John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. If Senator Byrd were here, he would ask us all to try to abide by the Senate rules and speak through the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I think we had about five, but it may have gone up in the time I have been here.

Mr. KERRY. We are only on the first amendment.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator for his forbearance and his thoughtfulness with respect to what is going on here on the floor. That is absolutely reasonable, as far as I am concerned. I will yield for a question from Senator Corker. Senator Dodd is next in line. I am happy to answer a question from my friend.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am happy to answer.

Mr. KERRY. Let me answer the first question.

Mr. KERRY. It doesn't necessarily have to happen that way. That is a choice, I guess, Senators can make. It is entirely possible to yield back time. This is an issue that is well known to every Senator. It has been worked on. It has been voted on. Senators are already accountable for their votes on that issue. It is one that the Senate has debated at great length and had hearings on at great length. If the Senators decide they need the 30 hours, indeed, that can push us along. There is no reason to have to be on it for those 30 hours. I would say to the Senator, it is perfectly plausible we could be back on the START treaty tomorrow, depending on the choices made, first of all, in the votes, and then, secondly, depending on the outcome of the votes, the choices Senators make afterward.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, to the best of my understanding, I think the Senator is correct. There are choices that can be exercised by those who are in the position to make those choices, and I think that choice has been made. We are where we are.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to ask a unanimous consent. Senator DeMint will be next. After Senator DeMint, Senator Thune, according to the list. I ask unanimous consent, since there were three opponents in a row, if we could insert--I have been asked by Senator McCain to put Senator Risch in, and I would like to put Senator Shaheen before that. So after Senator Thune, I ask Senator Shaheen be recognized for 10 minutes; subsequent to that, Senator Risch for 10 minutes; and Senator Sessions would follow that for 30 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Finally, quickly, before the Senator from South Carolina begins, I would just say to my friend from Illinois, I would point out to him that actually the Russians have helped Israel by cooperating with us. As a result of this cooperative arrangement we reached, they refused to sell the S-300 air interceptor missile to the Iranians, and that actually is very significant with respect to Israel. So the impact of this treaty is very positive for Israel, in the long run, and I think that is important to note.

Mr. KERRY. I agree. But the bottom line is, the Senator has agreed with my statement that we have to go back to the Russians, and that means this treaty doesn't go into force. It also means you don't know what other parts of the negotiation come forward. So the choice before the Senate is whether you want to take language, which the Senator has agreed is not legally binding, and you want to go back to the Russians and reopen the negotiations for something that doesn't even bind you, when you already have this remarkable amount of evidence saying we are going to go ahead and do what the Senator is interested in doing. Even further----

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, that is a good point by the Senator, and I don't disagree. He is absolutely correct. The Duma does have to ratify this. But the point I am trying to make is, it doesn't seem worth trying to have that fight--I mean, if this were a matter that went to the core and essence of where we are heading with the treaty, I would say that is different. But it is not binding. If there was something binding here that required us to do something against our will, sure. But there is no rubberstamp involved in something that has no affect on the actions we have already guaranteed in so many different ways we are going to take. Let me just point out--

Mr. KERRY. Sure.

Mr. KERRY. It is simply a matter of before you get to the Duma, you have to go back and renegotiate this, the treaty doesn't enter into force, and we don't begin what our intelligence community has told us they would like to see happen sooner; the quicker, the better. They want to get to this process. Moreover, it is also important in another respect. I don't know how much more clear we can be, but I am willing to work with the Senator, and I would love to see if we could sit down in the next hours and come up with something here. We work pretty effectively together, and I think we may be able to do this. But I don't think these words that are in here are meaningless. In the resolution of ratification, we are saying: A paramount obligation of the United States Government is to provide for the defense of the American people, deployed members of the United States armed forces, and United States allies against nuclear attacks to the best of its ability. Policies based on mutual assured destruction or intentional vulnerability can be contrary to the safety and security of both countries. That is a pretty--that is even a new--I was attracted to that, frankly, because Senator DeMint proposed it, and I said: You know, that is not an unreasonable statement for us to make. Further, we say in the resolution--this is not unimportant: In a world where biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are proliferating-- This is what our colleagues have been concerned about-- strategic stability can be enhanced by strategic defensive measures. We are embracing what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are suggesting ought to be a part of this. Then, we say--this is the most important paragraph: Accordingly, the United States is and will remain free to reduce the vulnerability to attack by constructing a layered missile defense system capable of countering missiles of all ranges. We are saying it. That is what we are adopting when we pass this resolution of ratification. So not only do we have all our defense establishment, intelligence establishment, and civilian command saying we are going to build this system, not only have we briefed the Russians--and according to our leading general who is responsible for this, who says he briefed them, he told them about the fourth phase and they have accepted it--not only do we have that, but we are going on record saying we have this purpose to change this relationship and we are going to proceed to build this system. I think that to put the whole treaty, given what is in the resolution of ratification, on the chopping block as a result of a nonbinding resolution, frankly, it just doesn't make sense, and particularly given what the Senator agrees with me is the consequence of having to reenter negotiations, and more important, the Senator agrees with me the thing he doesn't like is not legally binding. So let's have a vote. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me ask my friend this: First of all, I forgot to include in my comments about what we included with the DeMint language in the resolution, which I think you guys ought to be jumping up and down about which is the following: The United States is committed to improving United States strategic defensive capabilities both quantitatively and qualitatively during the period that the New START Treaty is in effect, and such improvements are consistent with the treaty. That is about as boldfaced a statement as we could make about where we are heading. I ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona this: If the President clarified that for the Senator in the next 48 hours, or 72 hours, and he were to make more clear to him--to try to address that question particularly for Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, and others, would the Senator vote for the treaty?

