Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, as I did yesterday on the floor, I wish to say I cannot thank, and I hope the Senate will feel the same way--I think our country will when they understand what Senator Kyl has done-- I cannot thank him enough for his thoughtful, dogged, persistent efforts as it relates to modernizing our nuclear arsenal. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I accompanied Senator Kyl on a bipartisan trip to Sandia and Los Alamos to look at some of the many needs we have throughout our complex in our country, which resides at seven facilities across the country. It is that foresight that Senator Kyl has displayed, beginning years ago but especially focused over this last year, that I think has led to incredible results. While the Senator and I are obviously going to end up in different places, it appears, on this treaty--and there is no question the treaty and modernization are two very different things--there is no question in my mind that we would not have the modernization commitments we have in hand today if it were not for the treaty. So, for me, it is this whole body of work that works together, and in my opinion makes this decision one that is very easy to make because of the entire body of work. I wish to say that Senator Kyl, through his efforts, has caused there to be two updates to what is called the Defense authorization 1251. That is something that is required by our Defense authorization bill. It focuses on expenditures to our nuclear arsenal. I think people will realize, over the next decade, as a result of Senator Kyl's efforts--and Senator Kerry's cooperation and the appropriators and the President and others--that $86 billion will be invested in modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and $100 billion will be invested in those delivery vehicles that relate to our warheads. I think people realize that while we are talking about 1,550 warheads being our deployed limit, we have 3,500 other warheads that are stockpiled all across our country and those also need to be modernized. We need to know they are available. I think the Presiding Officer and I were able to see where neutron generators were going to expire, where the guidance system that guides many of our missiles is far less sophisticated than the cell phones we have today. In some cases, they still had tubes, such as we had in our old black-and-white televisions. So I wish to thank the Senator from Arizona for everything he has done to cause there to be focus on this and for the fact he has caused it to be dovetailed; the fact we have an updated 1251 that reflects the needs of our country; the fact that we have four appropriators who now have committed to the President they will support this effort; the fact the President has said to them--and all this has been entered into the Record--that he will ask for these moneys to modernize our nuclear arsenal. So, again, Senator Kyl has done incredible work in this regard. I think he has informed this body, and I think it is due to his efforts and those of us who have supported his efforts that have helped to find gaps in our modernization program. We have been able to talk to the head of the NNSA and the Lab Directors to focus on those gaps. The senior Senator from Tennessee has helped tremendously in that regard. He and Senator Kyl and Senator Lugar have actually gone through other sites--sites I did not go through with Senator Kyl myself. So this has been a collective effort led by Senator Kyl. Again, I know we will end up in a different place on the treaty as a whole, but it is my hope that the administration and Senator Kerry will accept the changes Senator Kyl has put forth in his amendment. It is my hope that by unanimous consent we can add this to the treaty. Even if that does not occur, there is no question that the contributions of Senator Kyl to the commitments that are so important to ensuring our country is safe and secure by virtue of having a reliable, safe, dependable, nuclear arsenal not only will be evident today, but they will be evident for generations to come. For that, I thank him deeply. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to again say that we have asked by unanimous consent to change this to be the McCain-Lieberman-Corker amendment, and we have also added Senators Alexander, Brown of Massachusetts, Murkowski, Johanns, Levin, and Bayh as cosponsors. As a matter of tremendous respect and courtesy, I think it would be best for Senator McCain to be the first speaker on this amendment that he was very involved in developing.

