Corker Outlines Support for New START Treaty

Says It Should Be Called 'Nuclear Modernization and Missile Defense Act of 2010'

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today voted in favor of ratification of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty with Russia. The treaty was ratified by the Senate by a vote of 71 to 26.

"My only concern in consideration of this treaty has been the safety and security of the American people," said Corker. "In the final analysis, I am pleased to support a treaty that continues the legacy of President Reagan who signed the first nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia in 1987. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen says the treaty is vital to U.S. national security; I agree and am proud that as a result of ratification we have been successful in securing commitments from the administration on modernization of our nuclear arsenal and support of our missile defense programs, two things that would not have happened otherwise. In fact, thanks in part to the contributions my staff and I have been able to make, the New START treaty could easily be called the 'Nuclear Modernization and Missile Defense Act of 2010.'

"Like many of my colleagues and my constituents, I approached the original New START language with serious reservations. Over the past six months, I have used my position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to address those concerns. Let me outline the key issues:

"First, when START expired last year we lost our ability to know what is happening with Russia's nuclear arsenal. With New START's ratification we will once again have well-trained inspection teams - 'boots on the ground' - as a check on Russia, an exercise President Reagan called, 'Trust, but verify.' Additionally, I think many Americans will be glad to know the resolution of ratification states that New START only remains in the interest of the U.S. so long as Russia is in compliance with all components of the treaty, and that includes the ability of the U.S. to conduct verification activities. Either country may withdraw from the treaty at any time if they deem their national security interests are compromised.

"Second, I saw this entire process as an opportunity to push for long overdue investments in modernization of our existing nuclear arsenal and made clear I could not support the treaty's ratification without it. The U.S. is currently the only nuclear weapons country not adequately investing in modernization. If we are going to take weapons out of deployed status, I think most Americans would like to know the arms we do have will work and that our hedge of an additional 3,500 weapons is safe while in storage. I visited several of the nation's nuclear facilities around the country and if Americans had witnessed, as I did, the deteriorating state of our nuclear infrastructure and weapons, they would recognize the urgency to maintain them.

"Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and I have worked to ensure there are appropriate commitments from the administration and Senate appropriators to fully invest in the rehabilitation of the warheads and their components. I applaud and I thank Sen. Kyl for his vision on modernization and his doggedness in helping get the needed commitments in place. To date, we have received appropriate commitments to fully fund modernization and an update to the 10-year modernization plan for the nuclear weapons complex. In a letter to Senate appropriators dated December 20, 2010, the president confirmed that he would request funding levels outlined in the updated modernization plan. I believe these commitments accommodate current and future needs and are in line with our national security obligations.

"Third, the president sent a letter to Congress stating his commitment to the development and deployment of a robust U.S. missile defense system. I introduced an amendment codifying the key components of the letter and requiring that the president, prior to ratification of the treaty, certify to the Senate that our missile defense systems will continue to be developed, improved and deployed and communicate to Russia that continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems do not threaten the strategic balance with Russia and consequently do not constitute a basis to withdraw from the treaty. Additionally, my amendment added a statement of understanding that the preamble to the New START treaty does not in any way impose a legal obligation to the U.S. with regard to our missile defense systems. This amendment passed in the Senate and was included in the final resolution of ratification."

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Corker has conducted a thorough review of the treaty and its implications for national security, including scores of meetings, briefings and phone calls, and visits to several of the nation's nuclear facilities where the weapons work takes place.

Top Stories

Sen. Alexander statement on New START Treaty

Floor Statement by Senator Lamar Alexander

I will vote to ratify the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia, because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to Kingdom Come and because the President has committed to an $85 billion, 10-year plan to make sure that those weapons work.   I will vote for the Treaty because it allows for inspection of Russian warheads and because our military leaders say it does nothing to interfere with the development of our missile defense system.  I will vote for the Treaty because the last six Republican Secretaries of State support it. In short, I am convinced that Americans are safer and more secure with the New Start Treaty than without it.    

Last week I joined Senators Inouye, Cochran, and Feinstein in a letter to the President, stating that we will vote to ratify the treaty and to appropriate funds to modernize our outdated nuclear weapons facilities and that he request those funds in his budgets.  Last night, I received a response from the President saying he would do so.

I ask unanimous consent to include both letters in the record.

