[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22938-22954]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all consent agreements that I have been 
involved in over the years have been imperfect, but this is the best we 
could do. I think it is a pretty good one.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today all postcloture time be 
considered expired and the Reid motion to concur with amendments be 
withdrawn; that no further amendments or motions be in order, and 
without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote 
on the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment on H.R. 2965; that upon disposition of the House message, the 
Senate then resume executive session and the START treaty and there be 
4 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the McCain 
amendment, No. 4814, with the time equally divided and controlled 
between Senators Kerry and McCain or their designees; that upon 
disposition of the McCain amendment, Senator Risch be recognized to 
offer an amendment, with any debate time prior to disposition of the 
House message with respect to H.R. 2965 equally divided and controlled 
between the leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
object, 4 minutes is not adequate for my amendment. There are a couple 
of speakers, including the cosponsor, Senator Barrasso.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say through the Chair to my friend, the 
Senator from Arizona, I agree. So tell me what time you think would be 
appropriate. It does not matter.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I join in this colloquy?
  I do not think there needs to be any reference to time for debate. If 
I could just make a brief statement, I think the purpose for this 
unanimous consent agreement was to allow Members, by unanimous consent, 
to speak as in morning business on the don't ask, don't tell bill prior 
to a vote on that at----
  Mr. REID. At 3 o'clock.
  Mr. KYL. At 3 o'clock, but that we would be on the treaty, and if 
people did not want to talk about the don't ask, don't tell, then we 
would be on the McCain-Barrasso amendment, and that debate would 
conclude before 3 o'clock, and then the vote on the McCain-Barrasso 
amendment would follow the vote on the don't ask, don't tell.
  Mr. REID. I think that is totally appropriate. I would just add and 
say to my friend while the Chair is considering the consent request, 
one of the reasons we were able to get this agreement is we have worked 
pretty hard in the last few days, and people felt we should have the 
afternoon off after we finish this information. As far as I am 
concerned, I will be in my office. If people want more time, that is 
fine. But that was one of the conditions that some people wanted on 
your side, and that is fine with me.
  We will come in about midday tomorrow to resume consideration of the 
START treaty.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, so I now understand that we now have a 
revised request, which is that between now and the hour of 3 o'clock, 
there will be an opportunity for Senators to speak either on the 
amendment or on don't ask, don't tell, and following the vote at 3 
o'clock on don't ask, don't tell, there would then be a vote on the 
McCain amendment. Is that correct? I agree with that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is that agreeable to the manager?
  Mr. KERRY. I think that makes sense.
  Mr. REID. I would ask, Mr. President, that the request be modified to 
the effect here as has been indicated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The request is agreed to.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor today--and before I speak, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Boxer of California be the next 
Democratic Senator speaking after I conclude and Senator Hutchison has 
concluded on the Republican side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. What is the 
pending business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to concur 
on H.R. 2965. That is the pending business. As I understand the request 
from the Senator from Washington, on the Democratic side Senator Boxer 
will be the next Democrat recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Following the Republican speaker.
  Mr. McCAIN. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the time would be either 
on the don't ask, don't tell or the START treaty.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. The Senator is correct. I am merely 
asking for----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be equally divided between now 
and 3 o'clock, and the Senators may speak on either subject.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak and join 
in the effort to repeal don't ask, don't tell.
  This policy has failed in its intended goals. It has done a 
tremendous disservice to the men and women who want nothing more than 
to defend our country, and it is time for this policy to go. I want to 
begin this afternoon by talking about a true hero from my home State of 
Washington named Margaret Witt.
  She joined the Air Force in 1987 and served honorably for 18 years as 
a flight nurse--rising to the rank of major. She was described in 
reviews and by her peers as being an exemplary officer, an effective 
leader, and a skilled and caring nurse.
  But in 2004 her superiors discovered she was a lesbian and, acting 
under don't ask, don't tell policy they suspended and ultimately 
discharged her. Margaret lost the job she had given her life to, and 
our country lost a talented and committed flight nurse.
  She did not give up. She went to court. She called witnesses. She 
made her case. In September of this year, U.S. District Judge Ronald 
Leighton ruled that she must be reinstated. Judge Leighton said the 
government gave no compelling reason for dismissing Major Witt, and 
that the application of don't ask, don't tell was not shown to further 
the government's interest in promoting military readiness.
  That was the right decision, and it was amazing news for Major Witt. 
She is now working with disabled veterans in Spokane, WA, but she says 
she is excited to get back in the air and back to helping the troops 
who need her.
  Major Witt is a true hero. Her commitment to our country should be 
recognized and honored. But she should never have been put in this 
position. She has the skills, the experience, and the commitment to do 
her job. The fact that she is a lesbian does not change that one bit.
  There are so many reasons to repeal don't ask, don't tell and to do 
it now. This policy destroys lives. We have all heard stories like 
Margaret's. There are thousands like it, and for every one we hear 
there are so many more who suffer silently, whose lives and livelihoods 
are devastated--not because of something they did but because of who 
they are: men and women who are

[[Page 22939]]

kicked out of the military or who are forced to lie to everyone they 
work with, who go to sleep petrified they will be found out about and 
discharged, and who wake up dreading another day of mandated deceit and 
dishonesty.
  It is wrong. It needs to end.
  Don't ask, don't tell is depriving our armed services of talented men 
and women at a time when we need our best on the front lines defending 
America. We are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we cannot 
afford to lose critical assets simply because they are gay.
  Finally, we also know that repealing don't ask, don't tell will not 
have an adverse impact on the military. We have heard from military 
leaders who support this repeal. The Pentagon recently came out with 
their report that showed that repealing this policy would not inhibit 
their ability to carry out the missions they are charged with.
  In fact, that report said 70 percent of servicemembers believe repeal 
would have little to no effect on their units.
  Repealing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do. It is right 
for our country. It is right for our military. It is right for Major 
Witt and thousands like her. It is right for people like Rebekah. She 
is a young woman from Spokane in my home State. She wrote me a letter a 
couple of months ago and told me she is a senior at Eastern Washington 
University, and her dream for years has been to join the U.S. Army. She 
wrote to me and said:

       I believe the military is an honorable calling. One of 
     self-sacrifice and dedication--and I would be proud to call 
     myself a soldier.

  But there was a problem. Rebekah told me the very sense of honor that 
called her to serve her country was preventing her from acting on her 
dream because she told me she is a lesbian. She is very proud of who 
she is. As long as the official policy of the United States Army is to 
ask her to bury that pride, to tell her to keep secret a large part of 
who she is, and to ask her to live what would essentially be a lie, she 
simply will not be able to serve our country.
  Rebekah told me that nothing would make her happier than to be able 
to graduate this coming spring and start her journey standing up for 
our Nation. She does not want to feel that she should be ashamed of who 
she is, and she should not have to.
  We need to repeal don't ask, don't tell so young women like Rebekah 
will not stop dreaming of growing up to serve our country, and so that 
every man and woman in our Armed Forces can serve their country openly 
and with pride. We have heard the stories of the lives this policy has 
ruined. We have heard from top-ranking military officials that it 
simply does not work. We have heard from servicemembers that they, too, 
want it to change. Today, this afternoon, with this historic vote, this 
country will move a step forward in being proud of every man and woman 
who serves their country.
  For far too long, men and women with courage and commitment to serve 
our Nation have been asked to hide the truth about who they are. It is 
shameful. It is a bad policy. Today, it will end.
  I look forward to the vote this afternoon and the courage of this 
Senate to stand up and do the right thing today.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                            New START Treaty

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the START 
treaty. We have been debating the START treaty off and on throughout 
the last few days, and there will be an amendment voted on for the 
resolution after the 3 o'clock vote on don't ask, don't tell.
  I wish to talk about the amendment and the treaty itself. This 
historic treaty is seeking, of course, to limit the strategic long-
range nuclear weapons that are currently in U.S. and Russian inventory 
for a total of 1,550 warheads for each country. While these limits 
require some reductions in the number of delivery vehicles and deployed 
warheads both countries possess, a change in the counting of warheads 
will allow both countries to cut hundreds of them on paper with no 
actual reductions. For example, under START I, each deployed delivery 
vehicle was counted as carrying a specified number of warheads 
regardless of how many warheads were actually equipped on the missile 
or bomber. New START abandons these rules, instead only counting the 
number of warheads actually equipped on deployed missiles. In addition, 
strategic bombers each count as one warhead regardless of how many 
warheads they are actually carrying.
  I also have reservations because of how New START limits our ability 
to conduct extensive and robust verification activities to ensure 
compliance with the treaty. The ability to adequately and thoroughly 
verify the enforcement of the treaty is crucial for two reasons--not 
only to ensure that both parties are holding up their end of the 
bargain but also as it relates to possibly one party losing control of 
missiles they are not accounting for. It is said in many quarters that 
some of the deteriorating nuclear materials in Russia have somehow 
gotten through to rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran. So it is 
very important to have a verification system that keeps count.
  I am concerned about the ability to conduct onsite inspections 
because it has been reduced in this agreement. Under START I, the 
United States conducted more than 600 inspections over the course of 15 
years. In New START, that number has been substantially reduced to only 
180 inspections over the course of 10 years.
  There are only two basic types of inspections in New START. Type one 
inspections focus on sites with deployed and nondeployed strategic 
systems. Type two focuses on sites with only nondeployed strategic 
systems. Each side is allowed to conduct 10 type one inspections and 8 
type two inspections annually. Under the previous START treaty, there 
were 12 types of onsite inspections as well as continuous onsite 
monitoring activities at a certain facility. Even though, as has been 
mentioned on this floor in the debate, there are fewer facilities, this 
is a pretty drastic reduction in the ability to actually have the 
onsite investigations. Because weapons inspectors will only have 10 
opportunities per year to inspect just 2 to 3 percent of Russia's 
force, we will be more reliant than in previous agreements on the full 
cooperation of Russia.
  I really don't know how we could have reached an agreement to 
substantially reduce our most effective method of enforcement. In fact, 
a recent State Department report issued by the Obama administration 
said:

       Notwithstanding the overall success of START I 
     implementation, a significant number of long-standing 
     compliance issues that have been raised in the START I 
     treaty's Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission remain 
     unresolved.

  Defense. I am also concerned that proposals under the New START 
treaty may restrict U.S. missile defense capabilities, which could 
threaten our national security. Of all of the concerns that have been 
raised, I think this is the most important. It also is part of the 
amendment we are going to consider this afternoon.
  Russia and the United States each issued unilateral statements when 
they signed New START that clarified their position on the relationship 
between START and missile defenses.
  The official Russian statement said:

       The treaty can operate and be viable only if the United 
     States refrains from developing its missile defense 
     capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

  Contrary to claims by the Obama administration that missile defense 
will not be negatively impacted, a review of the text of the treaty 
shows otherwise. The most obvious limitation on missile defense is 
found in article V, paragraph 3 of the treaty. It says this prevents 
converting existing intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, and 
submarine-launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, into launchers for 
missile defense interceptors.
  The administration says: Well, it is more expensive to actually 
convert than to create new ones.
  Well, we need to have flexibility. Whether we convert or whether we 
create new ones should not be a limitation

[[Page 22940]]

on the United States. U.S. planning and force requirements might have 
to change in the future to respond to evolving world threats during New 
START's tenure. It is important that our Nation be able to adjust our 
military defense systems if needed. We are not just talking about 
Russia now. We are talking about adjusting our missile defense 
capabilities against any other country in the world, including rogue 
nations we believe have nuclear capabilities. We are not sure how far 
developed they are, but we know North Korea is trying to have a 
ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. We know Iran is too. We know 
Pakistan has them, and though Pakistan is an ally, it is a fragile 
government at this point.
  Why would we in any way link our own missile defense capabilities 
with the evolving threats out there, regardless of the present good 
terms we have with Russia? Why would we do that? That is a unilateral 
capability that our country must insist we keep for our sovereign 
Nation.
  The McCain amendment would take out of the preamble to this treaty:

       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.

