[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Page 19438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              START TREATY

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I think most of us believe we should not 
play partisan politics when it comes to nuclear weapons. But in a 
speech this morning at the Heritage Foundation, my colleagues, our 
colleague, Senator Jim DeMint, claimed the new START treaty weakens our 
national security. I like our colleague from South Carolina. He has 
been the ranking member on the European Affairs Subcommittee of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, which I have chaired for the last 2 years, 
and we have worked very well together. But on this issue he is just 
wrong.
  Nearly the entire foreign policy and national security establishment, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, completely disagree with him. Senator 
DeMint is arguing that this treaty somehow weakens our national 
security and limits our strategic options. That argument has little 
basis in reality and is opposed by every living former Republican 
Secretary of State, five former Secretaries of Defense, seven former 
commanders of our strategic nuclear weapons, foreign policy and 
national security giants from seven former Presidential administrations 
and former President George H.W. Bush. All of these national security 
heavyweights argue the exact opposite of Senator DeMint, and they all 
agree the new START treaty strengthens our national security.
  The new START treaty has the unanimous backing of America's military 
leadership and America's NATO allies. According to the most recent CBS 
news poll, the treaty now has the support of 82 percent of Americans. 
Now is the time to vote on the new START treaty. No one is rushing this 
treaty. Since the treaty was signed back in April, the Senate has had 
245 days--I want to repeat that, 245 days--to thoroughly review and 
consider this agreement. After 20 Senate hearings, more than 31 
witnesses, over 900 questions and answers, and 8 months of 
consideration, including a significant delay during the August recess 
for additional time before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the 
consensus is clear. New START is in our national security interest, and 
the Senate should not wait any longer to ratify this treaty.
  I ask the opponents of this treaty to consider our broader national 
security interests. Think about the effect stalling this treaty or 
publicly rejecting it will have not only on our ability to monitor 
Russia--because we have had no inspectors on the ground in Russia for 
over a year now because the treaty expired on December 5, so it has 
been over a year--but on all of our counterproliferation efforts around 
the world. Failing to ratify New START this year tells the world we are 
not serious about the nuclear threat.
  I know my colleagues don't want Iran or North Korea or al-Qaida to 
have the bomb. We have heard that from everyone in this Chamber. 
Everyone is clear about that. Last week five former Republican 
Secretaries of State from five former Republican Presidents connected 
the passage of New START to our efforts on Iran and North Korea.
  Again, I ask opponents of this treaty, are ideological goals worth 
the risk to our national security? Delaying a vote on New START into 
next year is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with this Nation's 
security. I hope the opponents of this treaty will reconsider their 
opposition and recognize how important it is to this country's security 
to pass this treaty this year in this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________