Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business but to extend the time to up to 45 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. I would say, since I do not see a Member of the majority…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business but to extend the time to up to 45 minutes.
Thank you, Mr. President. I would say, since I do not see a Member of the majority on the floor, if there is a concern with that later, and somebody wishes to slip me a note, I would be happy to try to accommodate my schedule to the majority's schedule.
New START Concerns
Mr. President, what I wish to speak to today is the START treaty which has been submitted by the administration for consideration by the Senate.
The President signed the treaty on April 8 of this year, submitted it to the Senate for ratification on May 13, and 2 weeks ago the Foreign Relations Committee began hearings on the treaty.
In the consideration of past treaties, the Senate has taken great care to consider the entire record of relevant documents and to seek the views of a wide variety of experts, and I am sure that will be done in this case as well.
According to a report from Senator Thune, who is the head of the Republican Policy Committee:
[On] the original START, almost 430 days passed between the
time President George H.W. Bush signed it--
That was July 31, 1991--
and the U.S. Senate provided its consent to the treaty [on
October 1, 1992]. As for the Treaty of Moscow, which is to
terminate if New START is ratified, it was signed on May 24,
2002 and ratified by the Senate more than nine months later
on March 6, 2003.
That treaty, by the way, is only three pages long. So it is not surprising that it takes some time. What is surprising to me is that some have seemed intent on rushing the treaty that has been sent to us. According to Congressional Quarterly:
A congressional aide who briefed reporters on the treaty
said Thursday that Senate Foreign Relations [Committee]
Chairman John Kerry [of Massachusetts] intended to complete
hearings ``in time for the Senate to take up the treaty
before the August recess, if it so chooses.''
I am not aware of any similar precedent for so rushing such a treaty of this complexity, and I am not sure why the rush would be necessary. I wish to remind my colleagues, the White House assured us there would be no problem when it permitted the treaty to expire by not seeking its extension. The reason is expressed in a Joint Statement, which said as follows:
Recognizing our mutual determination to support strategic
stability between the United States of America and the
Russian Federation, we express our commitment, as a matter of
principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the
START Treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm
intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter
into force at the earliest possible date.
So what did these 65 words mean? Well, Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn told us they meant that:
In this interim period of START's expiration earlier in the
month, our two countries have agreed to continue observing
the spirit of the treaty's terms.
Spokesman Kelly said they mean that ``both sides pledged not to take any measures that would undermine the strategic stability that START has provided during this period between the expiration of the START treaty.''
So the idea that we are potentially disadvantaged every day the treaty goes unratified seems to me to be untrue, unless the Joint Statement does not mean what we were told it means. Certainly, there is no reason the Senate should not take the time it needs to perform its due diligence. The Constitution did not, after all, entrust to this body the requirement to perform the process of advise and consent on treaties, and did not set the extraordinarily high threshold of 67 votes to achieve ratification because it intended the Senate to merely rubberstamp a treaty.
I remind my colleagues of the recommendation of Dr. James Schlesinger, who the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said in a recent hearing has been called ``the former Secretary of Everything.'' Dr. Schlesinger said:
First, the Senate will wish to scrutinize the Treaty
carefully, as it has previous arms control agreements. This
reflects the many changes as compared to START I.
Of course, the treaty is more than just the treaty text, protocols, and annexes, which we have only recently received. There are other things we have not yet received. Again, quoting from Senator Thune's report:
For example, the Secretary of State is required by statute
to submit a verifiability assessment of the treaty, and past
practice has been for the intelligence community to submit a
National Intelligence Estimate concerning the verifiability
of such matters. These two documents will be critical to
Senate evaluation of the treaty.
Another set of documents that will be critical to the
Senate's evaluation of New START, particularly the
verification issue, is the annual report the President is to
complete assessing other nations' compliance with their arms
control, nonproliferation, and disarmament commitments. This
annual report is due on April 15 of each year, with the last
one submitted in August 2005--meaning the White House is now
five reports behind.
