“Consideration of the treaty will require a substantial amount of time in order to sufficiently address its many flaws.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) called for the Senate to fix the flawed new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before voting on the treaty. Barrasso outlined his concerns with the limitations the treaty places on the United States’ ability to defend itself and the lack of verification provisions.
Excerpts of Senator Barrasso’s remarks from the floor of the U.S. Senate are below:
“I rise today to express my views on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as new START. This treaty is an extremely important and serious matter. New START significantly impacts America’s national security and nuclear deterrent.
“As a result, I believe that this treaty deserves adequate time in the Senate, time to examine the issues, time to debate the many flawed provisions and time to vote on all of the amendments offered for consideration.
“The Majority Leader should not be piecemealing together segments of time for debate on an issue as important as nuclear arms control.
“The treaty should not be shortchanged and rushed through the Senate. The treaty should not be jammed together with consideration of a 1,924-page omnibus federal spending bill. The treaty should not be considered during a lame-duck session.
“Consideration of the treaty will require a substantial amount of time in order to sufficiently address its many flaws. Like many of my colleagues, I plan on offering amendments, amendments designed to protect our national security.
“This debate concerns the national security of the United States. It is critical that the United States maintains a strong nuclear deterrent in order to defend our nation and provide assurances to our allies. I have major concerns about the impact the new START will have on Wyoming and on national security.
“First, START straitjackets the United States missile defense capabilities. Second, START offers no method to make sure a historically noncompliant Russian state will keep its promises. Third, the approach embodied by START is representative of an outdated and simplistic view of the United States position on the world stage.
Limitations on Missile Defense
“I would like to specifically discuss the limitations placed on the United States missile defense by the new START.
“The preamble of the treaty declares an interrelationship between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. It implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty missile defenses that is beyond ‘current strategic’ capabilities.
“The treaty preamble, the very preamble of the treaty, 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. I offered an amendment in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to strike this language.
“The administration argues it is a nonbinding concession to Russia. Well, Russia clearly doesn’t see it that same way. They have made it quite clear they consider the preamble legally binding.
“A Russian foreign minister stated the treaty contained ‘legally binding linkage between strife offensive and strategic defensive weapons’, legally binding.
“We need to be able to defend ourselves. Just like the preamble, the administration makes excuses as to why they have made concessions to the Russians on our missile defense.
“The current administration claims that they have no plans to use the missile defense options prohibited under the new START treaty.
“I believe that placing any constraints on future U.S. Defense capabilities should not even be up for debate. Let alone placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons.
“The purpose of new START was to reduce strategic nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia, not limit the ability of the United States to defend ourselves.
“It is outrageous that the administration would make any concessions to Russia on our national security. The United States must always remain in charge of our own missile defense, not Russia, not any other country. We should not be tying our hands behind our backs and risking the security of our nation and our allies.
Lack of Verification
“This treaty is a one-sided agreement aimed at only reducing U.S. strategic nuclear weapons. Russia is currently below the limit for strategic nuclear delivery vehicles under the new START treaty. As a result, Russia will not have to make reductions. The United States will be the only party required to slash its forces.
“Why would the administration enter into a bilateral treaty that only requires the United States to make sacrifices?
“This is not acceptable. New START offers us nothing in return, not even a robust verification mechanism that enables us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises.
“The new START has a weak verification regime. Former Secretary of State James Baker made the exact point by indicating that the new START verification provisions, he said, were weaker than the
original START.
“Under new START, the United States would be limited to 18 inspections per year as opposed to at least 28 in the past. Under the original START treaty, the United States conducted approximately 600 inspections.
“Why are we giving that up? The treaty does not provide us with the verification mechanisms that enables us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises.
“Instead there is a lot of trust and precious little verification. A weaker verification system is even more dangerous due to Russia’s long history of noncompliance on arms control treaties.
Outdated Approach
“Even if we could trust Russia, there are numerous other threats such as North Korea and Iran which have repeatedly shown hostility to the United States and to our allies.
“We should never abandon our defenses and sacrifice our deterrent in the face of increasing international belligerence.
“It is the equivalent of asking America to stare down the barrel of a gun without knowing whether the gun is loaded and then to trust the person holding it not to pull the trigger.
“Instead of giving the Senate a specific force structure, the President is repeating his health care play book and telling us to wait until after the U.S. ratifies the treaty to find out the details.”
###