On the recordJuly 23, 2013
With all due respect to the gentleman from Indiana, I won't question his historical description of the issues of the use of nuclear weapons, although I find it confusing. I will say that this amendment and its terms are not about the issue of the use of or even the number of weapons the United States or Russia might have. This is about the Constitution and the laws of the United States. All this says is that the President has to follow the Constitution, make certain that he seeks Senate ratification of any formal treaty, or that he conform with the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which would prohibit him unilaterally taking action. The concern and the reason why this amendment is necessary is because the President felt the need to actually leave this country and go to another country and announce his attention, perhaps, to undertake unilaterally--both as President, and unilaterally, without even getting a bilateral agreement with another nation--his intention of further reducing our nuclear weapons. This amendment is not about numbers, it's about the law. It's about our Constitution, it's about upholding it, and requiring that the President of the United States conform to it in something certainly as important as our national security. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
