Expiration of New Start

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster, for yielding me the time and for scheduling this hour on this most important topic.

The threat of nuclear weapons challenges our conscience. It is a threat not just for Americans, but for all humanity and all species of life on our planet.

The idea of nuclear conflict isn't an issue that families normally discuss around the kitchen table, but it is real. It is deadly serious. It demands our urgent attention. We cannot afford to throw our hands up and say there is nothing to be done.

The United States can take concrete action today: Extend the New START treaty. The arc of arms control is one of success led by Presidents of both parties.

Forty years ago, there were 70,000 nuclear warheads in inventories around the world. Today, there are 12,400--far more than we should have, but it is progress.

Arms control is hard work. It involves technical expertise, diplomatic skill, and political will. Today, we need all three. That is because the last control agreement remaining in force between the United States and Russia expires on February 5, in only 22 days.

The New START treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads for each party to 1,550, on no more than 700 deployed long- range missiles and bombers. Extension is common sense for our security.

First, New START promotes stability. With the war in Ukraine, tensions between the U.S. and Russia are high. Negotiating an extension offers space within that relationship to lessen tensions.

Second, if not renewed, we risk the possibility that each side will go beyond the treaty's limit in a misguided pursuit of geopolitical advantage.

Third, there is no nuclear strategic gain from deploying more warheads on more delivery vehicles. Our massive, largely invulnerable nuclear arsenal is more than sufficient for deterrence.

Fourth, increasing our strategic forces might incentivize China to accelerate its nuclear buildup.

Lastly, it would cause us to funnel billions more taxpayer dollars into our nuclear arsenal when we should be restoring funding to healthcare, medical research, and food and nutrition programs here at home.

Why is it that we always have money for bombs, but when it comes to helping improve the quality of life for our people, we are told we can't afford it? It doesn't have to be this way, and both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump seem to agree. Both Presidents have spoken favorably of extending New START.

In September, Putin said: ``Russia is ready to continue to adhere to the central quantitative restrictions under the START treaty for 1 year after February 5, 2026,'' if the United States reciprocates. In response, Trump said: ``Sounds like a good idea to me.''

Here we are, 22 days from expiration. The White House has yet to reply to the Kremlin's offer. The clock is ticking.

I ask the administration to respond to the Russians today: announce we will abide by the New START limits, build confidence, and create time and space for negotiation.

President Trump can be a leader for peace. Last year, he said, from the Oval Office: ``There is no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over, and here we are, building new nuclear weapons, and they are building nuclear weapons.''

President Trump, I have to say, you are right. He can join Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan among the Presidents with major arms control wins.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have worked to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. With Representative Jill Tokuda of Hawaii, I introduced H. Res. 317, a resolution that calls on the U.S. Government to return to the negotiating table on nuclear disarmament and to lead a global effort to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons.

I have also introduced, with Senator Ed Markey from my State of Massachusetts, the Hastening Arms Limitation Talks Act of 2025, or the HALT Act. Our bill outlines a vision for a 21st century freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons.

We never thought there would be a need to revive the nuclear freeze movement, but here we are.

Let me quote from Michael Klare, an arms control expert at Hampshire College and a constituent of mine: ``February 6 is likely to bring us into a new era, not unlike the early years of the Cold War, in which the major powers will be poised to ramp up their nuclear warfighting capabilities without any formal restrictions whatsoever. That comfortable feeling we once enjoyed of relative freedom from an imminent nuclear holocaust will also then undoubtedly begin to dissipate. If there is any hope in such a dark prognosis, it might be that such a reality could, in turn, ignite a worldwide anti-nuclear movement like the Ban the Bomb campaigns of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.''

We have a path out of this. Trump can make good on his statement that there is no need for new nuclear weapons. He can extend New START limits on deployed warheads.

For our sanity and for the safety of Americans and all of humanity, let's make the world less dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Illinois for leading this effort.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source