  We want to take that out. It is absolutely essential that we take 
this out of the preamble.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of 
the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we need to ensure that our defenses 
are not in any way inhibited by this treaty because we must defend 
against countries that perhaps are not enemies of Russia, but they 
might be ours. And to in any way restrict our defenses is not necessary 
to ensure that we have mutual offensive lowering of numbers.
  So I am very concerned about this particular segment. If we can adopt 
the McCain amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, it would take me a 
significant way toward believing this treaty would be worthy of 
ratification.
  I am seriously concerned that although it is clear that a number of 
restrictions will be placed on the United States under this treaty, the 
same is not necessarily true for our partner to the treaty--Russia.
  Dr. Keith Payne, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Forces Policy, has noted that New START's limitations are of little 
real consequence for Russia because Russia's aged Cold War strategic 
launchers already have been reduced below New START ceilings. 
Additionally, many defense analysts predict Russia will have fewer than 
1,500 nuclear warheads by 2012.
  Russian defense expert Mikhail Barabonov bluntly makes the same 
point. He says:

       The truth is, Russia's nuclear arsenal is already at or 
     even below the new ceilings.

  Already at or even below the new ceilings.

       At the time of the signing of the treaty, Russia had a 
     total of just 640 strategic delivery vehicles--only 571 of 
     them deployed . . . It therefore becomes evident that Russia 
     needs no actual reductions to comply. If anything, it may 
     need to bring some of its numbers up to the new limits, not 
     down.

  That brings me to the second major point that concerns me about the 
treaty; that is, the modernization capabilities for our warheads that 
are part of our arsenal. We can do something about this outside the 
treaty and still go forward with the ratification, but so far we have 
not had the assurances that would allow us to know our modernization 
could be done.
  According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, today's nuclear weapons 
have aged well beyond their originally planned life, and the nuclear 
complex has fallen into neglect. It has been 18 years since our arsenal 
has been tested.
  I share the concerns of my colleague, Senator Kyl, who has been a 
leader on this issue. We must ensure--and we can do it in a separate, 
signed ratification resolution--that the United States has a strong 
plan that provides for a nuclear modernization program that ensures 
that if we did need to deploy because a rogue nation that is not part 
of any treaties or is a part of a treaty but isn't going to comply--we 
need to ensure our deterrent is real. Our deterrent will be real if our 
warheads are assured of still being capable of being a deterrent, being 
deployed, being used in the very worst case circumstances.
  As President Reagan said, trust, but verify when you are making 
treaties with other countries, especially this treaty that is going to 
have such consequences as one that might lower our capability to defend 
our country from a nuclear missile, a warhead on a missile that could 
be delivered to our country by a rogue nation.
  This has nothing to do with Russia. We don't expect them to launch a 
missile against the United States, that is for sure. But we do know 
that there are other nations that are enemies of the United States, 
that are trying to get, and possibly have, nuclear warheads and the 
capability to deliver them.
  So we need to assure, first and foremost, two things: that our 
nuclear capabilities are viable, which means we need a modernization 
program that we can be assured has an arsenal that can work; No. 2, we 
need to make sure our ability to maintain missile defense is not 
negatively impacted by this treaty. There is no reason to connect it to 
a treaty that is going to limit offenses. As long as our missiles are 
capable of being deployed, that is leverage we must have. But we 
certainly have no reason to lower our capability to defend our country 
unilaterally, which I cannot imagine that any administration--and 
certainly not the Senate--would sign or ratify a treaty that might take 
away our capability to defend our country. I would hate for it to be on 
our watch that we lowered the defenses of the United States, because we 
are being rushed into ratifying a treaty without the full capability to 
amend it, or that we don't make sure in every detail, as Senator Kyl 
has said so many times, that we have preserved our capabilities to 
defend our country against any enemy; and secondly, that we have the 
capability to go on offense so that any country that might decide to 
send a nuclear warhead into our territory, or into anyplace where our 
troops are on the ground fighting for freedom, that that country or 
that group of rogue nations would know we could respond because our 
arsenal of weapons is viable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two 
Democrats on the list be Senator Leahy, followed by Senator Shaheen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to respond to the comments of my 
friend from Texas, who was very passionate in her remarks, by saying it 
interested me that she raised the name of President Ronald Reagan, 
because a lot of major players in his administration support this 
treaty--George Shultz, for one, and also James Baker. In addition, the 
current Director of National Intelligence, who is responsible for 
verification, supports this treaty. And LTG Patrick O'Reilly, head of 
the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, says that the New START treaty 
actually reduces constraints on the development of missile defense.
  I think her comments were very articulate, but they are not correct, 
because, again, I will place into the Record the many leaders from 
former Republican administrations who are pressing us hard to get this 
treaty done. As a matter of fact, we haven't had boots on the ground to 
verify what the Russians are doing for a long time now. This treaty 
will make sure we can verify. But whether it is Defense Secretary 
Robert Gates, or Patrick O'Reilly, as I said, head of the U.S. Missile 
Defense Agency, or the Director of National Intelligence--you also have 
former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger saying he doesn't believe 
this inhibits missile defense. You have the former Secretary of Defense 
under President Clinton, William Perry, being very strong on this, 
along

[[Page 22941]]

with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and so on. In the Washington 
Post, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence 
Eagleburger, and Colin Powell made the following statement. ``New START 
preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses.'' The 
testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make it 
clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.
  I think the biggest danger to our country is not acting on this. If 
we don't act, it is a danger to the national security of this Nation. I 
am very pleased to see the incredible bipartisan support outside of 
this Chamber and, I hope, inside this Chamber. I am very hopeful. But 
we will find out in the coming days.
  I want to also talk about the two very critical votes we cast here 
moments ago, which are so important to large segments of our 
communities. The DREAM Act, which would give a path of legality to 
students who are outstanding in their communities and who want to join 
the military, or go to college, is an important bill. Because of the 
filibuster we needed 60 votes. We got 55 votes--a majority--but the 
Republican filibuster stopped us from passing it.
  Today the dreams of young, talented students who grew up in America 
were crushed because of a filibuster. We have to make it clear to the 
people who follow this that the Republicans stopped us from passing the 
DREAM Act, even though we had a few of them join us. I say thank you to 
those on the other side. We got 55 votes. We had 90 percent of 
Democrats voting for it and less than 10 percent of Republicans--90 
percent of Republicans voted against it. Today, dreams were crushed.
  I believe in America. My mother was born in a foreign land and, by 
the grace of God, she was naturalized, and she kissed the ground of 
this country. I often think to myself, what if she had a foul-up in her 
papers somehow, what would have happened to me? Would I be a different 
person? No, I would be the same human being. America would be my 
country.
  The reason I am so passionate on this is these are young people who 
would make our country stronger. As a matter of fact, our military says 
the DREAM Act is a recruiter's dream, because we get the best and the 
brightest to sign up for the military. In my State, where I am so proud 
of our incredible diversity, we have a group of young people who are 
ready to go to college there, start their own businesses there, get 
jobs there, form their families there, work in their communities. They 
already are.
  I have shown on the floor of the Senate many times individuals who 
were caught in this limbo state. A lot of them are presidents of their 
student bodies, A students, leaders in their communities. Studies show 
that if the DREAM Act passes, the gross domestic product of our Nation 
will increase. There is a very good study, a recent study by USC, the 
University of Southern California, that is very clear on the point.
  It seems to me what we did today by failing to end the filibuster, 
even though we had a strong majority vote, we hurt our country. Why did 
we hurt our country? Because our children are our future. These are 
very bright young people, who are very motivated. They would be the 
only ones to benefit from the DREAM Act.
  I am here today with a message: I will never give up until we pass 
the DREAM Act.
  On the good side today, from my perspective, we made some history. We 
did break a filibuster--a Republican filibuster--on the issue of ending 
discrimination in the military against gays and lesbians. We voted to 
end that filibuster and take up the issue of the repeal of don't ask, 
don't tell. I do believe, in a few hours, that policy will be gone.
  There are moments in history that come to us, and for me to be here 
at this time--and I know I speak for a lot of colleagues--and cast a 
right for civil rights, cast a vote for justice, cast a vote for 
equality, and to cast a vote against discrimination is a high honor.
  I have to say as a point of personal privilege, I was here when that 
policy went into effect. It was 1993 and I was a new Member of the 
Senate. I thought this was the wrong policy at that time. So I said to 
my staff: Can't we do something and stop this? We decided the best way 
to try to stop it was to say let's not codify this policy. Let's not 
put it into law. Let's have an amendment that says it is up to the 
executive branch. That way, the executive branch could repeal it if it 
didn't work, and it would be easier.
  It is interesting because our thoughts were right on target, because 
our President does not support don't ask, don't tell, and he would, in 
a heartbeat, of course, remove it as a policy through Executive order. 
But because we had voted it into law, we had to act.
  I decided to go back to the speech I made on that day, September 9, 
1993, and take a look at some of the things I said about don't ask, 
don't tell. First, I said, on the question of codification--that is, 
putting don't ask, don't tell into law:

       There is no historic precedent for the codification of the 
     military personnel policy that prevents a whole class of 
     Americans from serving their country in the Armed Forces.

  I felt it was against precedent, and I said:

       There is simply no compelling reason to believe we should 
     break with history and codify such a policy.

  I mentioned that, over the past four decades, Congress had declined 
to impose restrictive personnel policies on the military. I quoted a 
former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Barry Goldwater, who 
stated:

       Banning loyal Americans from the Armed Forces because of 
     their sexual orientation is just plain un-American.

  I said the policy is a policy of outright discrimination, which flies 
in the face of the very American values that the military has sworn to 
defend.
  I lauded the courage of those military personnel who were willing to 
come forward and testify before Congress way back then. And, of course, 
fast forward to today, it is incredible that brave men and women 
serving in uniform in Iraq and in Afghanistan, who put their careers on 
the line, can stand up and be counted and speak truth to power about 
this issue.
  I think this is an important point. The military has a very strict 
code of conduct, which it must have. So everybody in the military must 
adhere to it, whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever 
your orientation is; you have to live by the code of conduct. In 1993 
we had just come through this horrible scandal called Tailhook. It was 
awful. You had a series of rapes, and you had a very bad circumstance, 
which was brought out into the public. Action was taken. So, clearly, 
heterosexuals in the military, when they misbehave in a sexual way, are 
going to be punished. It is the same way for improper homosexual 
behavior. It will not be tolerated.
  That is the point. I said that don't ask, don't tell is a policy of 
discrimination based on your status instead of your behavior.
  Here is something else I said in 1993:

       It is easy to lose sight of the impact that policies have 
     on people's lives. It is easy to label people that are 
     different from us as ``those people.'' We might be able to 
     temporarily fool ourselves into thinking that those people 
     are not part of our social fabric.

  I read into the Record some writing of a German philosopher, who 
wrote about World War II, in which he said:

       When the Nazis came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because 
     I was not a Jew. And when the Nazis came for the gypsies, I 
     didn't speak up because I was not a gypsy. And when the Nazis 
     came for the mentally defective, I didn't speak up because I 
     was not mentally defective. When the Nazis came for me, there 
     was no one left to speak up.