Mr. CORKER. That is correct.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Begich as a cosponsor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am thrilled to join with Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman in an amendment dealing with missile defense. This is a subject that has been discussed ever since this treaty was first presented. I cannot think of a better way to end this debate. I thank Senator Kerry for having the patience of Job, having worked through this. Somebody mentioned deals and where they have been taking place. They have been taking place on the Senate floor. We have been working on this for a long time. We have gone through intelligence briefings. We have gone through incredible numbers of hearings. I think this has been done exactly in the right way. I thank the Senator for his leadership. I thank Senator Lugar for his leadership on nuclear armaments in general. The Senator has been pursuing that for years. So we have before us an amendment on missile defense. Again, it has been discussed in great detail. This says three things. Senator Lieberman certainly talked about much of the detail, but the President the other day sent us a letter declaring, in very strident ways, his commitment to both the phased-adaptive approach to missile defense, which will take place in Europe, and our ground-based interceptors. He has said that absolutely in strident terms. What this amendment does is certifies to Congress--he certifies to Congress--that he is going to continue those efforts. He will continue those efforts on phased-adaptive approach and ground-based interceptors. Second, we have been concerned about what Russia thinks as it relates to this treaty. When we exchange the instruments of ratification, when we exchange the documents when ratifying this treaty, they are going to be told that we, in fact, are continuing to pursue our missile defenses in every way possible, and that in no way affects our relationship from that standpoint as it relates to this treaty. I think that is incredibly strong. Then, third, we have talked about this preamble, and every one of us knows the preamble is nonbinding. But as an understanding of this treaty going forward, we are telling the Russians that the preamble absolutely is not binding and that we are pursuing these missile defense applications that have been discussed. I am proud to join with Senator McCain, with Senator Lieberman, two people who care as deeply about our national security as anybody in the United States, certainly in this Senate. I am proud to have the other Members of the Senate who have joined in. Let me just say in closing, I think it is absolutely appropriate that the last two amendments we address are the Kyl amendment which deals with modernization--the President has made incredible investments in modernization that have come about through this entire process, a commitment to ensure that the nuclear arsenal we have is one that operates, that is reliable, that is safe. I think people know we have 1,550 deployed warheads--after this treaty goes into effect, over a long period of time, we reduce to that number, but that we have roughly 3,500 other warheads that, again, will continue to be modernized and made available, if necessary. So I want to say that in accepting the Kyl amendment and all of the things that have come with it--the letter from the appropriators and accepting this missile defense amendment--if that ends up being the case, and I hope it will be by unanimous consent shortly, I think what we have done throughout this entire process has strengthened our country's national security. I can say: Look, this is called the New START, but I could call this the Missile Defense and Nuclear Modernization Act of 2010 because all of these things have come into play to make our country safer. I want to thank the chairman. I want to thank the administration for walking through, over the last 6 months, and helping us cross t's and dot i's. I think this treaty is good for our country. I think this treaty enhances our national security. I thank the chairman for the way he has worked with us to get it into that position, certainly Senators McCain and Lieberman for helping take the lead on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would send to the desk the amendment, as modified, and as I understand it, this has been accepted by both sides.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying it is obviously up to us, as Senators. We are the ones who have the right and the responsibility and the privilege to take up the types of matters we are taking up today. It is up to us to do the due diligence, to have the intelligence briefings, to look at our nuclear posture reviews, to look at what this treaty itself says, and to look at what our force structure is. That is our responsibility. It is up to each of us, the 100 of us in this body, to decide whether we ratify this treaty. But I think it is also at least interesting to get input from others. One of the things our side of the aisle likes to do is we like to listen to military leaders and what they have to say about issues relating to the war--Afghanistan or Iraq--and certainly the issue of how we enter into nuclear treaties with other countries. I will ask to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Kerry from the Joint Chiefs of Staff talking about their firm commitment for the START treaty on the basis that it increases our national security. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter dated December 20 from ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of our Joint Chiefs.

