Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is indeed a privilege to join my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He made mention of the six Christmases he spent away from home. Members of this body and of this Nation know that those Christmases were spent in captivity as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. I recommend to all of America his book ``Faith of my Fathers.'' I read it on a trip with Senator McCain, heading to Iraq to visit and thank our troops serving several years ago, on Thanksgiving, while we were there with the troops. We were in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and in the Anbar Province. I had a chance to meet, for the first time, a young marine who was Senator McCain's son.

As we traveled across this globe visiting our soldiers, thanking them--in Afghanistan as well--we had been to Georgia, where he was awarded and received the highest national award from the President and the people of Georgia. Senator McCain is recognized and respected worldwide for his knowledge, for his patriotism, and for his bravery. I think it is critical that we listen to him as we talk about this very important treaty.

The amendment he brings is one to strike the language in the preamble that limits our missile defense. It limits our ability as a nation to defend ourselves. I have major concerns about the Russians trying to limit current and future U.S. missile defense capabilities through the New START. I am committed to our national security and the ability of the United States to defend ourselves.

In my opinion, this treaty, signed by our President and by the Russian President on April 8, 2010, places explicit limits on U.S. missile defense.

There should be no place in a treaty with Russia for the United States to limit our ability to defend and protect our Nation.

Specifically, I believe the language in the preamble, the language in the unilateral statement by Russia the day the treaty was signed, and the language in the statements by senior Russian officials regarding missile defense--all of them show Russia intends to weaken the ability of the United States to defend ourselves.

The language in the preamble provides an explicit linkage between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons.

The preamble implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defense that is beyond ``current strategic'' capabilities. The treaty preamble gives Russia an opportunity to turn their backs on the treaty at the slightest sign of a shift in American defensive strategy. This language is unacceptable and needs to be removed.

Senator McCain read from the Wall Street Journal editorial or op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She pointed out several very legitimate concerns about the New START treaty that must be resolved during the ratification process.

I wish to repeat and reiterate two sentences that get to the very heart of this amendment that Senator McCain and I are bringing to you today. She stated:

..... the Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the U.S. is not reestablishing the Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes the ``interrelationship'' of the two.

Suppose the President of Russia is trying to force the United States to choose between missile defense and the treaty. In that case, I choose missile defense.

The administration continues to claim there is no limit on missile defense and that the administration also claims the preamble is not legally binding. Well, Russia clearly disagrees and believes the opposite to be true. They have made it quite clear they consider the preamble to be legally binding.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was quoted by Senator McCain on the floor. This very year he stated--and I will reiterate it--that the treaty contained a ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.''

There is a fundamental disagreement between the United States and Russia on this issue. I believe that placing constraints on future U.S. defense capabilities should not be up for debate, let alone placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons.

It is outrageous that this administration would make any concession to Russia on our national security. I think the administration's decision to include this language was a serious mistake. We should not be tying our hands behind our backs and risking the national security of both our Nation as well as our allies.

The United States must always remain in charge of our missile defense--not Russia or any other country.

As our country continues to face threats from around the world, we should not take any action that will hinder our missile defense options. With concerns over countries such as Iran and North Korea, the United States cannot take any chance on language that could weaken our missile defense capabilities. The administration claims the language in the preamble has no legally binding significance. Then there should be no problem in eliminating that language on missile defense in the preamble of the treaty.

That is why I am privileged to join Senator McCain in offering amendment No. 4814, and I ask my colleagues to give great thought and consideration to what the importance of this amendment is and then go on to adopt it.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source