  So I said: Let's not do this to gay and lesbian people. Let's have a 
code of behavior that affects us all and does not divide us. We fool 
ourselves when we say that the gay and lesbian community is not part of 
our social fabric; that they are not human; that they do not have an 
effect on our lives. That isn't right. We are all God's children and 
they are our sons and our daughters.
  So in a couple of hours, for me, this issue comes full circle. I got 
33 votes that day in 1993 for my amendment not to codify don't ask, 
don't tell. I got 33

[[Page 22942]]

votes, and I was proud of that. I remember Howard Metzenbaum--may he 
rest in peace--said at that time: The Boxer amendment is a civil rights 
amendment, and I was proud. But I was so sad to lose badly--33 votes. 
Today--today--we have come a long way, and we have come a long way 
because people have put their fear aside and they came forward and they 
told their stories. They took the light and they focused it on the 
truth. We have come a long way because of their families who love them 
and have spoken out. We have come a long way because the military 
itself, in the Pentagon's recently released survey, said it doesn't 
matter. Seventy percent of our servicemembers said we don't care about 
sexual orientation.
  So this is America at its best--when we open our arms to equality and 
freedom and justice.
  In closing, I would say there is more work we have to do on this 
whole issue. There is still a lot of unfairness in our laws--partners 
not being able to have the same rights as married couples. That is 
another whole issue we will work on. But I am confident that as 
Americans we will move forward. When we started out, only White men of 
property could vote. We have struggled. All this is a struggle. It is 
not easy. The struggle for freedom is not easy. People have died for 
freedom in all these communities. It is in our history. But this will 
be a day that will go down in American history as a day we lifted a 
barrier, and America is stronger because of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Senator from 
Wyoming, just for planning purposes? I am going to be recognized next. 
Approximately how long does the Senator think he will take?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 10 to 12 minutes on the START treaty.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
McCain-Barrasso amendment to the New START treaty, and I appreciate 
hearing all the strong and passionate support for this amendment from 
my colleagues on the issue of missile defense. We debated this 
yesterday, well into the evening, and we are going to be voting on this 
a little after 3 this afternoon.
  I think it is important that the American people are given the 
opportunity to hear the implications of the New START treaty. The New 
START treaty significantly impacts America's national security and our 
nuclear deterrent. I believe this treaty places limitations on the 
ability of our Nation to defend itself--limitations I believe should 
not be in the treaty.
  The preamble to the New START treaty provides an explicit link 
between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear 
defensive weapons. It also implies the right of Russia to withdraw from 
the treaty based on U.S. missile defense that is beyond ``the current 
strategic capabilities.'' Well, by specifying current strategic 
capabilities, the intent is clear: They are signaling that future U.S. 
capabilities could pose a problem. Russia does not want us to improve 
or to expand missile defense capabilities for the United States. For 
me, this is absolutely unacceptable.
  The administration claims the language in the preamble has no legally 
binding significance. They claim it is simply a nonbinding concession 
to Russia--a nonbinding concession to Russia. Well, it is important to 
note that the New START treaty is not the first attempt by Russia to 
limit our national defense. Russia has wanted language limiting U.S. 
missile defense for a long time. They are looking for grounds to claim 
the U.S. missile defense program violates an international agreement.
  Russian threats have had an impact on our own missile defense 
decisions in the past. This administration abandoned previous plans to 
deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is 
evident the administration already receives considerable pressure from 
Russia to limit our Nation's missile defense activities. I believe the 
language in the treaty will only further add to that pressure and will 
impact U.S. decisionmaking on our own missile defense.
  I wish to emphasize, again, that the United States must always remain 
in charge of our own missile defense capabilities, not Russia and not 
any other country. It is unacceptable for the United States to make any 
concessions on missile defense. Defending our Nation should be a top 
priority.
  Many of my colleagues have come to the floor over and over to 
highlight this very point. We share a deep concern about the 
concessions the New START treaty provides to Russia, especially the 
limitations of our missile defense. There is no legitimate reason for 
the inclusion of limitations to our national security in this treaty. 
The New START treaty is just the first step in allowing greater 
concessions on U.S. missile defense in future agreements.
  I think it is also important to point out the continual change in the 
story by the administration--the one they have provided this Senate 
regarding the inclusion of missile defense language in the treaty. 
Originally, the Senate was told the New START treaty would not contain 
anything on missile defense. Then the Senate was informed there would 
be no reference to missile defense other than in the preamble of the 
treaty but certainly no limitations. Then we found that article V of 
the treaty contains a limitation on the conversion of ICBM and SLBM 
launchers into launchers for missile defense. The Senate has a treaty 
before it now on nuclear strategic offensive weapons with several 
limitations on missile defense. We are now being told not to worry 
about these limitations on our ability to defend ourselves in the New 
START treaty. The administration says: Well, it is only a statement of 
fact. They say: It isn't legally binding or this administration doesn't 
plan to use it or it is only an insignificant concession to the 
Russians.
  I do not find any of these arguments comforting. This treaty sets a 
terrible precedent. The United States should not be placing any 
constraints on our ability to defend ourselves, no matter the type, the 
size or the length of time.
  Significant disagreements exist between the United States and Russia 
on missile defense provisions in the New START treaty. Some argue it 
doesn't matter what Russia says about the issue. Well, I believe it is 
vital that we examine what Russia has said about this very matter. When 
two countries enter into a bilateral agreement, there needs to be an 
actual agreement--an agreement of what is said and an agreement of what 
it means. Discussing the disagreements between the two parties to the 
treaty is imperative, and it is part of the Senate's constitutional 
obligation. The two parties to this treaty--the United States and 
Russia--need to know how both parties will be acting and how they will 
both be interpreting the New START treaty. We cannot ignore the 
differences.
  Some proponents of the treaty have argued that passing the McCain-
Barrasso amendment will complicate ratification. I reject that idea. I 
reject the idea that the Senate's advice and consent duty is to take it 
or leave it. I believe the Senate's advice and consent role is either 
to accept the treaty or improve the treaty, and that is what this 
amendment does--it improves the treaty. We, as a Senate, cannot simply 
be a rubberstamp to treaties due to fears of fixing flaws and improving 
important provisions.
  The Congressional Research Service published a study on the role of 
the Senate in the treaty process. It is titled ``Treaties and Other 
International Agreements: The Role of The United States Senate.'' On 
page 125, the study states:

       Amendments are proposed changes in the actual text of the 
     treaty. They amount, therefore, to Senate counteroffers that 
     alter the original deal agreed to by the United States and 
     the other country.

  So should the Senate agree to strike the missile defense section of 
the preamble, we are simply asking the Russians to accept it. The ball 
is in Russia's court. The Russians can either accept or reject the 
Senate's

[[Page 22943]]

counteroffer. If the text of the preamble is just a nonbinding 
statement of fact, then Russia should not have any problem in 
eliminating that portion of the preamble. But if Russia does have a 
problem with eliminating a so-called nonbinding statement of fact and 
Russia is willing to jeopardize the entire treaty over it, then every 
Member of the Senate should be concerned about the provision's impact.
  The treaty's preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile 
defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials all show an attempt by 
Russia to limit or to constrain future U.S. missile defense 
capabilities. Let's take a look at the Russian unilateral statement. It 
shows how the Russians will act under the treaty. It states:

       The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United 
     States of America on the reduction and limitation of 
     strategic offensive arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, 
     can operate and be viable only if the United States of 
     America refrains from developing its missile defense 
     capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

  That is the Russian unilateral statement. Russian Foreign Minister 
Lavrov stated the treaty contained ``legally binding linkage between 
strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' He went on:

       The treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only 
     within the context of the levels which are now present in the 
     sphere of strategic defensive systems.

  To me those statements seem very clear. The negotiators have given in 
and they have allowed limitations on our missile defense capabilities. 
I have no doubt that Russia will threaten to withdraw from the treaty, 
should the United States expand its current nuclear capabilities.
  There should be no problem in removing the language in the preamble 
when treaty proponents believe that it has no legally binding 
significance.
  I have been sitting here, visiting and discussing this treaty with 
Members on both sides. This amendment only strikes a portion of the 
treaty that people who support the treaty have called nonbinding, 
legally insignificant, and one Senator called it a throwaway provision. 
Then they should throw it away. This Senate can ensure that there is no 
limit on U.S. missile defense by simply passing the McCain-Barrasso 
amendment. Our missile defense is worth the effort and the time to get 
it right.
  The McCain-Barrasso amendment significantly improves the treaty and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                         Don't Ask, Don't Tell

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know in a couple of hours we will be 
voting on repeal of don't ask, don't tell, now that we have been able 
to go past the filibuster of it. I wish to speak about that for a few 
minutes.
  While partisan rancor seems to have seized the Senate on so many 
occasions this year, on at least this one count I am encouraged and I 
am hopeful. There is yet sufficient bipartisan agreement to repeal the 
discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy before this Congress ends. 
I commend the Senators who have pledged to support the repeal. Of 
course I renew my own commitment in support of the effort. It is well 
past time to put an end to this discriminatory and harmful policy.
  Today, in the Senate, the stage is set again for one of the major 
civil rights victories of our lifetimes. Years from now I hope 
historians will have good cause to remember that today is the day when 
the two parties overcame superficial differences to advance the pursuit 
of equal rights for all Americans. After much effort and just as much 
study and discussion, the Senate will finally proceed to an up-or-down 
vote on repealing this counterproductive policy.
  For too long we have said let's vote maybe, we are not quite ready 
for a vote, let's get the filibuster going. I think most Americans 
expect Senators--after all there are only 100 of us--they expect us to 
come here and either vote yes or vote no, not vote maybe. A filibuster 
is voting maybe. To Senators who keep saying I want to think about it 
more, I want to go longer--we have had years of study. This afternoon 
it is time for every man and woman in this body to step forward and 
vote either yes or no. For those who still harbor concerns that 
enacting this repeal would somehow harm readiness, one simple fact is 
the clearest answer. Gay and lesbian Americans already serve honorably 
in the U.S. Armed Forces and they have always done so. There is no 
doubt that they have served in the military since the earliest days of 
the Republic. The only reason they could do so, then and now, even 
under today's discriminatory policy, is because they display the same 
conduct and professionalism that we expect from all our men and women 
in uniform. They are no different from anyone else. They should be 
treated no differently. As one combat veteran said: I don't care 
whether the soldier next to me is straight or not; I care whether he 
can shoot straight or not.
  In ending this policy we are bringing to an end years of forced 
discriminatory and corrosive secrecy. Giving these troops the right to 
serve openly, allowing them to be honest about who they are, will not 
cause disciplined servicemembers to suddenly become distracted on the 
battlefield. It is pandering to suggest that they would be.
  But that is not only my view. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 
Admiral Mullen, has said time and time again that this is the right 
thing to do, that it will not harm our military readiness.
  Gay soldiers and straight soldiers have fought and died for our 
country throughout the history of this country. Gay soldiers and 
straight soldiers have fought and died for our country in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I think of one of the editorial cartoons showing parents 
at a military graveyard and they are looking at the grave of their son. 
One says, ``They didn't ask.'' And the other said, ``They didn't 
tell.''
  Look at this--three coffins draped in flags. The caption is, ``Which 
is the gay one?''
  Like so many other Senators, I have walked on a quiet day through the 
graveyard at Arlington National Cemetery. I have seen dates going back 
long before I was born. I see people who have died in our world wars, 
died in Korea, died in Vietnam, who die now in Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
look at the names--some from my own State--and like everybody else who 
walks through, I think of the sacrifice of these people and the 
sacrifice of their families, the life that would not be lived, the 
children who might not know a parent, the brother who might not know a 
sister or sister who might not know a brother, parents who are burying 
their child. Of course in the natural order, children bury their 
parents. Here, parents have buried their child.
  Does anybody look at those graves and say: Move this one because we 
just found out that soldier who died in battle was gay? If anybody 
asked to do that there would be an uproar in this country. So I ask why 
any question about them serving? Every member of our armed services 
should be judged solely on his or her contribution to the mission. 
Repealing don't ask, don't tell will ensure that we stay true to the 
principles on which our great Nation was founded.
  We ask our troops to protect freedom around the globe. Isn't it time 
that we protect their basic freedoms and equal rights here at home? 
Throughout our history the Senate has shown its ability to reflect and 
illuminate the Nation's deepest ideals and the Nation's conscience. It 
is my hope the Senate will rise to this occasion by breaking through 
the partisan din and proceed to debate, as we have, and now vote on 
repealing the discriminatory and counterproductive policy.
  I see my good friend and neighbor from across the Connecticut river, 
Senator Shaheen, and I see my friend and colleague--I apologize, I did 
not see him--the Senator from South Dakota. I know he is waiting. I 
will yield to him. It is my understanding Senator Shaheen will be 
recognized after Senator Thune.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

[[Page 22944]]