Mr. CORKER. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of the Senate in this ratification. There are a lot of things that go into the ratification of a treaty. I have laid out a number of things we have discussed that are relevant to the ratification of this treaty. As we move through a process such as this, I try to make sure all of the t's are crossed and i's are dotted that can possibly be crossed and dotted to ensure that I, as a U.S. Senator, feel comfortable that the type of agreement we are entering into is one that is in the best interests of our country. I have done that over the last year working on nuclear modernization. Again, my hat is off to Senator Kyl and his great leadership in that regard. I have done that over the course of this last year as we have looked at missile defense. We spent incredible amounts of time in our committee making sure people on my side of the aisle had tremendous input into the resolution of ratification. We have worked through to make sure that if we are going to have fewer warheads deployed--again, we have thousands more that are not deployed--that we, in fact, can assure the American people that they will operate, that they are actually there for our national security. The question for me and for all of us who care so deeply about our country's national security is, Will we say yes to yes? I firmly believe that signing this treaty, that ratifying this treaty, and that all the things we have done over the course of time as a result of this treaty are in our country's national interest, and I am here today to state my full support for this treaty. I look forward to its ratification, and I hope many others will join me in that process. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know today is a pretty monumental day as it relates to the START treaty we have been discussing for some time, and tomorrow will be a big day in that regard too. I think there is nothing more we care about than our country being secure. I have two daughters who are 21 and 23, a wonderful wife, and extended family, as does every Member in this room, and there is nothing I take more seriously than making sure our country is secure. So as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, when we entered into discussions relating to the START treaty, I attended 11 of the 12 hearings. I have been in multiple classified meetings, I have spoken to military leaders across our country, and I have been in so many intelligence briefings that I have begun to speak like an intelligence officer. So I have taken this responsibility very seriously. I wish to say there are numbers of people who obviously are still making up their mind regarding this treaty, and that is why I came to the floor. One of the things we do when we end up ratifying a treaty is we have something called a resolution of ratification. No doubt this treaty was negotiated by the President and his team--the Secretary of State and others who work with Secretary Clinton--and no doubt that is done by people on the other side of the aisle. But what I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues is that whenever we ratify a treaty, we do so through something called a resolution of ratification. For those who might not have been involved in the markup, I would like for everyone in this body to know this resolution of ratification, thanks to the good will of the chairman of our committee, was mostly drafted by Republicans. It was drafted, with the approval, certainly, of the chairman, but this was drafted by Senator Lugar, by myself, Senator Kyl had tremendous input into this, and Senator Isakson. So the resolution of ratification we are amending today had tremendous Republican input. As a matter of fact, it was done mostly by Republicans. As a matter of fact, this resolution of ratification is called the Lugar-Corker resolution. This is what came out of committee. One of the things that has concerned people on both sides of the aisle has been this whole issue of modernization. I have seen something of beauty over the last year. About 1 year ago, I met with Senator Kyl in the Senate Dining Room, and we began looking at the modernization of our nuclear arsenal. Many people have focused during this debate on the fact that we have 1,550 warheads as a limitation, if you will, in this treaty. But they fail to realize we have over 5,000 warheads in our nuclear arsenal, all of which need to be modernized, and all of which are getting ready to be obsolete if we don't make the investment. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I have visited some of the labs throughout our country. There are seven facilities we have in this country that deal with our nuclear arsenal. Many of those are becoming obsolete and must have needed investment. I have watched Senator Kyl over the last year, in a very methodical way--under his leadership, with me as his wing man, and others--working to make sure the proper modernization of our nuclear arsenal takes place. There is no question in my mind--there is no question in my mind--if it were not for the discussion of this treaty, we would not have the commitments we have today on modernization. This is the 1251 report that is required by Defense authorization. This has been updated twice due to the efforts of Republicans, led by Senator Kyl, who has done an outstanding job. This has been updated twice. First, we had a 5-year update about 60 days ago, and we had a 10-year update that came thereafter. This is our nuclear modernization plan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the nuclear modernization plan as part of this debate.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like to point out, too, just for clarification, if you look at the makeup of our Joint Chiefs--Admiral Mullen, General Cartwright, General Schwartz, General Casey, Admiral Roughead--every single one of these gentlemen was appointed by a Republican President. In addition to them, we have General Amos. My sense is, based on some of the comments he has made over the course of time, he would have Republican leanings. But all of these people have firmly stated their support for this treaty. In closing, I will also ask unanimous consent that the statement of Robert Gates, again appointed by a Republican President, head of our Defense Department, where yesterday he said: The treaty will enhance the strategic stability at lower numbers of nuclear weapons, provide a rigorous inspection regime including on-sight access to Russian missile silos, strengthen our leadership role in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and provide the necessary flexibility to structure our strategic nuclear forces to best meet the national security interests. This treaty stands on its merits and its prompt ratification will strengthen U.S. national security. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, that letter says to the President that they will ask for the moneys necessary to modernize our nuclear arsenal; that they agree to ask for that money as part of their appropriations bill. So, then, you might say: Well, what about the President? Will the President actually, in his budget, ask Congress to ask for that money? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the President of the United States, dated December 20, addressed to the appropriators who just wrote the letter I mentioned, saying that he, in fact, will ask for those funds in the budget he puts forth in the next few months.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the reason I want that entered into the Record, over the next 10 years, what this calls for is $86 billion--$86 billion--worth of investment throughout the seven facilities throughout our country on nuclear armaments and over $100 billion on the delivery mechanisms to ensure that these warheads are deliverable. So one might say: Well, that is great, but how are we going to be sure? How are we going to be sure the appropriators actually ask for the money? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed on December 16 by Chairman Inouye, Senators Dianne Feinstein, Thad Cochran, and Lamar Alexander.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about many things--and I will get to missile defense in just one moment--but I don't think there is anything, as it relates to nuclear issues, that threatens our national security more than our not investing in the arsenal we have. I think what we see is a commitment by appropriators on the Senate side, the President of the United States, those within the NNSA and our military complex who believe modernization has to occur. Candidly, the only thing today that would keep us from actually doing modernization the way it needs to be done would be Republican appropriators. So I just wish to say to my friends on this side of the aisle, it seems to me, through Senator Kyl's efforts and the efforts of people working in a cooperative way, we have been very successful in getting the commitments we need on modernization. By the way, I would add, I do not think we would be talking about the issue of modernization today--something that hasn't been done for many years to this scale--if it were not for discussions of the START treaty. So I say to the Chair, I think we have enhanced our country's national security just by having this debate, and I would say we have sought and received commitments that otherwise we would not have received if it were not for the discussion of this treaty. The two are very related. I have heard a lot of people say there is no real relationship between the two. There is a lot of relationship between the two, in that I think Americans want to know if we are going to limit ourselves to 1,550 warheads, that we know they operate, we know they can be delivered, and we know the thousands of warheads we have that are not deployed are warheads that will be kept up. We have talked a lot about missile defense, and I just wish to say I have been through every word of this treaty, I have been through every word of the annexes, I have been through every word of the protocols and I have been in countless briefings and there is nothing in this treaty that limits our missile defense other than the fact that we cannot convert ICBM launchers that we use on the offense for missile defense--something our military leaders do not want to do. That is the most expensive way of creating a missile defense system. That is something they do not want to do. So a lot of discussions have been brought up because in the preamble something was stated that was nonbinding. How do we clear that up? We clear that up by virtue of a letter the President has sent to us absolutely committing to the missile defense system that is now being deployed in Europe, absolutely committing to a national defense system. People might say: Well, but that is no commitment. I have reasonable assurance that by the time this debate ends we will codify, as part of the resolution of ratification, the operative words in the President's language committing to all four phases of our adaptive missile system in Europe, committing to those things we need to do as relates to our national defense system and making that a part of the resolution of ratification. I would say to you that I doubt very seriously we would have received the types of commitments, the strident commitments from the President as relates to missile defense today, if we were not debating this treaty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lamar Alexander be added as a cosponsor to my amendment, amendment No. 4904, dealing with ensuring the President's language becomes a part of this resolution of ratification.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I have not. I attempted to do so. He was off the floor by the time----