Mr. KERRY. With all due respect--

Mr. KERRY. That is fair. Mr. President, if the Senator wants every eventuality of the future covered, that is a hard one. I think the President of the United States--when he speaks and puts something in writing, in whatever form, or tells a Senator to his face, then gives him his word, that is pretty meaningful where I come from.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times, passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and in morning business, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be authorized to sign any dual-enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today's session.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, I repeat that we are beginning the third day of debate on the START treaty. Senator Lugar and I are anxious to begin debate on an actual amendment. We are prepared to do so as soon as colleagues decide to come to the floor and bring us those amendments. I will repeat that given the press of business and the holidays, we are sort of in a place where we want to afford people that opportunity, but if people don't want to take advantage of that, we are certainly prepared to move to a vote. I emphasize that there are no amendments from colleagues on the Democratic side. We are prepared to just vote on this treaty. I think perhaps we are getting a signal that other colleagues may want to likewise try to move to conclude this treaty fairly rapidly. Certainly, Senator Lugar and I are prepared to do so. Senator Lugar has pressed me to try to see if we can proceed with respect to the procedural votes that would bring us to that point. I have suggested that we ought to perhaps give that a little more time. We are prepared to do so. At some point, I think it will be appropriate for us to do that. I know Senator Lugar wants to speak with respect to some of the points that were made yesterday. First, would the Senator be agreeable to having Senator Franken speak?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. There was a series of requests from Senators on the other side--which is totally appropriate. I am not suggesting that was inappropriate. I think the record needs to reflect that on those multiple occasions when people requested time in order to be able to prepare, we gave them time. Senator Lugar was importuned some 13 times to specifically slow down the treaty process in order to allow for more time to be able to address the modernization process, which is outside the treaty but not unlinked from it when you are making judgments about this. Senator Kyl brought up some relevant omissions in that modernization process. That extra time allowed us to address that--I hope to his satisfaction but certainly to the improvement of an understanding of where we are proceeding and to increase the funds. Then we delayed even further when the committee was prepared to vote. There was a request for delay, and we delayed that vote. Then we delayed even after that in order to avoid the appearance of politicizing the treaty for the election. So we literally took it out and said: OK, we will do it after the election, which is why I think people feel so adamantly that now is the time. There have been an appropriate series of delays. You cannot come in and ask for delay and then say: Oh my gosh, we are pushed up against the calendar, and it is difficult to do it now--particularly since we are in day 3 and we have plenty of time to even exceed the amount of time in which we did START I. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for clarifying that. I hope not to get locked into a discussion of process now or what happens when. Let's just do the substance of the treaty and show the country that we have the ability to, in a bipartisan way, meet the national security needs of our Nation. Again, I thank the Senator for his question.

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to the Senator, we are working on the appropriate language so we do not, in fact, wind up inadvertently amending the treaty. So we will make certain we proceed in an appropriate way. But I guarantee any Senator, if they have an amendment, we will be able to take it and we are ready to proceed. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his cooperative effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I don't want to interrupt the Senator, but I wonder if, before he goes to another area, he would like to engage in a discussion on this particular one?

Mr. KERRY. If he is pressed for time, I understand that.