  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the START treaty, more 
specifically to the McCain-Barrasso amendment which is the amendment 
that is currently under consideration and on which we will vote later 
this afternoon. I want to point out at the outset that you do not have 
to watch the news very often in this country to realize we live in a 
dangerous world. There are lots of countries around the world that are 
run by regimes that not only mistreat their own populations but would 
love to do harm to countries that are allies of ours, as well as to the 
United States. That is why a debate about an issue such as missile 
defense is so important. That is why this particular provision in the 
START treaty has drawn so much attention, so much concern by many of us 
who are concerned about the linkage it establishes between offensive 
strategic arms and defensive strategic arms.
  The Senate made it abundantly clear at the outset of the negotiations 
on the New START treaty, specifically in section 1251 of the fiscal 
year 2010 National Defense Authorization bill, that there should be no 
limitations on U.S. ballistic missile defense systems. The New START 
treaty not only contains specific limitations on those systems, but 
also reestablishes an unwise linkage between offense and defense that 
was broken when the ABM Treaty came to an end.
  We were told as recently as March 29, by Under Secretary Tauscher, 
``The treaty does nothing to constrain missile defense. This treaty is 
about strategic weapons.''
  I quote again, ``There is no limit on what the United States can do 
with its missile defense systems.''
  And then quote again, ``There are no constraints to missile 
defense.''
  Those were all quotes made by Secretary Tauscher on March 29. But 
these assertions are incorrect in two ways. No. 1, not only are there 
specific limits on some missile defense options--and I note article V, 
paragraph 3 of the treaty text itself--but, second, when viewed 
together with the treaty's preamble, Russia's unilateral statement and 
statements by senior officials all provide potential for Russia to 
intimidate the United States by threatening to withdraw from the treaty 
if the United States seeks to increase its missile defense 
capabilities.
  The treaty's supporters are going to argue that the limit on 
converting offensive silos for missile defense is meaningless because 
we don't have any such plans. But the question I come back to is simply 
this: Why is there a limitation at all on missile defense in a treaty 
that is meant to deal with nuclear weapons? Why did we concede to the 
Russians on this important point and can we be sure we will never have 
such plans. After all, we have converted offensive silos to defensive 
silos--for defensive purposes--in the past.
  My own view is that particular provision in the treaty text is a 
direct linkage between offensive and defensive arms. Then you have the 
preamble and unilateral signing statements that I think are even more 
telling when it comes to that connection that is drawn between--that 
interrelationship between offense and defense.
  Far more pernicious is the treaty's preamble and the two unilateral 
signing statements by the Russians and by the United States. The 
preamble states, ``The current strategic defensive arms do not 
undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic arms of the 
Parties.''
  The statement suggests that moving beyond current systems might 
undermine the viability and effectiveness of strategic systems and 
could provide grounds for withdrawal.
  The administration says that either side can withdraw anyway. That is 
only partially true. The withdrawal clause in the treaty, as it has 
been in previous treaties, deals with extraordinary events and the 
preamble and unilateral statements make withdrawal more likely by 
building in an inevitable pretext.
  So you have the preamble, the language in the preamble, you have the 
direct linkage in the treaty text itself, and then I also want to 
mention the other point which I think is equally important and that is 
the Russian unilateral signing statement makes clear Russia's legal 
opinion. Here is what it says.

       The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United 
     States of America on the reduction and limitation of 
     strategic offensive arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, 
     can operate and be viable only if the United States of 
     America refrains from developing its missile defense 
     capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

  It further states:

       The exceptional circumstances referred to in article XIV, 
     the withdrawal clause of the treaty, include increasing the 
     capabilities of the United States of America's missile 
     defense system in such a way that threatens the potential of 
     the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.

  So the Russians have built into the treaty record their threat that 
improvement of U.S. missile defense creates the legal pretext for their 
withdrawal from the treaty. It can only be read as an attempt to exert 
political pressure to forestall continued development and deployment of 
U.S. missile defenses.
  Was our response to that a firm rebuttal? The answer is no. Unlike 
the START I agreement where the United States said quite clearly that 
it did not agree with Russian statements linking that treaty to the 
U.S. status in the ABM treaty, we did not do that this time.
  Instead, the State Department said, in response to the Russian 
unilateral statement:

       The United States of America takes note of the statement on 
     missile defense by the Russian Federation. The United States 
     missile defense systems would be employed to defend the 
     United States against limited missile launches, and to defend 
     its deployed forces, allies and partners against regional 
     threats. The United States intends to continue improving and 
     deploying its missile defense systems in order to defend 
     itself against limited attack, and as part of our 
     collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key 
     regions.

  So it would appear that the U.S. position does not contradict the 
Russian position in the slightest. What then to make of the U.S. 
missile defense plan previously announced by Secretary Gates, which 
talks about the deployment of SM-3 missiles in Romania by 2015, Poland 
by 2018, and then in 2020 the deployment in Europe of the new SM-3 2B 
missile for the defense of Europe and the United States against ICBMs; 
is this still our position or is it now the position set forth in the 
signing statement and as recently briefed to the NATO-Russia Council in 
Lisbon where the SN03 2B missile was portrayed quite clearly as being 
``available'' rather than ``deployed'' in the year 2020.
  It is clear to me the administration is already coming under 
considerable pressure by the Russians to limit its missile defense 
activities in the very near future. Past experience would suggest this 
administration may be willing to alter its plans to accommodate the 
Russians, as it did in the case of previous plans to deploy missile 
defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
  How will it respond if the President's prized accomplishment, the 
START treaty, is at risk? I think it is very clear from the language in 
the preamble, the direct linkage in the treaty itself, and what the 
signing statements say, what the Russians' intentions are with regard 
to this particular issue, which is why it is so important this 
amendment get adopted.
  This amendment the Senators from Arizona and Wyoming have offered 
would simply strike the language in the preamble that is causing so 
much concern. We have heard arguments on the floor of the Senate since 
we started debate on the START treaty that the preamble is nonbinding; 
in other words, it does not mean anything.
  In fact, it was said yesterday by someone on the other side that it 
is throwaway language. Yet at the same time, it has been argued by 
others on the other side that it is a treaty killer. It cannot be both. 
It cannot be a throwaway that is not legally binding and a treaty 
killer at the same time.
  Essentially, what they are saying is, it means nothing and it means 
everything. That is a direct contradiction.

[[Page 22945]]

That is why it is so important this amendment be adopted, which would 
clarify once and for all, or separate and decouple or delink this 
connection that exists in this treaty between offensive and defensive 
arms.
  I think the amendment that is before us right now gets at the very 
heart of the matter, and we all know the Russians and Americans have 
different views on missile defense. But the attempt to paper over or 
even ignore these differences in this treaty sets the stage for future 
misunderstandings or confrontations as the United States continues its 
missile defense activities, particularly in Europe.
  Confusion about U.S. plans is equally dangerous. This is not an issue 
on which there should be ambiguity, on which there should be confusion, 
and on which there should be this kind of a difference of opinion.
  So I would simply say, as we come here in an hour or so to a final 
vote on the McCain-Barrasso amendment, that I think it is important for 
the Senate in our important role when it comes to treaty ratification 
to make sure we are doing everything that is in the national security 
interests of the United States and allows us in the best way possible 
to defend this country and our allies.
  If we are limiting in any way our ability when it comes to the issue 
of missile defense, we are putting in jeopardy and at risk America's 
national security interests. So this treaty should not be approved. It 
should not be approved certainly until some of these changes are made, 
and we can start today by eliminating the linkage and the connection 
that exists today in the preamble by striking and deleting that 
language from the preamble of this treaty and making it very clear that 
the United States intends to preserve all options available to us when 
it comes to missile defense.
  As I said before, this is something--this linkage was broken years 
ago under the Bush administration. We should not establish now the 
precedent of allowing those issues to be linked and to give the 
Russians an opportunity and an excuse to withdraw from this treaty if 
the United States decides to proceed with what is in its own best 
national security interests.
  So I would urge my colleagues on this amendment--this is an important 
amendment. We will hopefully have debate on other amendments. I have a 
couple of amendments to deal with the issue of delivery vehicles which 
I think is also a very important part of this treaty. But there 
probably is no more important piece of this treaty than the issue of 
missile defense when it comes to the vital national security interests 
of the United States.
  So I hope Members will, when this vote comes up later today, vote in 
favor of the McCain-Barrasso amendment and make it clear that there is 
to be no linkage, no nexus, between strategic offensive arms and 
strategic defensive arms so we eliminate once and for all the ambiguity 
that exists with regard to this issue and allow us to proceed to other 
amendments on the treaty.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                                  DADT

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here today to express my strong 
support for the repeal of the don't ask don't tell policy. The Senate 
took a significant step toward that repeal earlier today. I want to 
congratulate and thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their strong 
bipartisan leadership on this issue. I was proud to be a cosponsor of 
this bill, and I hope we will soon send it to the President for his 
signature.
  It is not often that the Senate gets the opportunity with a single 
vote to right a wrong, but we have that opportunity here today. This is 
a historic vote, one for which this Senate will be remembered for a 
long time. This is our opportunity to fix an outdated, discriminatory 
and broken policy and to strengthen America's security. The United 
States, our military, and our security will be better off because of 
this legislation.
  I completely agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who strongly 
endorsed the repeal and urged the Senate to pass this legislation 
before the end of the year. Secretary Gates and America's military 
leadership understand that this discriminatory policy undermines our 
national security and diminishes our military readiness.
  A nation at war is a nation that needs the best, most qualified 
service members we can find regardless of sexual orientation. At a time 
when nearly 150,000 American men and women are serving in combat 
overseas, and at a time when our military is stretched thin across the 
globe, we simply cannot afford to lose some of our finest soldiers.
  Since the policy was instituted in 1993, more than 14,000 service 
members have been expelled from the military, and an estimated 4,000 
service members per year voluntarily leave because of this 
discriminatory policy. One thousand of those expelled were badly needed 
specialists with vital mission critical skills, like Arabic speakers 
and other technical experts.
  Don't ask, don't tell also ignores the realities of today's combat 
environment, where American soldiers are fighting next to allied troops 
from around the world. In fact, at least 12 nations allowing gays and 
lesbians to serve openly have fought alongside U.S. service members in 
Afghanistan. At least 28 countries, including our closest allies, Great 
Britain, Australia, Canada, and Israel, already allow open service.
  Not only is this policy costing us critical capabilities, it is also 
unnecessarily costing us a significant amount of money. The military 
spends as much as $43,000 to replace each individual charged under the 
don't ask, don't tell policy. At a time of extremely tight budgets with 
little money to go around, it just does not make sense to spend tens of 
thousands of dollars to investigate, try, and replace American soldiers 
based only on their sexual orientation.
  Repeal of this policy has earned the backing of an overwhelming 
majority of America's Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and countless 
military leaders, including retired GEN Colin Powell, who says that 
attitudes and circumstances have changed since the policy was first 
instituted 17 years ago.
  In addition, we now have a good understanding of what our own 
military men and women feel about the repeal of this policy. The 
military undertook one of the largest and most comprehensive reviews in 
its history to make sure those most affected by this change had their 
views heard and incorporated. The in-depth, 9-month review included a 
comprehensive survey that was sent to nearly 400,000 active duty and 
reserve component service members as well as 150,000 military spouses.
  The review's final report, released several weeks ago, found that 
repealing this policy could be accomplished without undermining 
military readiness and can be initiated immediately. The report found 
that more than two-thirds of those questioned found that repeal would 
have no effect on cohesion, effectiveness, unit readiness, or morale.
  We used to tell young Americans, ``Don't ask what your country can do 
for you.'' Yet now we tell the very people who have answered that call, 
``don't ask, don't tell.'' This is a civil rights issue. It is a moral 
issue, and it is a national security issue. Today, the Senate has an 
historic opportunity to fix this broken and outdated policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise to echo the words of the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, and her support 
of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. It is important for our 
military, it is important for our values, it is important for human 
rights, it is important for our country.
  As we know, for nearly 17 years Federal law has dictated that gay and 
lesbian Americans serving or hoping to serve in our Nation's military 
must be silent about their sexual orientation. If that silence were 
broken, they would face the grim consequences of an almost certain 
discharge.
  The don't ask, don't tell policy, as it has become commonly known, is 
inconsistent with our American values. It