So in this case, the verifiability assessment will be prepared by the Assistant Secretary for Verification, Rose Gottemoeller, who also happened to be our lead negotiator on the treaty. I am not certain if she will recuse herself from drafting the document, due to the obvious conflict of interest, but Senators must surely understand this.
On the matter of the NIE, Senators must carefully review the record of the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which will file a report or submit a letter on the treaty. The NIE is important. It is not simply a statement on the verifiability of the treaty or at least it should not be. To be useful, it will provide an analysis of how the treaty informs our understanding of Russia's nuclear forces. It will analyze cheating scenarios and the likelihood we will detect them. This is an important document and one that will take time to put together.
Another document promised, but not yet sent to the Senate, is the nuclear force posture. Senators will, of course, want to know how the triad will be composed during the 10 years of the treaty before we consider it. It is not sufficient to merely trust that the 700 deployed launchers called for in the treaty will be sufficient. We need to see the force posture and we need to see the analysis that supports it.
I joined with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee who have requested access to the treaty negotiating record. I remind my colleagues that 22 U.S.C. section 2578 requires the Secretary of State to maintain a negotiating record of treaties to which the United States is a party. Obviously, Congress did not enact this requirement merely for the sake of doing it. Congress, obviously, intended to be able to have access to the record.
There is a long history on this subject involving great disputes between the Senate, its committees, and its National Security Working Group--or its predecessor, the Arms Control Observer Group--which, incidentally, I cochair along with Senator Byrd, and the Executive on the INF and the START I treaty. I remind my colleagues of a statement made by Sam Nunn, the
former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when he was serving in this body in 1986:
Mr. President, in my opinion, the administration's
rejection of our request for Senate access threatens a basic
institutional interest of the U.S. Senate--its constitutional
role in the treaty process.
I agree with the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee that it is important for the Senate to have access to this negotiating record.
Finally, let me say, I come to this very serious process with an open mind. I supported the START II treaty and the Moscow Treaty. I opposed the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Not all arms control agreements are the same. And just because they were negotiated, it does not follow they are in our best interest. So we need to examine the record and this treaty carefully.
Today, I want to identify some areas of concern I believe Senators will want to focus on as they begin to consider the treaty. These are not objections. They are matters of concern we will want to investigate:
One, the required nuclear modernization plan; two, limits on U.S. nuclear force levels and force structure; three, impact on U.S. missile defenses; four, verification under the new treaty; five, the impact of the treaty on the disparity between United States and Russian nuclear force levels, especially regarding tactical nuclear weapons; six, the Bilateral Consultative Commission; and, seven, the impact of the treaty on prompt global strike.
Perhaps we should consider an eighth category and a new metric by which to evaluate the treaty. Secretary Clinton stated on March 18 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
I am not suggesting that this treaty alone will convince
Iran or North Korea to change their behavior, but it does
demonstrate our leadership and strengthens our hand as we
seek to hold these and other governments accountable.
I suggest the administration may want to carefully consider whether it wants the Senate to evaluate the treaty on that basis. What real progress has been made on nonproliferation since the President signed the treaty? Is the latest Security Council resolution an indication of the value of the New START?
While the U.N. Security Council has not adopted a resolution yet with respect to Iran, the announcement by the administration on May 18 included no reference to any sanctions that would close the noose around the IRGC, around Iran's energy sector, especially refined petroleum products, and Iran's banking sector, and all the other revenue streams that feed Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program and its terrorism apparatus.
Most of what is in the draft resolution--for example, references to the Iranian Central Bank--are in the preamble. The administration has told us that preambles are not binding. So which is it? Are preambles binding or is the draft resolution a bunch of words with little effect?
Also very troubling is the disclosure that the resolution does not prohibit the sale to Iran by Russia of the S-300 antiaircraft missile system. Not including the S-300 in the draft Security Council resolution is unfortunate confirmation that the administration has not ``reset'' relations with Russia in any meaningful way. In fact, the Moscow-based Kommersant Online reported this morning--and I quote-- ``Moreover, according to the terms of the deal, Washington is also lifting its objections to the sale to Iran of Russian S-300 antiaircraft missile systems.'' I cannot stress how important this issue is. Under no circumstances can the administration permit Russia to think the United States is not opposed to this transfer. If Russia proceeds with this transfer, not only will the Russian entities involved have to be sanctioned under U.S. law, but United States-Russia relations will be in a grave state of crisis.