Why are these two necessarily linked—the Treaty and the plan for nuclear weapons modernization?  The answer is that if we are going to reduce our number of warheads, we want to make sure that we are not left with what amounts to a collection of wet matches.

Defense Secretary Gates said: “There is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.”

In a November 24 statement, Senator Kyl and Senator Corker said they “could not support reductions in U.S. nuclear forces unless there is adequate attention to modernizing those forces and the infrastructure that supports them.”

Senators Kyl and Corker deserve credit for untiring efforts to fund properly nuclear modernization.  President Obama deserves credit for updating the nuclear modernization plan in such a significant way.

I have reviewed that so-called “1251 plan,” completed November 17, which calls for spending $85 billion over the next ten years. I have visited our outdated nuclear weapons facilities.   I am convinced that the plan’s implementation will make giant steps toward modernization of those facilities so that we—and our allies and adversaries—can be assured that the weapons will work if needed.

The President’s statement that he will ask for these funds and the support of senior members of the Appropriations Committee means that the plan is more likely to become a reality.  The President agrees that in tight budgets these funds should be considered as defense spending.

I ask consent to include in the record a summary of the appropriations recommended by the plan mandated by section 1251 of the 2010 Defense Authorization bill.

I will offer an amendment to the resolution of ratification to require an annual update of the 1251 report which the president’s letter says he will do. 

Under the terms of the Treaty the United States may have 1550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, each one up to 30 times more powerful than the one used at Hiroshima to end World War II.

The U.S. also will gain valuable data, including through inspection operations, that should provide a treasure trove of intelligence about Russian activities that we would not have without the Treaty - and that we have not had since the START Treaty expired on December 9, 2009.

Over the weekend, the President sent a letter to the Senate reaffirming “the continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems.” There is nothing within the Treaty itself that would hamper the development or deployment of missile defense.  Our military and intelligence leaders all have said that.

Obviously, something could happen down the road involving differences over missile defense systems that could require either country to withdraw from the treaty. That is any sovereign country's right with any treaty.  In 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because of our desire to pursue missile defenses to protect us from an attack by a rogue state.

I ask consent to include in the record the President’s letter on missile defense.

Ratifying this treaty would extend the policies of Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, as well as Democratic presidents.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the record the statements of six Republican secretaries of state, all of whom support it.

Mr. President, I will vote to ratify this treaty, but the vote we are about to have today is on whether to end debate.  The majority’s decision to jam through other matters during this lame duck session has poisoned the well, driven away Republican votes and jeopardized ratification of this important agreement. 

Nevertheless, this Treaty was presented to the Senate on May 13.  After 12 hearings in two committees and many briefings, the Foreign Relations Committee reported the Treaty to the Senate on September 16 in a bipartisan vote of 14 to 4.  For several months there have been intense negotiations to develop a realistic plan and the funding for nuclear modernization.  That updated plan was reported on November 17.  The Senate voted to proceed to the Treaty last Wednesday.  I voted no, because I thought there should be still more time allowed for amendment and debate.

But, despite the flawed process, I believe that the Treaty and the nuclear modernization plan make our country safer and more secure.  It will allow us to resume inspection and verification of disarmament of nuclear weapons in Russia.   The head of our missile defense system says the treaty will not hamper our missile development program—and if it does, we can withdraw from the Treaty.  All six former Republican Secretaries of State support it.

Therefore, I will vote to ratify the New START Treaty and during the next several years vote to fund the nuclear modernization plan.

Top Stories

Five Former top Republican U.S. diplomats urge support for START

By David Morgan, WASHINGTON , Wed Dec 1, 2010 11:57pm EST

Former secretaries of state for five Republican presidents urged Senate Republicans to back the New START nuclear treaty with Russia, suggesting failure to do so could affect Moscow's role on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.
In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post on Thursday, top diplomats in Republican administrations from Richard Nixon's to George W. Bush's called on senators to set aside their domestic partisanship and ratify the treaty in U.S. national interests.

"The most important thing is to have bipartisan support for the treaty, as previous nuclear arms treaties did," said authors Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell.(link)

My Comment
Who you gonna' trust?  I may be a dreaded "RINO." for supporting the START treaty and I guess I should assume the newly active tea party participants know best, but for some reason I tend to trust the last Secretary of States of Republican Presidents. I guess all of those Republican Presidents and their Secretary of State were RINO too and so are our own two Republican Senators. If supporting START makes me a RINO, I am in good company.

Top Stories