[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 62-63]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              START TREATY

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is 
an amazing document. Every day I appreciate the foresight of our 
Founding Fathers who knew that future Presidents, of any political 
philosophy, would seek to expand their power and try to impose their 
will over the legislative branch, the branch closest to the citizens of 
the United States.
  For this reason they added an important clause in article 2, section 
2 that says ``He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent 
of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators 
present concur;''
  Negotiators for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on both sides 
know the terms of our Constitution, which predates both the Russian 
Federation and the Soviet Union it replaced.
  However, as the Senate considered the Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty, or the START treaty, supporters of the treaty seemed to say 
that the Senate should abandon its role of advice and just focus on 
consent. It was repeated many times that any change, no matter how 
minor or no matter how much it improved the treaty, would be considered 
a treaty-killer as further negotiation with Russia was inexplicably 
taken off the table as an option.
  The reasonable amendments offered by Republican Senators were all 
rebuffed. The supporters of the treaty repeated many times how 
reasonable the amendments were but that the treaty was not the 
appropriate time to be debating such matters. Authors of amendments 
involving ensuring a robust missile defense, improving verification to 
prevent Russia from cheating, and merely mentioning the existence of 
tactical nuclear weapons were all told that another day is the best 
time to discuss those matters. However, one of the greatest threats to 
United States national security is the acquisition of a tactical 
nuclear weapon by a terrorist organization. Since Russia has a 
preponderance of the world's tactical nuclear weapons, how can it be 
that a treaty dealing with nuclear weapons control is not the time to 
discuss this issue?
  Supporters of the START treaty say that after it is ratified the 
President will be able to go and negotiate further agreements with the 
Russians on matters important to the United States' interest such as 
the tactical nuclear weapons. However, both opponents and supporters of 
the treaty know that there is no intention of this administration to 
pursue follow-on nuclear agreements with the Russian Federation. There 
are several reasons for this. We now have no leverage with the Russian 
Federation since they have already gotten a treaty favorable to their 
interests. Further, we will be pressing the Russians on other issues 
impacting our national security such as sanctions on Iran. Supporters 
of the treaty believe that Russia will be more amenable to our requests 
when history shows that Russia will act in their interest and are not 
concerned with existential threats to our national security.
  Finally, one of the purposes of any arms treaty is to clarify and 
inform signatories to the treaty about capabilities and intentions of 
each side. However, the new START treaty neither clarifies nor informs 
anyone about the United States' capability and intentions with regards 
to a national missile defense program. It is clear that the negotiators 
wanted to avoid this difficult topic knowing that Russia opposes the 
concept of the United States being able to defend itself from a rogue 
missile attack. However, by avoiding the topic completely, Russia is 
forced to consider the mixed messages of the Obama administration 
withdrawing missile defense capability from Poland and statements by 
administration officials and Congress calling for a robust four-phase 
missile defense program. The treaty as written can only cause further 
instability and confusion on the critical issue of missile defense 
between the United States and the Russian Federation. Clarifying 
amendments from Republican Senators regarding missile defense and the 
United States' intention to deploy technologies against all four phases 
of ballistic missile flight would have helped the treaty, not killed 
it. Instead, the lone statement on missile defense in the preamble of 
the treaty clearly implies that the United States should limit its 
missile defense in an attempt to limit the need for offensive missiles. 
The United States has no intention of doing so as it is a national 
security threat for us to ignore the dangers posed by North Korea and 
Iran in this area.
  Because of these many reasons, I voted against the new Start treaty. 
While it did pass over my objections, I hope that future Senators will 
not use the debate we just held in this lameduck session of Congress as 
precedent to abdicate their constitutional role for international 
agreements.

[[Page 63]]



                          ____________________