It would appear the reason Russia agreed to the weak U.N. sanctions resolution is it will not affect any of its ties with Tehran. At the same time, it has announced it will embark on nuclear cooperation with Syria, as it announces, for example, the planned activation of the Bushehr reactor next August. What is the administration's reaction? We have learned it will roll back proliferation sanctions on Russian entities. Could this possibly be a quid pro quo for Russia's support for the draft resolution? I thought the START treaty was supposed to ensure their support. Nor has the President's ``leading by example,'' touted by Secretary Clinton, affected even NATO member Turkey and hemispheric member Brazil. The administration was obviously blindsided by Brazil and Turkey, working instead with Iran on an alternative plan.
So it is fair to ask: What progress has been made on nonproliferation that the administration can point to that suggests the START treaty is a meaningful tool in keeping States such as Iran and North Korea from violating their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations?
Let me turn back directly to START and begin the seven items I mentioned, beginning with the first: the modernization plan. This is the plan that section 1251 of last year's Defense Authorization Act required be submitted at the same time the treaty was sent to us for its ratification.
The key goal of most arms control agreements is to achieve strategic stability. The New START treaty was negotiated on the premise of numeric stability, but there are a number of underlying factors required, a foundation upon which to base that stability. For the United States, it is the confidence provided by both the current U.S. nuclear warheads and delivery systems and by the weapons complex and its capacity to sustain and modernize those nuclear warheads. For this reason, 41 Senators wrote to President Obama last December, highlighting the direct link between nuclear force reductions under the treaty and modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
What are some of the factors that affect its strategic stability, beyond the treaty numbers? Well, first, the weapons we deploy must be safe, secure and, most critically, for stability they must be reliable. Given the age of our current weapons, averaging close to 30 years, we must be extremely diligent about monitoring those deployed weapons through our surveillance programs.
We also have warheads that require life extensions such as the W76, which is underway, and soon, I hope, the B61. Without life extension, these weapons will soon cease to be capable of protecting our country. We must be looking to the future stockpile with new approaches, including life extension, using a full spectrum of options responsive to future needs. To achieve this will require a strong science, technology, and engineering workforce in our national laboratories and military complex that maintains critical skills and is resolute in its determination to solve the complicated problems at hand.
We must make an intense, unified push to restore a viable production capacity for nuclear warheads. Herein lives the greatest chink in our armor. As former Secretary Schlesinger recently testified:
The Russians have a live production base. They turn over
their inventory of nuclear weapons every 10 years. We do not.
Finally, we cannot neglect the delivery systems that carry these nuclear weapons. They are also aging and they also are prey to neglect and loss of critical capabilities.
The section 1251 plan was to address the issues I have just highlighted. We have received this classified report, and we are in the process of reviewing the statements of the administration to ensure that modernization is, in fact, adequately addressed.
The administration has outlined in this report a plan to provide, over the next decade, $80 billion for nuclear weapon activities and about $100 billion for delivery system activities. To be clear, most of this money is not new. In fact, the bulk of the money covers current spending levels plus inflation for the decade. While this is a needed improvement from the grossly inadequate fiscal year 2010 budget submission, we do not yet know how much the administration intends to commit to modernization and how it will be spent.
It has been well advertised that there is a renewed emphasis by the administration on sustaining our stockpile and modernizing the infrastructure. Congress has long recognized the need for this extra attention, for example, calling for the Stockpile Management Program and the section 1251 plan requirement in the fiscal year 2010 National
Defense Authorization Act. But after reviewing the fiscal year 2011 budget input, I am concerned the administration has not done all it should.
The fiscal year 2011 budget weapons activities part of the budget of $7 billion is a 10-percent increase over fiscal year 2010, with a 26- percent increase in the category of Directed Stockpile Work. This looks good on paper. The question is the substance. The fiscal years 2007 through 2009 plans from NNSA predicted that the fiscal year 2011 budget should be, on average, $7 billion--exactly what the administration asked for this year. What we need to know is how much in addition to the $7 billion for NNSA weapon activities over the next 10 years.
