On the recordDecember 17, 2010
Two major arguments have been made against the New START Treaty. They revolve around a missile defense issue that we have been discussing, and verification issues. There may be others, but those two have some importance. The amendment before us now is to strike a part of the preamble. Let me just say, first of all--and I will conclude with this argument after a reasonable discussion of it. If, in fact, we were to adopt the amendment that is before us, we will kill the treaty. I think Members need to understand that fundamental proposition. We will kill the treaty. Maybe many colleagues did not like the treaty to begin with. As a matter of fact, maybe they have not liked any treaties with the Russians. There may be colleagues who, as a matter of fact, would not be opposed to a treaty with the Russians on occasion, but not at this particular time and even have stressed that other foreign policy issues are more important and that this is almost a diversion of our attention. I am one who believes the treaty is important, and I think fundamentally we have to understand this amendment kills the treaty. As we vote yea or nay, we are deciding whether we are going to, in fact, continue to have a debate on this treaty. Some critics of the New START treaty have argued that it impedes U.S. missile defense plans. Nothing in the treaty changes the bottom line that we control our own missile defense destiny, not Russia.