[[Page 22946]]

has robbed the military of valuable personnel who can contribute to 
military readiness and fulfillment of missions at home and abroad. That 
is why I opposed this policy in the mid-1990s and have advocated for 
its repeal ever since.
  Throughout this debate I have heard from many Ohioans, including 
members of our military, expressing profound opposition to the policy 
of don't ask, don't tell. Ohioans such as Cadet Katherine Miller, LTC 
Victor Fehrenback, who spoke with me at one of my Thursday morning 
coffees in the Capitol, MAJ Mike Almy, and many other advocates and 
servicemembers have worked in their communities. They have walked the 
Halls of Congress to explain why don't ask, don't tell should be 
overturned.
  Their experiences and that of those they represent are reminders that 
important battles remain in the fight for human rights and justice in 
our country. But we know for sure that history is on their side.
  Today's vote will affirm what military leaders from Defense Secretary 
Gates to GEN Colin Powell to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Michael Mullen have been saying for some time: Repeal of don't ask, 
don't tell will make our military stronger. With our Nation at war, it 
is especially important that our policies promote the recruitment and 
retention of the very best soldiers, regardless of their race, 
religion, sexual orientation or gender.
  President Obama and Secretary Gates have conducted a year-long 
review--which many people in this Chamber in both parties, especially 
my Republican colleagues, asked for--on the impact of fully and openly 
integrating lesbian and gay Americans into the military. It is no 
surprise that the report concluded that open service poses no threat to 
our military readiness or effectiveness.
  It is estimated that the don't ask, don't tell policy has cost the 
American people somewhere between $300 and $500 million to implement. 
It has resulted in the discharge of almost 14,000 soldiers--14,000 
soldiers who were discharged not for performance but because of their 
sexual orientation. These 14,000 Americans include hundreds of Ohioans 
who offered to lay down their lives for this country. They deserve 
better than investigations and discharge. They deserve acceptance, 
affirmation and, most importantly, the right to serve openly and 
honestly in America's military.
  The strength of our Nation is measured not just by the size of the 
economy or the might of our military, it is measured by acts consistent 
with our values, the very values our servicemembers defend and that 
define our Nation's greatness.
  The repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a long overdue victory for our 
military, a victory for American values, a victory for human rights 
and, most important, a victory for the American people. I ask support 
of the measure, a resounding vote out of this Senate to go along with 
the House so the President can sign this bill and end this policy that 
has not served the American people well for much of two decades.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous 
consent that time under the quorum be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Pennsylvania is here and wants to speak. Then, I think the Senator 
from New Jersey is on his way over to speak. Because there have been a 
number of speeches on the START treaty against it and a number of 
arguments laid out, I wish to have an opportunity to speak to them. I 
ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 I be permitted to speak for about 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. 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. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the vote that will occur 
in a little more than an hour on the don't ask, don't tell policy. I 
have some basic thoughts about it, coming from a State where we have 
contributed probably as many or more soldiers to almost every major 
conflict we have had over the last 100 years. We are a State that has 
over 1 million veterans. We have lost soldiers most recently in the 
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, our killed-in-action number 
was just below 200. At last count, it was about 197. In Afghanistan, it 
is now up to 61, 62 who have been killed in action. People in 
Pennsylvania know what war is about, what sacrifice is about, because 
so many families have contributed to that service and that sacrifice.
  When it comes to this change in policy we are advocating, I wish to 
focus on two basic considerations. One is basic integrity and the other 
is valor. We have had a number of statements made by senior military 
leaders, part of this administration and others, who have called for 
repeal of the policy. Secretary Gates, Secretary of Defense for the 
Obama administration and for a good while under the administration of 
President Bush, said:

       I fully support the President's decision. The question 
     before us is not whether the military prepares to make this 
     change but how we best prepare for it.

  So said Secretary Gates.
  Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 
pertinent part:

       It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to 
     serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I 
     look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the 
     fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men 
     and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their 
     fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to 
     integrity.

  His statement goes on from there.
  Former Secretary of State Powell fully supports the change. I could 
go on from there, and I know folks have cited military leaders in the 
debate. I keep coming back to this question. Secretary Mullen talked 
about integrity and a policy that forces young men and women to lie.
  Former National Security Adviser Jim Jones said, quoting in pertinent 
part, that the don't ask, don't tell policy:

       . . . has to evolve with the social norms. I think times 
     have changed. The young men and women who wish to serve their 
     country should not have to lie in order to do that.

  I wish to focus on that part of it. How can a policy long endure in 
this country, especially as it relates to the military, that asks 
people to lie? Every day they to have get up and prepare themselves for 
service and sometimes literally for battle, a life and death battle. 
Every day this policy says: But you have to lie about it. You have to 
keep it a secret. You can't let anyone know. You have to lie.
  How can a policy endure in this country that is based upon lying and 
not telling the truth? That is at the core of our Republic, whether you 
talk about the rule of law or no man or woman is above the law. All 
those statements, all that philosophy is undergirded by basic 
integrity, that we all try to live by the same rules. If we are not 
telling the truth and we are forcing folks who are willing to serve 
their country to put themselves in harm's way, which doesn't even begin 
to describe the sacrifice, some of these soldiers have not only served 
but been gravely, grievously wounded and some, of course, have been 
killed in action in the current conflicts and many before that, it is a 
basic question about integrity. Are we going to continue to support a 
policy that calls upon people to lie? I don't think the American people 
support that.
  Secondly, the basic and related question of valor. We have public 
officials across the country, Members of Congress, public officials in 
our States who

[[Page 22947]]

stand on Veterans Day and all kinds of days when we commemorate and pay 
tribute to those who have sacrificed, those who gave, as Lincoln said, 
the last full measure of devotion to their country. There are a lot of 
speeches given and commendations accorded to people who have served the 
country. But a lot of that will ring hollow if we are saying there is 
one group of soldiers whom we may not want to have in the military, and 
if we want them in, then they are going to have to lie about it. These 
are young men and women who are the definition, the embodiment of 
service and valor and courage. We can't just get up as a politician and 
give a speech about patriotism and then be willing to undermine our 
argument and undermine our military by saying we have to perpetuate a 
policy that doesn't work and is in conflict with who we are.
  I want to read a quotation from someone who has served in the 
Congress for the last 4 years but someone who has also served our 
country, someone I know, and he is a friend of mine--I put that on the 
record--but someone we are very proud of and the work he has done in 
both forms of service: as a Member of Congress and serving in our 
military, and that is, Congressman Patrick Murphy from Bucks County, 
PA. For some who do not know their geography, that is on the east side 
of our State. He has been here in the Congress for 4 years. He will be 
leaving this month. But he has been a champion of repealing this 
policy, and he speaks with an integrity and a commitment which I think 
is unmatched because he is not speaking about this policy 
theoretically, he is not speaking about this policy in a textbook 
sense, he is speaking and has fought for the change in this policy from 
the vantage point of someone who has served and who served in 
situations where he could have been killed, sometimes every day of the 
week.
  Here is a part of what he has said. There are many things he has said 
about this, but he said:

       The paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division in the 
     Army that I served with back in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, they 
     didn't care who you were writing letters back home to, if you 
     had a boyfriend or a girlfriend. They care whether you can 
     handle your assault rifle. Can you kick down a door? Can you 
     do your job so you all come home alive?

  That is the challenge he presents to all of us, Congressman Patrick 
Murphy, former member of the 82nd Airborne Division. This policy on the 
battlefield is not theoretical. It is consequential in at least one 
sense. If we continue the policy the way it is, we are going to be less 
effective on the battlefield. If we continue the policy the way it is, 
we are going to have less people serving at a time when we need extra 
help.
  We need soldiers on the battlefield. We need to continue to have 
young men and women who will volunteer to serve, knowing that once they 
volunteer, this is not sending you to some base somewhere for a couple 
of years away from conflict--knowing that when you volunteer today--
maybe this was not true 10 or 15 years ago--but today when you 
volunteer, the likelihood of you seeing combat is very high.
  So there is a special category of valor and integrity for those who 
are willing to volunteer to serve their country, especially when they 
know they could be sent into a firefight.
  You do not have to take the word of one or another Senator, but I 
think we can take the word and base our judgment upon the experience of 
a Member of Congress, in this case from the House, who has also served 
in the 82nd Airborne Division. We should remember his words, what folks 
at home will care about. They care about ``whether you can handle your 
assault rifle.'' ``Can you kick down a door?'' ``Can you do your job so 
you all come home alive?''
  When we speak about this policy, this is not theory. This is a 
debate, at least, about two very important principles: valor, and 
whether we are going to affirm the valor of others who serve and are 
willing to serve; and whether we are going to have a policy based upon 
a core foundational principle of our democracy, which is integrity. 
That is the basic question we have before us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is time to stop discrimination. It is 
time to repeal don't ask, don't tell. This is a policy that should have 
been repealed long ago--long ago. It should have been repealed for its 
discriminatory nature. It should have been repealed because the Defense 
Department's own report makes it clear that those who pointlessly cling 
to this discriminatory, wrongheaded, shortsighted policy, by claiming 
the mantle of national security, have absolutely no ground--no ground--
to stand on.
  Don't ask, don't tell is a ridiculous notion, a bad policy, and a 
relic of a bygone era. It is keeping brave, able, educated, technically 
skilled, multilingual, trained soldiers, men and women who want nothing 
more than to defend their country from doing so.
  We are preventing them from making our military even stronger, making 
it better, and contributing to what we need in a modern military force. 
In my view, a vote to repeal this antiquated policy is a smart vote. It 
is the right vote. It is the fair vote. It is a just vote. It is a vote 
to keep our military strong, keep good people in the military, who want 
to serve.
  Americans who now must remain anonymous, such as an anonymous marine 
currently serving in Afghanistan says:

       So far the military has been my source of work and income 
     for the last 6 years. I don't want that all taken away from 
     me and me being discharged anything but honorably.

  He says:

       We face the same challenges as all other marines or 
     soldiers but with an extra burden.

  Or another anonymous servicemember--a decorated Midwesterner, a 
shining example of an American marine, with a chest full of ribbons--
like others, he risked his life, but, like other marines denying who 
they are, he was deeply apprehensive about seeking the medical care he 
needed when he got home for fear of being ousted and losing everything 
he had worked and sacrificed for, everything he had served for.
  He suffered in silence, careful in whom he confided, saying:

       You never know who you can trust.

  An Arabic linguist--someone whose talents we sorely need against some 
of the enemies we have today--named Bleu Copas was discharged under 
don't ask, don't tell, even though he was never identified as gay and 
his accuser never revealed himself. Imagine that, in a country that 
values the rule of law and justice, that your accuser never has to 
reveal themselves, never be subject to cross-examination, never testing 
the veracity, the truthfulness of what they are saying, and yet have 
this person be discharged.
  This is no way to run a military. We are talking about patriots. We 
are talking about men and women who want to serve, who are serving, who 
yearn to serve, who put their lives on the line.
  When a C-17 from the 436th Airlift Wing flies into Dover, DE, when 
rows of flag-draped coffins fill a hangar and the solemn dignity of 
fallen heroes brings silence and tears to all of us as a nation, do we 
ask the faith, the color, the sexual preference under those flags? I 
think not.
  Listen to the arguments and rationale of those military leaders who 
know best.
  Former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander said:

       The policy is an absurdity and borderlines on being an 
     obscenity. What it does is cause people to ask of themselves 
     that they lie to themselves, that they pretend to be 
     something that they are not. There is no empirical evidence 
     that would indicate that it affects military cohesion.

  Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, 
said:

       Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically 
     since 1993. . . .
       Conversations I've held with servicemembers make clear 
     that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that 
     tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays.

  Three-star Retired LTG Claudia Kennedy said:

       Army values are taught to soldiers from their earliest days 
     in the Army. Those values

[[Page 22948]]

     are: Loyalty, duty, mutual respect, selfless service, honor, 
     integrity and personal courage. We teach our soldiers that 
     these are the values we expect them to live up to.