A cursory review of the numbers recommended in the section 1251 plan shows the proposed funding is, in fact, barely keeping up with inflation. In fiscal year 2010, Congress provided roughly $6.4 billion for the current nuclear weapons account at NNSA. If the fiscal year 2010 budget is assumed as a new 10-year baseline, that would be $64 billion of the $80 billion proposal for nuclear weapons activities at NNSA, assuming no increase for inflation or increased costs of modernization. If you assume a standard rate of inflation of 3 percent to cover cost-of-living adjustments in salaries and increased material costs using the fiscal year 2010 appropriations as the baseline, then holding that budget constant would require a total of $75.6 billion over the 10-year period. If a 2-year rate of inflation is used, then the increase is about $8 billion over the next 10 years.
Unfortunately, we know the fiscal year 2010 budget is not a sustainable baseline. The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee noted in its committee report last year that:
The committee does not believe this level of funding is
adequate to support modernization of the complex including
critical investment in infrastructure and scientific
capabilities.
So our stockpile is aging, refurbishments are behind schedule, the Cold War infrastructure is falling apart, and the critical science and technology skills that underwrite our nuclear deterrence are atrophied. But rather than seeing a new commitment to this problem, the budget request and the 1251 plan seem to be based on a plan--the fiscal year 2010 budget--that wasn't making much progress as it was.
It appears to me this plan was based not so much on what is needed but what funding the administration was willing to make available. In this case, it seems to be what funding Secretary Gates could sacrifice from his budget because that is how the additional money for this year came about. Why was the administration only willing to find funding authority in the DOD budget, the one department of the Federal Government engaged in fighting two wars? Secretary Gates had to transfer money from his budget over to the Energy Department budget.
As important as the amount of money available is the freedom to pursue all options available to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of our highly complex nuclear stockpile. The Nuclear Posture Review restricts options for modernizing existing warheads by stating:
In any decision to proceed to engineering development for
warhead LEPs--
That is, life extension projects--
the United States will give strong preference to options for
refurbishment or reuse. Replacement of nuclear components
would be undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management
Program goals could not otherwise be met and if specifically
authorized by the President and approved by Congress.
The 1251 plan tries to deal with this overly restrictive limitation by stating:
The Laboratory Directors will ensure that the full range of
life extension program approaches, including refurbishment,
reuse, and replacement of nuclear components are studied.
But it still reiterates that there is a ``policy preference for refurbishment and reuse in decisions to proceed from study to engineering development.''
Why would our nuclear scientists spend time and limited resources and risk their careers studying the full range of options if, when they make their recommendations, the President requires that they prove the impossible; namely, that replacement must be the only choice? Why isn't the standard instead what is the best course of action?
The Perry-Schlesinger Commission noted the importance of flexibility when it reported to Congress last May. It stated there are:
. . . options along a spectrum . . . in between are various
options to utilize existing components and design solutions
while mixing in new components and solutions as needed.
Different warheads may lend themselves to different solutions
along this spectrum. The decision on which approach is best
should be made on a case-by-case basis as the existing
stockpile of warheads ages.
The bipartisan commission of six Republicans and six Democrats determined that:
So long as modernization proceeds within the framework of
existing U.S. policy, it should encounter minimum political
difficulty.
Well, the NPR changes that policy, and the section 1251 plan reiterates the NPR language after initially suggesting scientists will be given complete latitude. I believe this will have a chilling effect on the scientists' work and that this issue must be resolved.
Similarly, we have questions concerning the administration's commitment to maintaining and modernizing nuclear delivery systems. While the administration suggests in the Nuclear Posture Review and the 1251 plan that it will maintain a nuclear triad, there is no funding in that plan for follow-on strategic systems, other than a replacement for our aging nuclear ballistic missile submarines. In fact, the 1251 plan notes that the administration will not even make a decision regarding a next generation bomber and a follow-on ICBM until 2013 and 2015, respectively. Likewise, rather than commit to a new nuclear cruise missile, the administration instead announces that a study is being done to determine if it will be replaced. Finally, the 1251 plan is silent on funding needed to develop and deploy conventional prompt global strike capabilities which, according to the Nuclear Posture Review, are to play a larger role in our strategic posture.
