to build that
in America--bringing jobs not just to Alabama but jobs all over the
Nation, far more around the Nation than just in Alabama--and to create
a third major world aircraft facility. Congress asked that the bids be
competitively let and that these two competitors be given a chance to
submit the best proposal.
I am highly convinced that the EADS aircraft is superior--is larger,
it is newer--and more effective in the role it is asked to fulfill.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would just ask what the order is at
this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sought recognition after he
objected.
Mrs. MURRAY. The unanimous consent agreement was that the Senator
from Texas would proceed after I had yielded the floor, which I had not
yielded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the Senator from Alabama was the
only person who sought recognition.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe there was an agreement that
the Senator from Texas follow my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an order, but there was no
objection. There was no one who sought recognition.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up, briefly, if I could.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator from Alabama wants to finish his
objection--
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is
that the Senator from Washington had 10 minutes. My understanding is
she had completed that 10 minutes; am I incorrect on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Her time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I didn't hear the Chair say that. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from Alabama, I thought he was
objecting on Senator Murray's time, and I was next in the unanimous
consent. My question is, is he finished with his objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I wish 1 additional minute to wrap up, if I could, and
then I will yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, then I ask unanimous consent for an
additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have the floor, I believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, after this competition has been going
on for quite a number of years, and both parties have been very
seriously competing for this contract, it is expected to be awarded in
March of next year. The Defense Department has considered every one of
these issues, including the WTO issue. The lawyers talked about it and
we have talked about it in the Senate and the House.
At this very last minute, on the eve of awarding the competition, a
House bill was passed without any debate. We have not discussed it or
had a hearing on it. It should not be approved. I object.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are asking for a level playing field
with a bill that passed the House. This is a discussion we have had
many times. It says that illegal subsidies from any company should be
taken into account on a deal in front of the Pentagon.
I will stand anytime and fight for fairness and competition. I am
sorry this has been objected to, because it meant our country would
have a fair competition.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on the START treaty.
I spoke on the floor Saturday stating my concerns about this treaty and
the need to address a number of very important issues. I had hoped that
amendments that had been offered would be able to clarify the
position--the United States position--on this treaty.
I have listened to the debate. I have watched many amendments go
down. The treaty supporters have said that these amendments are deal
killers,
[[Page S10962]]
treaty killers. I disagree. I believe everybody has been sincere, but I
am not persuaded that the Senate's role to advise and consent to
treaties has successfully finetuned the understanding on our part, if
we accept this treaty, nor the Russian positions--have they been
clarified with our objections or disagreements with the Russian
position.
I understand it would have made it hard for the administration to
amend the text. But even amendments that would try to amend the
preamble, or even the ratification resolution that would clarify the
United States position, have caused me great pause. For instance, when
we are talking about missile defense, former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, said:
Russians tend to interpret every utterance as binding
commitment.
She went on to write:
The Russians need to understand that the U.S. will use the
full range of American technology and talent to improve our
ability to intercept and destroy the ballistic missiles of
hostile countries.
I am concerned that this treaty still has a lot of misunderstanding
about the United States missile defense capability. I am concerned that
our capability, with the understanding of Russians, would be
restricted. Russia and the United States each have issued unilateral
statements when they signed the New START that clarified their position
on the relationship between START and missile defense. Russia stated:
The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United
States refrains from developing its missile defense
capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.
I think we should state clearly in the resolution to ratify that it
is not the position of the United States to place any limitations on
missile defense. The President wrote a letter saying he disagreed with
the Russian position and, yet, Senator McCain offered an amendment that
would have stricken language in the preamble of the treaty that would
have made it clear what the United States position was, and that
amendment was not adopted by this body.
As we speak, I don't believe Russia is our enemy. This is a 10-year
treaty. We don't know 10 years down the road how relationships might
change. I believe our relationship with Russia is important, but there
are rogue nations in the world that are hostile to the United States,
which are working in earnest to get nuclear capability and possibly
already have it, plus warheads to put those nuclear weapons on.
With the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea, or Pakistan,
which is our ally, which has a fragile government, or even Venezuela,
which is working with Iran and is certainly within our hemisphere, it
would be unthinkable to have any kind of miscommunication about the
United States capability to control its own defense capabilities. That
is exactly what the Russian statement said we could not do.
U.S. planning and force requirements may have to change in the next
10 years and, frankly, I think they ought to be going forward right now
to ensure that we can withstand any kind of warhead, nuclear or
otherwise, that would come in from rogue nations.
That in itself is enough for me to say we have not fulfilled our
responsibility under the Constitution for advice to the President on
treaties. That is our solemn responsibility, and I do not think we have
been successfully able to do that because we have been blocked on every
amendment, calling them deal killers.
