Paul Grattan Kirk Jr.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk, No. 4922.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, am I allowed to be heard on the point of order?

Roger that.

Madam President, this has been an important week for me, the most junior Senator. We passed bipartisan legislation to prevent a huge scheduled tax increase from hitting our Illinois economy in the teeth of a great recession, and we did this with the support of our President, Barack Obama, whose name is on this very Senate desk. We stopped a 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill with 6,600 earmarks, which was a big victory for restraint on spending. We stopped a House effort this morning to permit Guantanamo Bay terrorists to be transferred to the heartland--likely to Thomson, IL. The revised House bill that just passed now prohibits such a transfer.

Now to the issue at hand. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment. In my view, the underlying assumptions of the 20th century's Cold War are breaking down. Under the old doctrine of mutual assured destruction, we assumed the Soviet leadership did not want to commit suicide, and neither did we. In the balance of terror, defenses against attack were ignored--banned even, under an outdated treaty--because the assumptions were relatively sound.

These assumptions are breaking down in the 21st century. We face a future in which nations will have nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Recall that nuclear technology is 1930s-era engineering and missile technology is 1960s-era engineering. Since the laws of physics cannot be classified, it is only a matter of time before other countries, including enemies of the United States, will develop such weapons.

The difference between the 20th and 21st centuries can be described as a difference between capability and intent. In the 20th century, the United States was fairly assured that the Soviet Union lacked the intent to attack America or her friends. In the 21st century, Iran and possibly other countries now regularly demonstrate the intent to carry out an attack. Of the roughly 150 members of the United Nations, only one--Iran--regularly talks with its head of state about wiping another member of the United Nations off the planet.

In such an environment, the assumptions of our security in the 20th century become dangerously out of date. If the United States and our allies face a future in which America faces countries or institutions which have the capability and intent to attack, then the old doctrine of mutual assured destruction and agreements that depend on this doctrine grant us no safety. In the 21st century, we need actual defenses to secure America and our allies.

Against the growing danger of Iran, the safety of America and Israeli families depends on missile defenses. We know Iran has shorter range scud missiles, used liberally against Iraq in a previous war. We know Iran has North Korean No Dong missiles--called Shahab III missiles in Farsi--that have a much longer range to reach Israel. We know Iran has launched a satellite into orbit using a very long range missile called the Safir. Remember, if Iran can orbit a satellite over anywhere on the Earth, it can deorbit a warhead anywhere too. We know Iran has thousands of uranium cascades operating to refine uranium. We know the Bushehr reactor has now been fueled and will soon begin the production of plutonium in Iran. The greatest emerging threat to the United States and Israel is Iran and its missile and fissile material production. Linked with the other speeches of Iran's own head of state, the future security of American and Israeli families depends on missile defense.

I worry about the administration's missile defense intentions. Early in the administration's term, it slowed down the planned upgrade for the missile defenses of the United States itself. It made plans to cut funding for the U.S.-Israel Arrow 3 missile defense system. When I heard about those cuts, I approached the late Jack Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, to stop that move, and I understand Chairman Murtha did exactly that.

The administration canceled plans to put an X-band radar in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland. It even continued to offer to include Russians inside the missile defenses of NATO. Russia is a country that recently attacked Georgia with missiles. Russia fueled the Bushehr reactor in Iran. It may have also delivered air defense radars to Iran--a nation that Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all certified as a state sponsor of terror.

The actions of the administration on missile defense appear uncertain. Under this treaty, we appear to be confirming that a Russian wish be preserved--that they continue to have the capability to effectively attack the United States. I would regard this sentiment as part of the last century and not this, and I worry about the new threat from Iran much more than the old threat from Russia.

It should be the policy of the United States to blunt or defeat any attack from Iran against the United States or Israel, no matter what. The statement in the preamble of this treaty should be deleted so that we give strong Senate direction to our policy of providing the strongest defenses possible against the growing danger of Iran.

I am currently confused as to which Cabinet department is preeminent on this issue. The State Department largely negotiated the preamble, generating pressure for the United States to recognize ``undermining the viability and effectiveness of strategic offensive arms of the Parties.'' In plain English, we would run our defense programs to preserve the ability of Russia to attack. This outdated, 20th-century thinking is enshrined in the preamble.

Such a policy also preserves the future ability of Iran to deliver an attack against the United States. We are assured that a missile--which does not now exist and has not been deployed--will defend us. The Standard Missile 3 Block 2 Bravo is rumored to be considered for development and deployment. But we cannot be defended by a missile that does not yet exist and has not yet been deployed.

What has happened is that the administration has canceled plans to deploy the GBI system to Poland, which would have defended us and would have been deployed. Much to the embarrassment of our Czech and Polish political allies, we withdrew a real defense system for a planned one-- a real deployment for a hoped-for one.

It should be the policy of the United States to defend us against attack. It should be our policy to defend allies against attack. Therefore, we should sign no treaty which acknowledges a need to preserve Russia's ability to attack the United States and that also has the effect of opening a way for Iranian missiles to find their mark against American or Israeli families.

I am struck by this debate. If the treaty does not affect the ability of the United States to defend us or Israel against missile attack, then the amendment should go forward without affect on the treaty. If the treaty does limit the ability of the United States or Israel to defend themselves, then the amendment is absolutely necessary to fulfill the assertions of proponents that the treaty has no relation to defense.

Passage of this amendment improves this treaty for this very new Senator. It focuses the treaty on its key objective and makes this treaty much more likely to pass. Defeat of this amendment weakens this treaty. It focuses the debate on ancillary subjects and makes it much less likely to pass.

The 21st century should be a world in which fewer and fewer ways are available for nations to attack the United States or our allies and greater and greater means for the democracies--especially the United States---to defeat an attack, should war come. Therefore, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I understand the S-300 has not been delivered, even though the Russians signed a contract to deliver this to the

Islamic Republic of Iran. But most of the missile threat to Israel is against Russian-built and designed missiles. The Russians have delivered hundreds of Scud missiles to Syria, which represent the vast bulk of the threat to the people of Israel.