On the recordDecember 16, 2010
Let me do this, since I do see Senator Casey on the floor, and Senator Kerry may have something more to say. Let me try to sum up what I am saying about missile defense, although there is much more to talk about, and this will very definitely be the subject of maybe even the first amendment that is offered on our side because there has been such a cavalier attitude about this on the other side: We don't need any amendments. We don't need any missile defenses. This is serious business. You would never enter into a contract to buy a car or a house, for example, with a degree of uncertainty or disagreement between the parties as to what the terms mean. Think about this treaty. This is a very serious proposition that starts with a fundamental disagreement between the parties and clearly could create enormous complications in our relationships in the future. If I could just finish this point. Instead of creating a more stable relationship, a relationship built on the reset, a relationship which is built on very clear, transparent views of things on how we are moving forward together, built into this treaty is an inherent conflict that can cause nothing but trouble in the future unless the United States says: Fine. We will not develop any missile defenses that could conceivably be effective against Russia, which then means that they couldn't be effective against an ICBM from Iran or an ICBM from Korea. This is the dilemma presented by this treaty and its preamble terms.…