I think a strong New START is in our best interest. But I believe
that this treaty does not address other areas of concern I have voiced
as well. I believe this treaty could further be improved by increasing
the number of type one and type two inspections, as was attempted by
the Inhofe amendment that was defeated yesterday.
For instance, we know there are loose nukes that have come from
Russian arsenals in the past, because the Russians have not had a clear
control, or list of, or don't seem to be totally firm about where all
of their arsenal is, and they don't seem to have the accountability. So
the loose nukes, it has been reported, have shown up in other places,
such as, for instance, North Korea. So I think verification becomes
more important, to get a true idea of exactly what the Russians have,
so there can be an accountability going forward to assure that whatever
number are in whatever place would always stay the same, unless they
are part of the drawdown.
I think the verification amendment Senator Inhofe had that was
defeated would have improved our capability to understand exactly what
was out there that might loosely go to Iran or North Korea, with whom
the Russians have relationships, though we do not.
Former Secretary of State James Baker described the treaty's
verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. I agree with his
comment, and I hope we can improve the situation. To be fair, Secretary
Baker supports the treaty. But he did recognize its shortcomings, and I
think that should have been addressed by the Senate, without fear of
what the Russians might say about our capability to defend against
threats, not from Russia necessarily, other than the haplessness of not
knowing for sure where your nuclear weapons are--I don't think Russia
is our enemy. I want a relationship with Russia.
The missile defense we were not able to even clarify in the
resolution of ratification causes me great concern. The verification
not being as adequate as I think we need, and then the modernization,
which we also address in other amendments, I think, are also
problematic. I believe we must know our nuclear warheads could be used
in the worst-case circumstance, because I think that is a deterrent.
Because of these things, I am going to vote no today on the
ratification of the treaty. I think the Senate could have improved the
understanding of this treaty. I think we could have strengthened it
with real amendments that would have strengthened even what the
President said in his letter to the Senate, saying that he disagreed
with the Russian interpretation. But then when we tried to put that in
writing, that didn't pass. So I believe we should not pass this treaty
today. I think we can fulfill our responsibility for advice and consent
and have a more bipartisan passing of the resolution. I think we need a
good relationship with Russia. I think we need to protect, at all
costs, the United States unilateral capability for missile defense for
our country against other nations. I don't think Russia is a threat,
but I do think rogue nations that have nuclear capabilities are. I
think the symbiotic relationship between Venezuela and Iran is a very
real threat to the United States. I think we need to start preparing
more carefully about that.
I know my time is up. I appreciate the time to state my reasons for
voting against this and hope that when it passes--which I think it
will--we will be more firm in clarifying with the Russians our view of
our national security interests.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, first, if I can interrupt for a moment
before the Senator from North Dakota speaks, according to the prior
order. I want to inform Senators that it is now 1:15. We are awaiting
language which is forthcoming relatively soon on the 9/11 issue. I
think it is the intention of the majority leader to vote very quickly
after that unanimous consent agreement comes together. That means we
could have a vote, conceivably, on the final passage of the resolution
of ratification on the treaty somewhere--this is a guess--within the
vicinity of 1:45 to 2 o'clock. That is a guess. Senator Kyl I know
wanted to speak prior to that taking place. We are trying to preserve
that within the order. That said, I yield to the Senator from North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we expect to have the necessary papers to
complete the consent agreement within the next 15 minutes. It is 1:15
now, so we hope by 1:30. Sometimes Senate time is not exactly right,
but we are getting very close to being able to do this consent
agreement. It has been typed. We are waiting for the papers to come
from the Hart Building.
We want everyone to be patient. We know how anxious everyone is to
complete the business of this Congress. Just everyone understand it
should be not much longer.
[[Page S10963]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I was not going to speak again, but I
was prompted to by my colleague from Alabama, a friend and someone for
whom I have great respect. The presentation by my colleague from
Alabama suggested that President Obama is moving in the direction of
disarming us, the implication is that of injuring our national security
by proposing that we have fewer nuclear weapons. Let me make a point
that I think is so important for the record.
I hope it is not now or ever considered a source of weakness for this
country to aspire to have a planet with fewer nuclear weapons. It ought
to be a source of strength that we understand it becomes our burden as
a world leader--an economic leader and nuclear power--to try to reduce
the number of nuclear weapons on this Earth.
This President has not proposed anything that would injure our
national security. He is not proposing anything that is unilateral. He
has negotiated and his team has negotiated a very strong arms reduction
treaty with the Russians.
I know there has been great discussion about modernization, whether
there is enough money, about why tactical nuclear weapons were not
included, the issue of whether it limits us with respect to missile
defense. All of those issues have been answered. All have been
responded to.
The question, it seems to me, for us now and for all Americans, and
particularly those who serve in Congress in the future, is will we be a
world leader in pushing for a reduction in the number of nuclear
weapons on this planet?
There are some 25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. The loss of
just one of those weapons, into the hands of a terrorist or rogue
nation who might then explode it in a major city on Earth would change
everything.