The notional nuclear force structure under New START suggested in the 1251 plan lacks sufficient detail. It calls for up to 420 ICBMs, up to 60 strategic bombers, and no more than 240 SLBMs. It would be helpful to know exactly how U.S. forces will be configured, how we might expect Russia to configure its nuclear forces, both strategical and tactical, and then have a net assessment to determine whether the United States is still capable of carrying out its deterrence missions, especially providing nuclear security guarantees to allies and partners.
With regard to New START limitations and force structure, the New START treaty limits the number of deployed strategic delivery systems to 700. Since the United States today deploys approximately 800 delivery systems, this will require a reduction of some 180 ICBMs, SLBMs, and/or strategic bombers to reach the treaty limitations--more if we deploy conventional global strike missiles, since, by the terms of the treaty, these must be counted as nuclear as well.
The Russians, on the other hand, are already below the 700 figure. So this is the first time that at least I am aware the United States will agree to launcher limitations that will require the United States to reduce its forces but require no reductions by Russia. It is fair to ask what the United States got for this concession.
Moreover, because a bomber counts as only one delivery system and one warhead no matter how many bombs or cruise missiles are loaded on it, the Russians are able legally to field more than 1,150 warheads limited by the treaty. While this may appear to advantage both sides, I do not fear U.S. cheating--we would not--but the Russians could, and because of weak verification tools in the treaty, I am not sure we will know. This is another reason to await the NIE before making a decision on the treaty.
Let me quote from the Heritage Foundation analysis on this point. It says:
In fact, despite Obama administration claims to the
contrary, New START's counting rules and apparent lapses will
permit increases in Russian strategic force levels above the
1,700 to 2,200 deployed warhead limit of the Moscow Treaty.
I am not going to quote the remainder of this analysis, but I would ask unanimous consent that the statement, as I submit it for the Record, contain the remainder of this analysis.
The bottom line is, there were concessions by the United States. The Russian conventions are essentially strictly based on their financial situation, not by any New START warhead ceilings. So what I think we should ask is why did we agree to it and what did we get in return.
Additionally, what will the U.S. nuclear force structure look like after eliminating these 180 U.S. strategic delivery systems? I have already talked about it, but I wish to explain why this is an important requirement for Senators to consider before we vote on the treaty.
The administration has provided some initial information as a basis for future planning. It could retain up to 420 ICBMs, up to 60 strategic bombers, and deploy no more than 240 SLBMs at any time. We will require further details about where these reductions will be made and how this force structure fares against our most likely prediction about how the Russians will design their nuclear forces.
An issue of concern is that while the United States intends to deploy only single-warhead ICBMs under the administration's new NPR, the treaty appears to be driving the Russians to deploy multiple-warhead missiles for their ICBM force. Land-based multiple-warhead missiles have long been considered destabilizing because they place a premium on striking first for fear of losing a large proportion of one's warheads by a preemptive strike by the other side. For this reason, MIRVs were to be banned by the START II treaty that never entered into force. Now, 80 percent of Russia's ICBM force will be road mobile and MIRVed. In light of this, it is curious to hear the administration now argue that New Start will increase strategic stability.
Assuming the U.S. nuclear force structure is survivable, the next question is whether it is sufficient for deterrence purposes-- especially the more difficult mission of extending nuclear guarantees to allies and partners.
As I said, the New Start treaty limits deployed strategic delivery systems to 700. A September 2008 white paper by the Defense and Energy Departments suggests a force of approximately 900 delivery systems is necessary for deterrence purposes, and in congressional testimony last summer, Admiral Mullen and General Cartwright expressed concerns with force levels below 800. How, then, can 700 be the correct number? Again, Senators must see the analysis themselves to make a decision on this. I don't see how a mere assurance in an unclassified committee hearing can be sufficient on a matter like this.
