On the recordNovember 29, 2010
I urge my colleagues to move ahead with the prompt ratification of this treaty. I have long been interested in the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, predecessor to Russia, on the issue of arms control, going back to my college days as a student of international relations. One of the first items which attracted my concern on election to the Senate was a Saturday speech made by then-President Reagan where he said essentially that the United States had sufficient weapons to destroy the Soviet Union and, similarly, the Soviet Union had sufficient weapons to destroy the United States. For decades, the two countries lived under the truce, so to speak, of mutual assured destruction. That has given way to arms control negotiations and the successful negotiation of treaties. For example, the START I treaty in 1992 was approved by a margin of 93 to 6. The START II treaty of 1996 was approved by a margin of 87 to 4. The Moscow Treaty of 2003 was approved by a vote of 98 to nothing. The memorandum I have referenced raises a number of concerns which I submit to my colleagues ought not to stop us from moving ahead with ratification. For example, the memorandum makes this point on page 5: Additional funding could be applied to accelerate the construction of these facilities to ensure on schedule completion. . . . Well, there is no showing of a problem on on-schedule completion.…