My colleagues are probably tired of hearing me say it, but in my desk
I have kept a piece of a Soviet Union bomber, a very small piece of a
wing strut from a Soviet Union bomber. We did not shoot it down. We
negotiated that bomber down by paying money to saw the wings off.
Nuclear arms reduction treaties work. We know they work. There are
Russian submarines that were not destroyed in battle. We ground them up
and took them apart. The wings were sawed off bombers, and they were
sold for scrap. Nuclear missiles in silos with nuclear warheads aimed
at American cities are gone.
I will give an example. One was in Ukraine. Now sunflower seeds adorn
that pasture where there was a missile with a nuclear weapon aimed at
America.
We know these arms reduction treaties work because we have seen them
work. Fewer nuclear weapons, fewer delivery vehicles, bombers,
submarines, missiles--we know this works.
My colleague seemed to suggest that it would be a horrible thing if
the entire world were rid of nuclear weapons. I hope that every Senator
would aspire to have that be the case, a world in which there was not
one weapon left, for almost surely every offensive weapon on this
planet has always been used. We need to be very concerned about the
number of nuclear weapons, the spread of nuclear weapons, the need, the
desire for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons. That is why these
treaties and these negotiations on arms reduction are so unbelievably
important.
Never has it been more important because now there is a new threat.
They do not wear uniforms. They do not belong to one country. It is the
terrorist threat. And they strive mightily to acquire nuclear weapons.
This treaty negotiated at the start by the previous President and
concluded by this President, in my judgment, strengthens this country,
represents our best national security interests.
I ask the question of anyone who believes that it is a threat for us
to begin reducing nuclear weapons through arms negotiations with others
who have nuclear weapons: Who, if not us, will lead the way to do that?
If not us, who? Is there another country they think will aspire to
provide leadership to reduce the number of nuclear weapons? If there
is, tell us the name because we all know better than that.
This responsibility falls on our shoulders. We are the leading
nuclear power on this Earth. It is our responsibility, it is this
country's responsibility to lead. I don't ever want anybody to suggest
it is some sort of weakness for this President or any President to
engage in arms reduction negotiations. That is a source of strength.
This treaty was negotiated carefully. I was on the national security
working group. We had briefing after briefing in top-secret venues.
This treaty was carefully negotiated. It represents our best interests.
It represents a reduction of nuclear weapons, a reduction of delivery
vehicles and represents, in my judgment, another step in reducing the
nuclear threat. It is not even a giant step, but it certainly is a step
in the right direction.
This represents our best national security interests, and this
President has demonstrated, yes, he wants a world with fewer nuclear
weapons. He wants a world, as would I, with no nuclear weapons at some
point. But this President would never allow negotiations or never allow
circumstances in which this country is unarmed or unprepared or unable
to meet its national security needs. He has not done that, not in this
treaty, and will not do it in the future.
I did want to stand up and say that because of the comments earlier
by the Senator who suggested there is some sort of weakness for a
country that aspires to have a reduction of nuclear weapons on this
planet.
Let me finally say, I have spoken at length on this floor about the
severity of losing even just one nuclear weapon. I have told the story
about a CIA agent code-named Dragonfire who reported 1 month after 9/11
that a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen from Russia and that
nuclear weapon had been smuggled into New York City and was to be
detonated. There was an apoplectic seizure in this town about it
because no one knew what to do about it. They did not even notify the
mayor of New York.
They discovered a month later that was probably not a credible piece
of information. But as they did the diagnosis of it, they discovered it
is plausible someone could have acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon
from Russia, it was plausible; if they had done that, they could have
smuggled it into an American city and if terrorists did that they could
have detonated it. Then we are not talking about 3,000 deaths, we are
talking about 100,000, 200,000 deaths.
The work we have done in so many areas, the work in this
administration, let me say, to secure loose nuclear materials,
circumstances where plutonium or highly enriched uranium in the size of
a liter or, in one case, in the size of a small can of soda, enough to
kill tens and tens of thousands of people with a nuclear weapon--this
is serious business. At a time when we debate a lot of issues--serious
and not so serious--this is serious business.
I think the work that has been done by the chairman and ranking
member in recent days--I watched a lot of this and watched it over this
year--is extraordinary work. But so too is the work by this President,
by the negotiators. My colleague described the folks at the State
Department who had a significant role as well.
Let us not ever think it is a source of weakness to be negotiating
verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons among those who possess them.
That is a source of strength, and it is important for our kids and
grandchildren who can succeed by continuing to do that with treaties
that make the best sense for this country's national security
interests.
I see the Senator from Massachusetts does not yet have a unanimous
consent request, but I know all my colleagues are anxious to see one.
I yield the floor, and I expect, as the majority leader indicated,
within the next half hour or so we will be voting, and I think that is
good news. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.