  She goes on to say:

       I believe that as an institution, our military needs to 
     live up to the values we demand of the servicemembers. . . .
       Military leaders need to respect all servicemembers. We 
     need to recognize that loyalty and selfless service are 
     exhibited equally, by servicemembers of every color, gender 
     and sexual orientation.

  I think about her words ``selfless service.'' When you voluntarily, 
in an all-volunteer military, come forth as an American and say: I want 
to serve my country, I am willing to put my life in harm's way in 
behalf of the defense of the Nation and my fellow Americans, does that 
somehow get diminished--that selfless service get diminished--because 
you are gay?
  I think about personal courage. When you are on the battlefield, and 
you are being shot at, and when you are protecting those who are in 
your company, and when you are injured, and when you are bleeding, does 
that personal courage get diminished because you are gay?
  Certainly not. Certainly not.
  And most convincingly, and to the point, Retired Navy VADM and U.S. 
Congressman Joe Sestak said this:

       We have to correct this. It's just not right. I can 
     remember being out there in command, and someone would come 
     up to you and start to tell you--and you just want to say, 
     no, I don't want to lose you, you're too good, [too 
     valuable].

  Let's take the advice of these military leaders who know that this is 
a bad policy and it should be repealed. It is a policy that the 
Pentagon report itself says, if repealed, presents little risk to 
military readiness and cohesion, and little effect on morale.
  In fact, 62 percent of servicemembers responded to the Pentagon's own 
survey that repeal of don't ask, don't tell would have a positive or no 
effect on morale.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats' time is expired.
  There is 15 minutes allocated to Senator Kerry. He is not on the 
floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. As a member of that committee, I ask unanimous consent 
for 1 minute to finish this statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me close by quoting from a letter from the Human Rights Campaign. 
I think it puts it purposely and exactly:

       . . . take a moment to truly comprehend the lives ruined 
     over the last 17 years because of this discriminatory law. 
     The soldiers, sailors, airmen, translators, doctors and more, 
     whose military careers were ended, whose livelihoods were 
     threatened, whose friendships were cut off, all because the 
     forces of bigotry and fear held out for so long.
       They can never get those years back. But I hope they know 
     that their sacrifice meant something. Their courage and 
     integrity helped a nation understand what it means to serve. 
     And that, more than anything else, helped bring about this 
     historic change.

  That is the vote I hope we will have--one that creates historic 
change and honors the courage, the integrity, and the service of these 
men and women.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Arizona 
and the Senator from Massachusetts allowing me to speak for a few 
minutes.
  I wish to lend my strong support as a cosponsor of the repeal of 
don't ask, don't tell. I have always believed the commitment of our top 
military leaders is critical to successfully implementing the repeal of 
this policy. Since February of this year, we have heard testimony from 
Defense Secretary Gates as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. To this day, both support the repeal of the 
policy.
  Admiral Mullen outlined his concern with the policy pretty 
succinctly. He said:

       No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being 
     troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which 
     forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order 
     to defend their fellow citizens.

  Our country is literally asking our servicemembers to lie.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Gates called for a study of the repeal. 
That study involved comprehensive polls of the U.S. military. After the 
December release of the report on the implementation of the repeal, we 
know the majority of our military members--70 percent of Active-Duty 
military and National Guard and Reserve--have said this change will not 
have a negative impact on their ability to perform their duties.
  So what we have is this: We have the support of the top brass of our 
military of the United States--something that was incredibly important 
to implementing this policy change. We have checked that box. We have 
the support of the majority of our soldiers in the field, who basically 
said they can live with this policy change or they can live with 
serving with a soldier who admits they are gay. The last thing we have 
is this body, this Chamber, and today is the day we checked that box. 
Today is the day we voted for the repeal.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
Republican time be equally divided between Senators McCain, Kyl, and 
Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before the Senator gets going, I think we 
have an understanding. Just so the record is clear, how much Republican 
time remains at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just under 30 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. So it is my understanding they will each have about 10 
minutes. I think Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions will speak, at which 
point I will have an opportunity to speak, and then Senator McCain, 
since it is his amendment, would have the last 10 minutes at that 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, during one of the last votes, a Member came 
to me and said: I have not been able to follow this debate. What 
exactly is the McCain-Barrasso amendment?
  With all of the to-and-fro--having votes on different subjects, then 
going back to the START treaty, then going back to a vote on don't ask, 
don't tell, then finally a vote on the McCain-Barrasso amendment--I 
thought it would be good to recapitulate a little bit on what exactly 
the McCain-Barrasso amendment is and why it is important.
  What the amendment does is it removes language that relates to 
missile defense from the preamble. This treaty was supposed to be about 
offensive strategic weapons, not about missile defense. In fact, we 
were told by an administration spokesman that it wouldn't relate to 
missile defense, but sure enough, there the words are. Why are they 
there? They are there because the Russians insisted they be there. Why 
did they insist they be there? Because for decades the Russians have 
been fixated on U.S. missile defense, trying to find ways to reduce the 
effect of our missile defense on Russian strategic capabilities. They 
tried it at Reykjavik with President Reagan. He said no. They tried it 
again in the first START treaty. They tried it again in the Moscow 
Treaty of 2002. And they have tried it again here.
  The difference between this treaty and the previous times is that the 
United States always pushed back and said: No, we are going to rely on 
missile defense. It is the moral thing to do. We are not going to get 
into quid pro quos with you where we have to reduce our missile defense 
if you reduce your strategic offensive weapons or some other agreement 
like that.

[[Page 22949]]

  In the START I treaty, when the Russians said in their signing 
statement: We find this interrelationship, and the United States should 
not advance its missile defense capabilities, the United States pushed 
back strongly in our statement and said no, that would not be a grounds 
for withdrawal from the treaty and the Russians need to understand 
that. They never did withdraw even though we did withdraw from the ABM 
Treaty so we could build missile defenses.
  Well, once again, they have put it in the preamble this time and 
then, in their signing statement, made very clear their intent that the 
interrelationship between the two means that if our missile defenses 
are ever developed to a point where they consider it qualitatively or 
quantitatively better than it is currently, then they would have the 
right to withdraw from the treaty; that that would qualify as one of 
the exceptional circumstances under article XIV, which is the 
withdrawal clause of the treaty. Why do they want to do that? Obviously 
to put pressure on the United States not to develop our missile 
defenses in a way they don't want. They will threaten to withdraw from 
the treaty if we begin to do that. Some Presidents--I suspect the 
existing President, for example--would therefore be very wary of going 
forward with missile defense plans if that means the Russians would 
withdraw from the treaty.
  My colleague Senator Kerry says: Well, the preamble is a meaningless 
document. It is a throwaway document. It doesn't mean that much. But he 
also says: However, if we change one comma in the preamble, it will be 
a treaty-killing amendment.
  At first, I said: Well, both of those things can't be true. It can't 
be both meaningless and of ultimate importance, that it would kill the 
treaty if we changed it.
  On reflection, I think Senator Kerry actually has it right, 
partially. To the United States, it is meaningless. Our negotiators 
didn't care what the Russians put in there. It doesn't mean anything to 
us, but it means everything to the Russians, and that is why I think 
Senator Kerry is right.
  This would be a big problem for the Russians. Why is that so? Because 
even though we were willing to walk away from that commitment we had 
always made in the past that there wouldn't be this connection between 
defense and offense, the Russians got it in here, and it means 
everything to them because it creates the predicate for their 
withdrawal from the treaty, and that is what they are trying to 
establish.
  I will close this point by quoting from Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who 
wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which she said we needed 
to do something about this in our ratification process. She said there 
are legitimate concerns that must be addressed in the ratification 
process.
  I am quoting now:

       The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying 
     this treaty, the U.S. is not reestablishing the Cold War link 
     between offensive forces and missile defenses. New START's 
     preamble is worrying in this regard as it recognizes the 
     interrelationship between the two.

  What this language from Senators Barrasso and McCain does is simply 
remove that language from the preamble, thereby removing the thorn, 
removing the contention, the potential and I would say almost certain 
conflict that is due to arise between our two countries when the time 
comes that we do build a missile defense that the Russians don't want.
  They say: We are going to withdraw from the treaty.
  We say: You can't do that; that is not an extraordinary circumstance.
  They say: Yes it is. We identified it as such at the time we signed 
the treaty, and we are going to leave the treaty.
  And then the U.S. President has a dilemma: Do we pull back on our 
missile defenses or allow the Russians to withdraw from the treaty and 
all that will portend?
  That is why this is important. The amendment cures the problem by 
simply removing that language from the preamble.
  In the remaining time, I wish to briefly respond to four points the 
President made in his weekly address today relating generally to the 
same subject.
  One of the first points he made is he talked about the number of 
nuclear weapons--about 25,000 on each side--and the decades that have 
ensued since the Cold War. Those numbers have come down dramatically, 
and he said that progress would not have been possible without 
strategic arms control treaties.
  Yes, it would have. It was happening anyway. Both sides were willing 
to draw both of their delivery vehicles and warheads down because they 
couldn't afford to keep them. In fact, after the end of the Cold War, 
the United States, under President Bush, said: We are reducing ours, 
and Russia, you can do whatever you want to do.
  We knew they couldn't afford to keep theirs any more than we could 
keep ours, and they weren't reducing theirs.
  The Russians came to us and said: Gee, we need a treaty.
  We said: Why? We don't care how many you have. We are reducing ours.
  Eventually, we said: OK. If you want a treaty, fine.
  It was a three-page treaty, but it had no connections with missile 
defenses or anything the Russians wanted.
  The point is, it didn't require a treaty for us to bring those levels 
down.
  How about the delivery vehicles? This treaty actually fixes the 
number of delivery vehicles above where the Russians are right now. 
They could actually build up to the level of about 140, as I recall, to 
get up to the level of 700.
  The point is, both countries are reducing the levels to the point 
that we need, not because of an arms control treaty but because it is 
in our national interests to do so.
  Secondly, the President said that without this treaty, we will risk 
turning back the progress we have made in our relationship with Russia. 
I will just repeat what I have said before. Secretary Kissinger and 
others who have spoken to this point have always warned: Don't 
predicate the support for a treaty on improving your relationship with 
someone. The treaty should relate to reducing arms or whatever the 
subject of the treaty is. It should not be based on anything other than 
that or you get into a morass of always trying to please the other side 
and risking that they will withdraw from the treaty.
  Third, the President said that it is about the safety and security of 
the United States of America. I have yet for anybody to tell me what 
threat we are reducing by agreeing with the Russians that both of us 
are going to reduce our delivery vehicles and warheads. Actually, the 
Russians don't have to reduce theirs; they could actually build up 
under the treaty. I don't think we see any big threat there.
  Finally, the President said that every minute we drag our feet is a 
minute we have no inspectors on the ground at those Russian nuclear 
sites. We just talked about the fact that we have this reset 
relationship with the Russians, and we need to continue these good 
relationships, but we can't trust them, so we have to get our folks on 
the ground verifying what is going on right now. As I pointed out 
before, the administration created this problem on its own. We could 
have had a bridging agreement. We could have simply extended the 
verification provisions of the previous START treaty, but the Russians 
didn't want to do that, we are told. Fine, they didn't want to do that. 
That doesn't mean we had to agree that we will abide by their wishes 
when it comes to verification.
  My colleague says: Well, you can't get them to do something, so we 
signed the treaty the way the Russians wanted in this regard, and we 
just have to live with that. The administration might have to live with 
that, but the Senate is not a rubberstamp, and it seems to me the 
Senate has a right to say: You let the verification procedures lapse; 
you didn't have to do that.
  Senator Lugar had a bill that related to the extension of the legal 
regime whereby both sides would be able to continue to have presence in 
the other country. We knew that was a problem

