Lateefah Simon: “while I commend the work of the Senators involved in negotiating this compromise amendment on missile defenses, which is…”

“while I commend the work of the Senators involved in negotiating this compromise amendment on missile defenses, which is certainly an improvement over what is currently in the bill, I cannot support the amendment. By nature, compromises are never perfect, but they usually take the form of something each side can live with. In this case, I do not believe that the language in this amendment is something we can afford to live with. Despite the changes, this proposal still commits us to the deployment in the near future of expensive and destabilizing missile defense systems. This is not the way we should be going. The time and energy the Senate has put into this issue would be much more wisely spent on ratification of the START II and chemical weapons treaties, which are sitting in the Foreign Relations Committee. The proponents of robust missile defenses argue that the end of the cold war makes obsolete arms control treaties negotiated in that area. I could not disagree more. The way to a more secure United States and a more peaceful world is through building on our arms control treaties, not destroying them. This amendment, while designed by its authors to be compliant with the ARM Treaty, moves us in the direction of fundamentally altering or even withdrawing from the treaty. The AMB Treaty is a cornerstone of our arms control policies, and I believe we must retain its integrity, especially to ensure Russian ratification and implementation of START II.”