As to missile defense, despite being told consistently from the very beginning of negotiations that missile defense will be addressed only in the preamble of the treaty, we now discover that article V contains a direct restriction on U.S. missile defense activities--i.e. neither party can convert ICBM or SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense interceptors. In fact, just prior to the treaty's public release, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher said the following: ``But there is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems.'' Now, this begs two questions: 1, did Ms. Tauscher not know what was in the treaty her subordinates were negotiating; or 2, did whoever wrote Ms. Tauscher's talking points think Senators wouldn't notice an entire article of the treaty text?
Some administration officials have tried to explain this away by saying that, since this administration has no current plans to do so, it's not a constraint. That stands the English language on its head. This concession to the Russian Federation will establish a dangerous precedent with respect to including missile defense limitations in future offensive arms control agreements. Why did the U.S. side feel it necessary to concede this point? What did we get in return? Again, this is why it is important to see the full negotiating record.
When viewed together, the treaty's preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials provide the potential for Russia to essentially blackmail the U.S. against increasing its missile defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty.
The preamble states that ``current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties.'' Does this suggest that moving beyond ``current'' systems could provide grounds for withdrawal?
The Russians note in their unilateral statement that the treaty ``can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively,'' and also link American missile defense capabilities to the treaty's withdrawal clause. Shouldn't we read this as an attempt to exert political pressure to forestall continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defenses? The preamble doesn't have to be legally binding to be influential.
Even more disturbing is the administration's decision to limit U.S. missile defenses to be effective only against a ``limited attack,'' thus exempting Russian capabilities from the reach of our missile defenses. Since the U.S. unilateral statement makes quite clear that the administration intends to deploy only ``limited'' missile defenses to deal with ``limited attack,'' the administration has left itself no room to respond to strategic surprise or a disintegration of the current strategic relationship with key nuclear powers, let alone an accidental launch. Let me quote from the text of the U.S. unilateral statement:
The United States missile defense systems would be employed
to defend the United States against limited missile launches,
and to defend its deployed forces, allies and partners
against regional threats. The United States intends to
continue improving and deploying its missile defense systems
in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part
of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in
key regions.
Here is something else that's troubling. General Jones, in a May 12, 2010, letter to me wrote, ``Russian unilateral statement is both beyond the control of the Administration and not binding or limiting in any way on current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.'' I will repeat that because it is important: ``not binding or limiting in any way on current or planned U.S. missile defense programs.''
What about a program that is not current or planned? Our unilateral statement must lead one to ask whether the Russian statement was answered by the U.S. statement, in effect saying, ``you don't worry about our missile defense because we won't make it effective against you.'' What if a future administration decides to return to the concept of actually protecting America from any nuclear attack even from Russia?
The Russians will have the right to rely on these statements for at least the ten years of the treaty's operation. These statements may become the new baseline in future arms control negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation. Ronald Reagan enunciated the vision of U.S. missile defense, which I believe is as true today as it was in 1983:
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept
and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached
our own soil or that of our allies? But isn't it worth every
investment necessary to free the world from the threat of
nuclear war? We know it is.''
I am concerned that when Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov warned, on March 28, that ``the treaty and all the obligations it contains are valid only within the context of the levels which are now present in the sphere of strategic defensive systems,'' it means the Russians will threaten to pull out of START if we deploy additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska or if we deploy the SM-3 block IIB missile in Europe, as the administration promised.
There is something fundamentally disturbing about entering into a treaty with the Russians when we have such a divergence in view over a substantial issue like missile defense. At the very least this likely sets the stage for misunderstanding and confrontation as the United States continues its missile defense activities, particularly in Europe. Remember, the goal of the treaty was supposed to be stability from a common understanding and agreement on core principles.
Those who have rushed to embrace the treaty must confront this reality and the administration must be required to square the circle.
On verification, Secretary Gates testified that this treaty provides ``a strong verification regime . . . which provides a firm basis for monitoring Russia's compliance with its treaty obligations.'' I certainly have a great deal respect for Secretary Gates, but I'm not sure how he can know that yet. Has he seen the NIE on the treaty? Or the State Department verifiability assessment? And, even if treaty noncompliance can be verified, what have we lost in intelligence as a result of the weakening of the verification compared to the START treaty?
