[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17866-17867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE ``START'' OF MORE OBSTRUCTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the 111th Congress has been an astounding 
success, but throughout the last 2 years, when we have failed to pass 
good laws, it's usually because our colleagues on the other side of the 
Capitol have stood in the way of our progress, proudly engaging in 
stubborn obstructionism.
  The Senate is where good legislation goes to die. So I guess we 
shouldn't be surprised that it remains so right down to the final days 
of our session.
  It appears now that there may not be enough Republican votes to 
ratify the New START Treaty, which would make huge strides towards 
reducing the threat of nuclear destruction.
  This is distressing news, Mr. Speaker. After years of negligence on 
nuclear issues, the New START could finally put us on a course toward 
the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. It would drastically 
reduce the size of nuclear arsenals here in the United States and in 
Russia. It would improve our access to Russian nuclear facilities, 
which we've been unable to inspect since the expiration of the original 
START treaty nearly a year ago. And it would put our relationship with 
Russia on more solid footing, enhancing bilateral cooperation on a host 
of issues.
  In the words of the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
Mr. Kerry, he said, and I quote him: ``Ratifying New START is not a 
political choice; it's a national security imperative.''
  But apparently, Mr. Speaker, some over in the other Chamber aren't 
moved by national security imperatives. For them, 1,550 strategic 
warheads, the level mandated by New START, isn't a sufficient arsenal, 
even though 1,550 strategic warheads is enough to blow up the world 
several times over. The only way they know to

[[Page 17867]]

deal with national security, it appears, is to send thousands of 
American troops to die in failed wars that carry a combined price tag 
of over $1 trillion.
  New START isn't perfect. I wish it were less incremental and more 
ambitious. I wish it embraced more of the principles contained in my 
resolution, which is called ``Nonproliferation Options for Nuclear 
Understanding to Keep Everyone Safe,'' or ``NO NUKES'' for short. NO 
NUKES would move more aggressively toward complete nuclear global 
disarmament, which was exactly the long-term goal we committed to as a 
Nation when we signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 40 years 
ago.
  But New START is most definitely consistent with the SMART Security 
platform I laid out from this podium so many times, Mr. Speaker. 
Specifically, it advances the idea that we make the world safer, not 
through violence, not through acts of war and weapons escalation, but 
through diplomacy, cooperation, and conflict resolution.
  New START is good enough as a first step. It's good enough for the 
top military brass, past and present, who have endorsed it. It's good 
enough for leading foreign policy dignitaries from across the political 
spectrum. The only holdouts are a minority of Senators who seem more 
interested in embarrassing the President on the international stage 
than they are in a major international security breakthrough.
  Concessions have been made to these lawmakers. Their opinions have 
been heard, their concerns addressed. Now it's time for action. For the 
safety of the American people and possibly for the future of human 
civilization, it is time to pass New START.

                          ____________________