[[Page 22950]]

at the time. For some reason, the administration didn't pursue it--I 
suppose because the Russians said no, but that doesn't mean the U.S. 
Senate has to say: OK, the Russians just say no, and I guess we have to 
go along with that.
  The point here is that I don't think any of the arguments President 
Obama has made require that we ratify this treaty this week. I would 
urge my colleagues to seriously consider what Dr. Condoleezza Rice has 
said, what Senator McCain and others have said here about the necessity 
of cleaning up this preamble so that we don't reestablish the link with 
missile defense and inhibit U.S. ability to proceed with missile 
defense plans in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would ask to be notified after 6 
minutes.
  I wish to thank Senator Kyl and Senator McCain for their leadership 
on this issue and state that I believe the McCain amendment is perhaps 
the most critical amendment that will be raised during this debate 
because the future of missile defense is critically important for 
America.
  I chaired the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces in the Armed Services 
Committee. I have been the ranking member of the subcommittee and a 
member of the committee for 12 years, and I know all of the history on 
this issue. It has gone on for a great deal of time.
  I believe missile defense is critical to our national security. We 
have invested billions of dollars over 30-plus years developing it, and 
now that we are actually deploying it in Alaska and California, it is 
proving to be a shield that will work.
  We had plans for a long time to deploy a site in Central Europe. The 
Bush administration negotiated with the Poles and Czechoslovakia. They 
signed agreements that they would allow a radar base in the Czech 
Republic and a missile base in Poland.
  When President Obama was elected, the Russians immediately started 
pushing back on our missile defense plans for reasons I have never 
fully understood. We are only talking about 10 defensive missiles 
against hundreds--hundreds, maybe thousands--of Russian missile and 
launch vehicles. It would in no way threaten their power. Some 
experts--and I am inclined to agree--thought it related more to the 
Russian concern about us having a defense relationship with 
Czechoslovakia and Poland, but I don't know. For some reason, it has 
been a big deal for them.
  They have pushed back very hard. From the Bush administration, Doug 
Feith, in a Wall Street Journal article recently said--he negotiated in 
2002--that they pushed back on it at that time. They said they would 
not sign a treaty unless we agreed not to proceed with missile defense. 
He said no deal. They insisted, and he said no deal. They said: We 
won't have a treaty if you don't agree. He said: Well, we won't have a 
treaty. We don't have a treaty with England, India, Pakistan, China, or 
France, who have nuclear weapons. We don't have to have a treaty with 
you. We are bringing our numbers down anyway, and you are, too. We 
would like to have a treaty, but we are not going to limit our missile 
defense. The Russians signed that treaty.
  Now we come and they start the same bluster against the Obama 
administration, which, unfortunately, gave in. These negotiations 
started early in the year. The treaty negotiations started in March of 
2009. By September of 2009, President Obama unilaterally announced, to 
the shock of our Polish and Czech allies, that we were not going 
forward with the Polish site--much to the delight of the Russians, who 
had achieved a significant victory in a negotiating point that had gone 
on for many years.
  So to say that this treaty has nothing to do with missile defense is 
not correct. Did the Russians say, thank you, we will be glad to work 
with you on the treaty? No, they still wanted language in the treaty 
that put them in a position to walk away from this treaty any time they 
wanted to if we deployed a missile defense system in Europe. They got 
it in there, in the preamble. It leaves not just an ambiguity, as I 
said earlier, it is a misunderstanding, or a disagreement of a central 
issue. Repeated Russian statements indicate they believe that if we 
move forward quantitatively or qualitatively with a missile defense 
system, then they would have a right to get out of the treaty.
  I can hear what would happen in the Senate if we start deploying a 
missile defense system in Europe. A lot of our colleagues would say: If 
we do that, the Russians will get out of the treaty. We can't do that. 
It will make it difficult.
  In addition, the system we were going to deploy was a GBI two-stage 
missile in central Europe, Poland. The President stopped this. It was 
ready and able to be deployed by 2016. It is the same system we have in 
the United States, except it is two-stage instead of three. The 
National Intelligence Estimate shows that Iran can reach the United 
States with a ICBM, and now they are developing nuclear weapons, and 
they can do it by 2015. We were trying to get this system in by 2016. 
When they canceled this, it caused an uproar. The White House said: 
Don't worry, we have a new plan--one I had never heard about. We are 
going to do an SM-3 Block 2B. We are working on it. Well, have you 
started? No. Is it under development? We just conjured this up. It is a 
bigger, rounder missile than the existing SM-3, and it is quite 
different.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 6 minutes of his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. It is a different thing. It would be 
ready only by 2020. So I contend that this administration, as part of 
the negotiations over this treaty, in their too-anxious-desire to get 
this treaty, to reset the relationship with the Russians, which we of 
course want to do, made a very serious error in capitulating on the 
third site--sending shock waves among our sovereign nation allies in 
Central Europe, which used to be a part of the Soviet empire. They have 
made concessions that are significant.
  As a matter of fact, they pretend it had nothing to do with the 
treaty, but I would say there is no doubt that the abandonment of the 
Polish site was a way to gain support of the Russians as part of the 
negotiations in this treaty. And we now have this ephemeral, chimeric 
vision of a 2020 entirely new missile system for Poland that may or may 
not ever reach fruition.
  Those are my concerns. The McCain amendment would say let's get this 
straight with the Russians and make Congress know that if it requires a 
new negotiation with the Russians, so be it. Maybe we can reach an 
understanding. You could never enter into a treaty or any contract in 
which the parties have a serious misunderstanding or actual 
disagreement on a critical part.
  I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, would you inform me when I have used 4 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Our colleagues are fighting against a phantom. All of this 
argument they have been going on for several days with is about 
language that has no binding impact on this treaty whatsoever. Senator 
Kyl acknowledged that yesterday. He also acknowledged that if you 
change it, it requires this treaty to go back to the Russian 
Government, and then we don't have this treaty. We don't have any 
verification for whatever number of months that follow. I will come 
back to that.
  A moment ago, Senator Kyl said the Russians didn't want to continue 
the verification methods of START. He somehow insinuates that because 
they didn't want to continue it, what we have here is something less 
than what we ought to have for ourselves.
  We didn't want to continue the verification and process of START as 
it existed. In fact, the Bush administration was told that. He knows 
that. This is phantom debate, what we have going on here. The target is 
the treaty itself, not this language, because this language doesn't 
have any legal binding impact on the treaty. In a moment, I will share 
what impact it has.

[[Page 22951]]

  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are supplanting their 
judgment for the judgment of Secretary Gates. We have the right to do 
that, and you can do that. But I ask people to weigh whether Secretary 
Gates, who was appointed by George Bush and held over by President 
Obama, has anything except the interests of our country at heart when 
he makes this statement in his testimony:

       So, you know, the Russians can say what they want, but, as 
     Secretary Clinton said, these unilateral statements are 
     totally outside the treaty. They have no standing. They are 
     not binding. They never have been.

  Do you know what the Soviets said at the U.S.-Soviet negotiations on 
nuclear space arms concerning the interrelationship between strategic 
defensive weapons compliance with the treaty--and this is START I. They 
said:

       In connection with the treaty between the United States of 
     America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 
     reduction and limitations of strategic defensive arms, the 
     Soviet side states the following: This treaty may be 
     effective and viable only under conditions of compliance with 
     the treaty between the United States and the USSR on the 
     limitation of antiballistic missile systems as signed May 26, 
     1972.

  That was their signing statement, just like this signing statement. 
Guess what. The United States of America saw our national security 
interests in getting out from under the ABM Treaty. We got out from 
under the ABM treaty. This language, just like the language we are 
debating today, meant nothing at all. They stayed in the treaty. They 
didn't pull out. So we are debating something that has no impact 
whatsoever on this treaty.
  Let me go a little further. Secretary Gates said further:

       So from the very beginning of this process, more than 40 
     years ago, the Russians have hated missile defense.
       It's because we can afford it and they can't. And we're 
     going to be able to build a good one, and are building a good 
     one, and they probably aren't.
       And they don't want to devote the resources to it, so they 
     try and stop us from doing it, through political means. This 
     treaty doesn't accomplish that for them.

  My God, after several days, either the Secretary of Defense--and how 
about LTG Patrick O'Reilly, whose job it is to defend the United States 
against missile attack. He is the man who runs this agency day to day. 
You know what he said:

       Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, New START 
     Treaty [this treaty we are voting on] actually reduces 
     constraints on the development of the missile defense 
     program.

  We have our own leader of the Missile Defense Agency telling us that 
this is an advantage for the United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Let me get to the heart of the argument 
about why this is so critical. The other side is trying to minimize 
this, saying you can't say that language has no legal binding 
authority, it is not that important, and turn around and say we can't 
change it. That is the nub of their argument--that we have to be able 
to change it because, if we don't change it, somehow nonbinding 
language is enough for us to say let's have no verification at all. It 
is a strange tradeoff.
  Here is why it matters. Because the preamble is in the instrument 
that is transmitted to the Senate. Even though it is not the binding 
component of it, the rules by which we all play are that if you change 
a comma, or one word, that change has to go back to the Government of 
Russia, and they have to decide what they want to do. Why is that 
important relative to this language? Because the public position that 
they fought for in this negotiation was to achieve binding restraints 
on U.S. missile defense. That is what they wanted. And as Secretary 
Gates said--every general and admiral who has looked at this, including 
Admiral Mullen and General Chilton, have all said they didn't get that. 
They didn't win that point. We won that point. In any negotiation, when 
somebody needs something to be able to feel good, or deal with their 
own politics, sometimes you let them have a little something that is 
meaningless to you but may mean something to them. That is what we gave 
them. Take it away and you open this whole treaty. Then they have to 
figure out how they deal, in other terms, with those politics. I will 
wait until the classified session that we are going to have on Monday. 
I can't go into it here, but I will lay out why this treaty is good for 
the United States and why we believe reopening it would be dangerous. 
That is why this amendment is dangerous, because it will reopen this 
and will force--it doesn't constrain us in the least, and the extent to 
which that is true, I think, will be understood by a lot of colleagues 
in that session.
  To make this even more clear, the President of the United States has 
written a letter today to Majority Leader Harry Reid and to Minority 
Leader McConnell. In the letter, which Senator Reid has shared with me, 
it says from the President:

       The New START Treaty places no limitations on the 
     development or deployment of our missile defense programs. As 
     the NATO Summit meeting in Lisbon last month underscored, we 
     are proceeding apace with a missile defense system in Europe 
     designed to provide full coverage for NATO members on the 
     continent, as well as deployed U.S. forces, against the 
     growing threat posed by proliferation of ballistic missiles. 
     The final phase of the system will also augment our current 
     defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles from 
     Iran targeted against the United States.
       All NATO allies agreed in Lisbon that the growing threat of 
     missile proliferation, and our Article 5 commitment of 
     collective defense, requires that the Alliance develop a 
     territorial missile defense capability.

  It goes on to talk about that capability. Then he says this, which is 
critical with respect to this debate. This is the President's letter to 
the leadership:

       In signing the New START Treaty, the Russian Federation 
     issued a statement that expressed its view that the 
     extraordinary events referred to in Article XIV of the Treaty 
     include a ``build-up in the missile defense capabilities of 
     the United States of America such that it would give rise to 
     a threat to the strategic nuclear potential of the Russian 
     Federation.'' Article XIV(3), as you know, gives each Party 
     the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it believes its 
     supreme interests are jeopardized.
       The United States did not and does not agree with the 
     Russian statement. We believe that the continued development 
     or deployment of U.S. missile defense systems, including 
     qualitative and quantitative improvements to such systems, do 
     not and will not threaten the strategic balance with the 
     Russian Federation, and have provided policy and technical 
     explanations to Russia on why we believe that to be the case. 
     Although the United States cannot circumscribe Russia's 
     sovereign rights under article XIV, paragraph 3, we believe 
     the continued improvement and deployment of U.S. missile 
     defense systems do not constitute a basis for questioning the 
     effectiveness and viability of the New START treaty and, 
     therefore, would not give rise to circumstances justifying 
     Russia's withdrawal from the treaty.
       Regardless of Russia's actions in this regard, as long as I 
     am President and as long as the Congress provides the 
     necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop 
     and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United 
     States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners. My 
     administration plans to deploy all four phases of the EPAA. 
     While advances of technology or future changes in the threat 
     could modify the details or timing of the later phases of the 
     EPAA--one reason this approach is called adaptive--I will 
     take every action available to me to support the deployment 
     of all four phases.
       Sincerely, Barack Obama, President of the United States.