Independent assessments of the treaty suggest important new gaps in monitoring. For example, the treaty no longer requires on-the-ground, continuous monitoring of Russia's missile manufacturing facility and permits Russia to withhold telemetry of many of its missile tests, undermining our ability to know how many missiles are being produced and, perhaps, limiting our ability to understand what new capabilities are being developed. The administration has blamed the Bush administration for this, and I have asked for the evidence in letters to the Secretary of State, including a December 4, 2009, letter. So far the administration has been unwilling to substantiate this allegation-- which it could do by responding to my letters and inquiries on the matter.
The ability to monitor compliance with the terms of the treaty is important, but as important is whether our intelligence community can monitor the status of Russian strategic nuclear forces. What new capabilities is Russia developing? Is Russia building and stockpiling additional missiles and warheads that could provide it a break-out capability? Will we be able to maintain confidence in our assessment of Russian forces throughout the 10-year period of the treaty? According to Secretary Gates, ``And I think what you are likely to hear from them [the Intelligence Community] is that they have high confidence in their ability to monitor this treaty until toward the end of the 10-year term, when their confidence level will go to moderate.''
What is the impact of a judgment like that when we know Russia is increasing its reliance on its nuclear forces, conducting war games involving simulating raids against NATO allies like Poland, and modernizing almost every element of its strategic and tactical nuclear forces? For example, Russia is, in fact, deploying a new multipurpose attack submarine that can launch long range cruise missiles with nuclear warheads against land targets at a range of 5,000 kilometers-- just barely missing the threshold to be considered a strategic weapon under the New START treaty. Of course, a tactical nuclear weapon has a strategic effect if it is detonated above a U.S. or allied city.
We will need the intelligence community to consider these important factors before we can fully evaluate the treaty; I look forward to a thorough NIE that rigorously analyzes our ability to monitor Russian nuclear forces. And, I am sure the Intelligence Committee will hold numerous hearings to flesh out these issues.
As to the impact the treaty has on U.S. and Russian nuclear force levels, especially regarding tactical nuclear weapons, the administration argues that New Start will ``increase'' or ``provide'' strategic stability, but has yet to explain why the 10-1 disparity in tactical nuclear weapons doesn't upset that strategic stability, especially at lower levels of strategic nuclear forces. As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger recently testified, ``the significance of tactical nuclear weapons rises steadily as strategic nuclear arms are reduced.''
The Strategic Posture Commission estimates Russia may have approximately 3,800 operational tactical nuclear warheads, and that the combination of new warhead designs and precision delivery systems ``opens up new possibilities for Russian efforts to threaten to use nuclear weapons to influence regional conflicts.''
Likewise, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, has observed that the Russians are ``actually increasing their reliance on nuclear weapons and the role of nuclear weapons in their strategy.'' There is a fine line--actually, no line at all except as to how they are delivered--between strategic and tactical weapons.
If the Russians intend to use nuclear weapons to influence regional conflicts, then shouldn't we try to understand the impact of their numbers in the context of declining U.S. strategic nuclear weapons required by the treaty? In other words, what will be the effect of Russian tactical nuclear weapons on strategic stability and our ability to extend deterrence into various regions? We should understand this before agreeing with the administration's contention that this treaty increases stability.
The administration's retort is that they understand the importance of dealing with the disparity in tactical nuclear weapons, but that we must first ratify New Start before getting to Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the next treaty. But what leverage will we have left? And why should we think a ``next treaty'' that further reduces our weapons will be in our rational interest?
And if tactical weapons are as important as most seem to believe, why didn't we make them a priority in this treaty? Because the Russians didn't want to talk about them? Why was that enough to demur? How hard did we push? Again, this is why Senators need to see the negotiating record, and why they shouldn't make up their minds on the treaty until they do.