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that we now return to the treaty.

Mr. CORKER. That is what I was just getting ready to say.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4904 to the resolution of ratification be brought up as pending.

Mr. CORKER. It was a modification that the staff of the chairman suggested.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to accept the modification. It is modified slightly. I want to make sure that is acceptable.

Mr. CORKER. Absolutely.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. If I could ask one other question. If a Senator comes to the floor and wants to offer an amendment, not on the treaty itself-- which we realize is more difficult to pass because of what that means as relates to negotiations with Russia--but to offer an amendment on the resolution of ratification, which is something that might likely be successful and accepted, it is my understanding all they have to do is come down and offer that amendment, to ask unanimous consent to call it up; is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate the Chair's courtesy. I think Senator Kerry was down here earlier today talking a little about procedures, and I want to follow up on that. I know we have a number of people back in the cloakroom wondering about how we go forward with the amendment process. So I just thought I could enter into a conversation with him through the Chair. Unlike most procedures, this is a situation where you have a 60-vote cloture and your ability or your strength on the issue itself rises because it actually takes 67 votes, or two-thirds, of those voting to actually ratify a treaty. So it is not like on a cloture vote on the floor where you go from a 60-vote threshold to 51, where you are weakened. In this case, you are actually strengthened because it takes more votes after cloture to actually pass this piece of legislation. So I just wanted to, if I could, verify with Senator Kerry the process of actually offering amendments, not just on the treaty-- because I know we are still on the treaty--but also on the resolution of ratification, where I think numbers of amendments might actually be approved and accepted.

Mr. CORKER. So it is my understanding--to be able to talk with other Senators who have an interest on the treaty itself and would like to do some things to strengthen it, it is my understanding that what I just heard was that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee would be more than willing to accommodate a unanimous consent request to actually offer amendments to the resolution itself, and he knows of no one on their side, at present, who would object to that. So if people wanted to go back and forth between the actual treaty and the resolution itself, they now can do that on the floor?

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President.