  I think this letter speaks for itself. I think the facts are history. 
I think the testimony of Secretary Gates and all those others who have 
come before us that makes it clear the United States has no constraints 
on missile defense whatsoever, makes clear this amendment is not 
necessary, and this amendment carries with it dangerous implications 
for the ultimate ratification implication of the treaty.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 13 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will reserve at least the last 3 minutes for my 
colleague, Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Very good.
  Mr. McCAIN. As we all know, we will vote very quickly on the 
amendment to

[[Page 22952]]

the New START treaty. I have offered this amendment along with the 
Senator from Wyoming, and this amendment is an important and seminal 
one. It is focused on a key flaw in the treaty--the inclusion in the 
preamble of the following clause. I wish to read it in full. We have 
read it before, and I don't understand how the letter the Senator from 
Massachusetts just read would not then force us to negate this part of 
the treaty, which 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 the current strategic 
     defensive arms do not undermine the viability and 
     effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

  This language carries a lot of historical significance and strategic 
weight because it recognizes an interrelationship between nuclear 
weapons and missile defense. Some believe this type of linkage was 
appropriate during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet 
Union were existential enemies, with the means to annihilate each 
other. But it is not appropriate for today, when the United States and 
the Russian Federation, for all our differences, are not devoted to one 
another's destruction and when one of the greatest threats to our 
national security comes from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, 
which are developing nuclear weapons and increasingly better means to 
deliver them. In today's world, with so many new and constantly 
evolving threats, the United States can't be limited in the 
development, deployment, and improvements of missile defense systems 
that we deem to be in our national security interest.
  I am concerned, as are many of my colleagues, that the Russian 
Government believes this clause from the preamble confers a legal 
obligation on the United States which constrains our missile defenses. 
Ever since President Reagan proposed a Strategic Defense Initiative, 
the Russians have sought to limit our strategic defensive arms. They 
have sought to limit our missile defense programs through legal 
obligations, and failing that, with political commitments or agreements 
that could be cited to confer future obligations. Words matter. Words 
matter.
  To open ourselves to this type of political threat by accepting an 
outdated interrelationship between nuclear weapons and missile defense 
is wrong. Furthermore, by saying that ``current'' missile defenses do 
not undermine the treaty's viability and effectiveness, this clause 
from the treaty's preamble establishes that future missile defense 
deployments could undermine the treaty, thereby establishing a 
political threat the Russian Federation could use to try to constrain 
U.S. missile defenses. In short, we have handed the Russian Government 
the political tool they have sought for so long to bind our future 
decisions and actions on strategic defensive arms.
  Imagine a world, a few years from now, when--God forbid--an Iran or 
North Korea or some other rogue state has developed and deployed longer 
range ballistic missiles and a deployable nuclear capability much 
earlier than we assessed. Imagine we are faced with a situation where 
unforeseen events compel us, for the sake of our national security and 
that of our allies, to improve our current systems or to develop and 
deploy new systems in order to counter a new and far greater threat 
than we expected. Then consider what the Russian Federation said in a 
unilateral statement at the signing of the treaty.
  This is the statement of the Russian Federation--something that if 
the Senator from Massachusetts is correct, we should be able to clarify 
by asking for a statement from the Russian Federation repudiating what 
they said at the time of the signing statement. This is what they said:

       The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United 
     States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and 
     Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed at Prague on 
     April 8, 2010, may 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.

  That is clear language. That is clear, unequivocal language, and I 
will repeat it:

       . . . where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup 
     in the missile defense system capabilities of the United 
     States of America. Consequently, the extraordinary events 
     referred to in Article XIV of the Treaty also include a 
     buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the 
     United States of America such that it would give rise to a 
     threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the 
     Russian Federation.

  That is a very clear statement. It is unequivocal as to what the 
Russian Federation is saying. One of the things Senator Graham and I 
and others have said is: Hey, why don't we just drop a letter to the 
Russian Ambassador or to Vlad or whomever and ask them, clarify this, 
will you? Are you standing by your statement you made at the signing? 
Is that the Russian Federation's official policy that has not been 
revoked?
  This is the Russian interpretation of what our two governments have 
agreed to in the preamble. They seem to believe this clause limits U.S. 
missile defense systems. They seem to believe the language in this 
clause about ``the effectiveness and viability of the Treaty'' means 
that any buildup or improvement in U.S. missile defense systems would 
undermine the treaty. They seem to believe there is a clear and legally 
binding connection between what was agreed to in this clause of the 
preamble and article XIV of the treaty, which establishes the rights of 
the parties to withdraw from the treaty and the conditions under which 
they may do so.
  In short, the Russian Government seems to believe this nonbinding 
political agreement is the pretext for a legal obligation under the 
treaty itself, and if the United States builds up its missile defense, 
Russia will withdraw from the treaty.
  Let's listen to what the Russian leaders have said. I mean, this is 
not made up. This is what they have said.
  The Russian Foreign Minister, on March 28, 2010--this year--said 
this:

       The treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only 
     within the context of the levels which are now present in the 
     sphere of strategic defensive weapons.
  What could be more clear? Here he says again, in April of 2010--April 
this year.

       Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the 
     accord and is legally binding.

  I mean, if there is any clarification for that statement from the 
preamble, he just gave it--at least what the Russian version is.
  Here is President Dmitry Medvedev on November 30--18 days ago.

       Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create 
     a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to 
     a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of 
     the arms race. We will have to make a decision to deploy new 
     strike systems.

  Finally, here is Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on ``Larry King 
Live.'' Larry, we will miss you. I have quoted him so many times. This 
was on ``Larry King Live'' on December 1, 2010.

       If the counter missiles will be deployed in the year 2012 
     along our borders, or [2015], they will work against our 
     nuclear potential there, our nuclear arsenal. And certainly 
     that worries us. And we are obliged to take some actions in 
     response.

  This is a troubling situation. And it must be corrected by this body. 
Let me quote again from the recent op-ed by former Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice in the Wall Street Journal:

       The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying 
     this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold 
     War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New 
     START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes 
     the interrelationship of the two.

  Now that is a statement by our former Secretary of State, who, by the 
way, wants this treaty ratified, but she also wants us to fix this. 
This amendment fixes it--this amendment.
  I appreciate the letter from the President of the United States. I am 
very grateful for it. But the fact is, letters are letters and 
Presidents don't last forever. But binding treaties do, until they are 
either broken or they are revoked. To have right in the beginning, at 
the preamble, a clear and

[[Page 22953]]

unequivocal statement that any improvement in our defensive weapon 
missile systems will then be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty is 
not anything we should let stand.
  The simplest way--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Let me finish.
  The Senator from Wyoming and I are proposing the amendment which will 
simply strike the language from the preamble itself. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the remainder of my 
time to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes 10 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on the Democratic 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five seconds.
  Mr. KYL. Is there anyone who would like to take the 25 seconds?
  Senator Levin will take the remaining 25 seconds?
  Mr. LEVIN. If no one else wants it, I will be happy to take it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me just say that General Chilton, who 
is the commander of our U.S. Strategic Command, told the Armed Services 
Committee on July 20:

       As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing 
     global defense plans, operations, and advocacy, I can say 
     with confidence that this treaty does not constrain current 
     or future missile defense plans.

  The McCain amendment would be a treaty killer, and for that reason 
alone the Senate should defeat it.
  On the issue of the interrelationship of offensive and defensive 
arms, which is the text of the Preamble, President George W. Bush 
agreed that such an interrelationship exists. In a joint statement with 
President Putin of July 22, 2001, they said: ``We agree that major 
changes in the world require concrete discussions of both offensive and 
defensive systems . . . We will shortly begin intensive consultations 
on the interrelated subjects of offensive and defensive systems.''
  As all our senior civilian and military officials acknowledge, the 
treaty does not limit our missile defense plans or programs. Gen. Kevin 
Chilton, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told the Armed 
Services Committee on July 20th that ``As the combatant command also 
responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations, 
and advocacy, I can say with confidence that this treaty does not 
constrain any current or future missile defense plans.''
  On the issue of ICBM silo conversion for missile defense, which the 
treaty prohibits, this is not a constraint on our missile defense plans 
or programs. As Lieutenant Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, the Director of our 
Missile Defense Agency said on June 16th: ``replacing ICBMs with 
Ground-Based Interceptors or adapting Submarine-Launched Ballistic 
Missiles to be an interceptor would actually be a setback--a major 
setback--to the development of our missile defenses.''
  On the subject of the unilateral statements, these are not part of 
the treaty and do not in any way constrain our missile defenses. We 
faced a nearly identical situation with the original START treaty, 
where Russia issued a unilateral statement saying that if we withdrew 
from the ABM Treaty, that would constitute grounds for their withdrawal 
from the START treaty. Guess what. We did withdraw from the ABM Treaty, 
but Russia did not withdraw from START. Our unilateral statement makes 
clear that we intend to develop and deploy missile defenses, regardless 
of the Russian statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to say the treaty doesn't constrain the 
United States misses the point of the argument we have been trying to 
make over the course of the last day and a half.
  What the Russians have done is establish a legal pretext for 
withdrawal from the treaty. They have been very clever about it, and up 
to the time we had been told the President had sent us a letter, there 
was no pushback from the United States.
  I haven't seen this letter, so it is a little hard to comment on it. 
It has been given to us 15 minutes before the vote is supposed to 
start. It hasn't been shared with us. We have no idea what all it says. 
We have Senator Kerry's quotation of certain parts of it. It is 
obviously a last-ditch effort to try to win votes or preclude an 
amendment from passing. It shows the administration is scrambling and 
making it up as it goes along. That is not the way to deal with a 
serious subject such as this.
  Does the letter commit to the GBI--or the ground-based missile--
backup for the phased adaptive approach, as was originally announced? 
Well, I don't know whether it says that. Does it repudiate the signing 
statement of the United States Department of State issued by Secretary 
Tauscher, which of course conflicts with the letter and is the official 
position of the U.S. Government? Does it conflict with the briefing in 
Lisbon, where the phased adaptive approach was discussed, and revealed 
deployment of the first three phases but the fourth phase only being 
available? When will the deployment occur?
  The letter, apparently, says we will have effective defenses--
whatever that means. What does that mean? When would those effective 
defenses be deployed? Iran intelligence tells us they will have an ICBM 
by 2015--an ICBM that would require something like the GBI to 
intercept. But we are told the GBI is--well, A, we are not told whether 
the GBI is a contingent backup plan; and, B, we are not told whether it 
will be ready before 2017, which I find strange. Because I think we 
already have 24 GBIs in Alaska and California, and I don't know why we 
can't build some more to deploy in Europe.
  So I don't know what to make of this letter. Obviously, it comes at 
the last minute and hasn't been sent to us, and I don't see how we can 
base a vote on such a letter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe all time has expired. The Senator 
from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to just interject, with 
tremendous respect for my friend from Arizona, this letter is something 
that actually I have been seeking too. I know a number of us have asked 
the President to send this letter. I am glad he sent it.
  I am going to support the McCain amendment and wish this was not in 
the preamble. I talked to General Cartwright yesterday who, by the way, 
has reiterated about what was said about the missile defense system. 
The preamble in no way limits it. But I wish to say this letter is 
something I am glad was sent. I asked for this letter, as numbers of 
people on our side have asked for.
  Mr. LUGAR. If the Senator will yield, let me respond. The President 
sent a copy of the letter to Senator McConnell, our leader. Both 
leaders got the letter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired and the motion to concur with amendment No. 4827 is 
withdrawn.
  The question now is on agreeing to motion to concur in the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Manchin) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page 22954]]

  The Chair will remind the galleries that expressions of approval or 
disapproval are not in order.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bunning
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Manchin
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the Republican leader. We are going to 
come in tomorrow around noon. I have spoken to Senator Risch, who has 
an important amendment to offer on the START treaty. He has indicated 
he would need about 2 hours of debate. We would hope at or near 2 
o'clock to have a series of at least three votes. And today, as we 
indicated earlier, we are basically through except for the wrap-up. We 
do have another vote.

                          ____________________