BCC--Bilateral Consultative Commission
One of the matters the administration will have to address before the Senate could consider ratification is the role of the Bilateral Consultative Commission in the treaty. As Ambassadors Edelman and Joseph observe in their May 10th National Review Online article:
A preliminary reading of the Treaty Protocol suggests that
the U.S. and Russian commissioners could reach secret
agreement on changes to ensure the `viability and
effectiveness' of the treaty. These changes could create
additional limits on missile defense that would appear to be
beyond the reach of the Senate's responsibility to advise and
consent.
Obviously, that is not acceptable. This matter will have to be thoroughly vetted during the hearings and presumably be dealt with in the resolution of ratification. While there may have been similar provisions in past treaties, the Senate should insist on a reasonable check on such an open-ended provision in the resolution of ratification.
Now to the conventional prompt global strike or PGS. Although tactical nuclear weapons were not addressed in this treaty, the United States conceded to Russian demands to place limits on our conventional prompt global strike capabilities by counting conventionally armed strategic ballistic missiles under the limits for delivery systems. At the very least, this will require a one-for-one reduction in U.S.- deployed nuclear weapons for each conventional ICBM it intends to deploy. This is yet another reason Senators need to see the force posture before they can make up their minds on the treaty.
The treaty also sets the stage for further limitations on U.S. conventional strike capabilities in the preamble by noting that the parties are ``mindful of the impact of conventionally armed ICBMs and SLBMs on strategic stability.'' Does any Senator imagine the Russians will not raise objections when
the United States begins the serious development of prompt global strike capabilities, as called for by the Nuclear Posture Review?
Moreover, the administration must be candid when it testifies about issues such as PGS missile defense. It cannot continue to state that the treaty does not limit PGS or missile defenses when it clearly does.
In conclusion, Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have predicated their support for the treaty on their answer to the question: Are we better off with an agreement or without it? They suggest that without the agreement, we would lack the ability to limit and monitor Russian strategic forces.
My response is twofold:
First, the existing 2002 Moscow Treaty already limits Russian warheads. True, the Moscow Treaty relied on the now-expired START treaty's verification procedures, but these could have been extended by mutual consent. The Russians refused or the administration did not bother to ask. We will not know until the administration shares the negotiating record with us.
Second, I believe the better question is, Are we better off with this treaty or a treaty that did not include any references to missile defense or prompt global strike and which did contain limitations on Russian tactical nuclear weapons? These are issues for Senators to consider when they debate the resolution of ratification and amendments to it, whether they be reservations or conditions or otherwise.
In her opening statement at the May 18 Foreign Relations Committee hearing on New START, Secretary Clinton asserted that ``the choice before us is between this treaty and no treaty governing our nuclear security relationship with Russia.'' This assertion is obviously a false choice. It reflects sort of an ``our way or the highway'' approach, completely inconsistent with the responsibilities of the Senate. Since the administration did not consult the Senate for its advice before making its negotiating concessions, it should not now argue that the Senate has only the choice of voting for the treaty that we cannot amend and therefore must vote yes and that it would be impossible to negotiate another agreement. After all, isn't that what both sides did in walking away from the START II agreement? The Senate is not a rubberstamp.
We have the opportunity and responsibility to fully understand this treaty and understand whether it furthers the security of the American people. And we must consider it in the context of other considerations such as the nuclear modernization that goes hand-in-hand with consideration of the treaty. The administration will have to find a way, for example, to ensure the necessary funding for modernization before the Senate votes on the treaty.
Sergei Karagonov, chairman of the Russian Council on Defense and Foreign Policy, summarized the Russian view of the treaty saying:
In the course of the negotiations, Russia reached almost
all of the objectives it could possibly set.
I think that is a pretty good metric by which to evaluate the outcome of the treaty. Are we able to say the same thing for the United States? That is a question which will need to be answered affirmatively for the Senate to ratify the treaty.
We have just begun the process of evaluation and potentially ratification. I urge all of my colleagues to refrain from judgments before our process is complete. I do not doubt there are arguments in support of the treaty. The recitation of my concerns today should be taken as just that--concerns--hopefully to make the point that there are reasons for us to be careful and thoughtful and not jump to conclusions. I look forward to an exercise worthy of the Senate in the consideration of this important submission.
