Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Dec 16th, 2010 :: 3:16:30 to 3:32:55
Total video length: 10 hours 24 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:359 Duration: 0:16:25 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Jeff Bingaman

3:16:26 to 3:16:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: the senate should ratify it as soon as possible. and i yield the floor. mr. bingaman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: madam president, i'd like to speak briefly on the new start treaty and state the reasons why i believe the senate should go ahead and ratify this

Jeff Bingaman

3:16:30 to 3:32:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jeff Bingaman

Jeff Bingaman

3:16:49 to 3:17:11( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: treaty. let me highlight some key points on first what the treaty accomplishes. let me mention four things. number one, it reduces the number of deployed nuclear warheads by a relatively small number. that is, it takes us from 2,200,

Jeff Bingaman

3:17:12 to 3:17:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: which is what we're required to reduce to under the moscow treaty, down to 1,550. second, its counting regime is not based on attributing a number of warheads to a launch system but instead, like the 2002 moscow treaty, this treaty actually requires the counting

Jeff Bingaman

3:17:35 to 3:17:59( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: of deployed warheads. third, this treaty reestablishes a verification regime of inspectors on the ground. this is something which lapsed a year ago when start i lapsed. and third -- and fourth, this treaty still maintains a credible nuclear deterrent

Jeff Bingaman

3:18:00 to 3:18:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: against russia, against china, against anyone who might threaten our country. before discussing some of these points in detail, let me new start treaty in some historical perspective, at least as i see t. -- as i see it. as this chart graphically demonstrates, at the peak of the cold war some 30 years ago,

Jeff Bingaman

3:18:24 to 3:18:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: there were about 60,000 nuclear warheads. that's clearly an astounding number given that a single warhead would destroy most american -- major american cities and most major cities anywhere in the world. from 1991, when the first start treaty was signed, until 2002,

Jeff Bingaman

3:18:47 to 3:19:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: when the moscow treaty was signed, the number of warheads declined dramatically from about 50,000 to a little over 20,000 or about 10,000 for the united states and 10,000 for russia. this includes spare and deployed

Jeff Bingaman

3:19:08 to 3:19:28( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: warheads, not just those that were deployed. the moscow treaty took this count further and allowed 2,200 to 1,700 deployed warheads. with additional spares of about 3,300 were -- when additional spares of about

Jeff Bingaman

3:19:29 to 3:19:49( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: 3,300 were included, the number rises somewhere to between 5,500 and down to 5,000 warheads for each nation. the new start treaty is -- if the new start treaty is ratified, as shown on this chart -- down here where this arrow is in the right-hand bottom corner -- in 2010, it

Jeff Bingaman

3:19:50 to 3:20:13( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: will take the number of deployed warheads to 1,550 from the lower limit that was in the moscow treaty. that's a very modest reduction compared to what was done -- what has been done in previous arms control agreements. after the cold war ended 20 years ago, it was clear that we

Jeff Bingaman

3:20:14 to 3:20:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: had an astounding and excessive number of nuclear weapons. i believe it was the hope and the expectation of most americans that there would be deep reductions in nuclear weapons at that time that. reduction, in my view, has been slow in coming. our government has declassified the number of nuclear warheads

Jeff Bingaman

3:20:35 to 3:20:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: we have in our active stockpile and that number is 5,113. if asked directly, i believe most americans would be surprised to know that here at the end of 2010, we still have over 5,000 nuclear warheads and

Jeff Bingaman

3:20:56 to 3:21:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: we have 2,200 that are deployed. today we have a treaty before us that achieves a modest reduction from the moscow level of 2,200 deployed warheads. as i indicated before, this treaty will take us down to 1,550. quite frankly, i'm surprised

Jeff Bingaman

3:21:18 to 3:21:39( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: that some are arguing for having a drawn-out debate over the treaty. start i took about four days of floor debate and lowered the number of warheads between russia and the united states from about 50,000 to 20,000, a 60% reduction. the moscow treaty lowered the total number of u.s. warheads from about 11,000 to today's level of about 5,000.

Jeff Bingaman

3:21:40 to 3:22:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: that took two days of debate. and that involved a 55% reduction. yet, with the relatively modest reduction called for in this treaty, we still have people proposing a floor debate that could extend into the next congress. let me turn to a number of

Jeff Bingaman

3:22:01 to 3:22:22( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: substantive issues associated with the new start treaty that i believe weigh in favor of its ratification by the senate. first, we have been briefed by the military commanders about the 1,550 deployed warhead as that will still be in place once this treaty is approved.

Jeff Bingaman

3:22:23 to 3:22:43( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: this total is comprised of about 700 deployed icbm and slbms and about 800 total heavy bombers and launchers. i urge my colleagues to obtained classified briefing on the treaty. i believe it's clear that the commander of u.s. strategic command has analyzed in detail

Jeff Bingaman

3:22:44 to 3:23:04( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: the strategic nuclear force structure of each side under this treaty and is confident that we can maintain our deterrence against russia and china, who hold 96% of the world's strategic nuclear warheads. the resolution of approval, as reported by the senate foreign

Jeff Bingaman

3:23:05 to 3:23:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: relations committee, speaks to this issue, noting in condition three that before any reductions in deployed warheads are made below the current moscow treaty level, the president must notify congress that such reductions are in the national security interests of the united states.

Jeff Bingaman

3:23:27 to 3:23:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: the second point is that the intelligence community has judged that we're better off with this treaty and its inspection regime than we are without it. monitoring and verification under start i, which has now expired, was based on counting strategic launch systems and then attributing a number of

Jeff Bingaman

3:23:49 to 3:24:09( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: warheads to each submarine, each airplane, each missile. this counting rule overestimated the number of warheads carried on u.s. strategic systems. the new start treaty's much more specific than start i. it counts only the actual number of warheads carried by each deployed missiles. in fact, this is the same

Jeff Bingaman

3:24:10 to 3:24:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: counting rule as in the moscow treaty, which was developed by the prior administration and subsequently approved here in this senate 95-0. moreover, under this treaty, we have the ability to inspect on the ground with short notice to determine whether uniquely coded

Jeff Bingaman

3:24:31 to 3:24:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: launchers actually carry the declared numbers of warheads. contrary to what some have claimed, short notice inspections of uniquely identified launchers, combined with other intelligence assets, give us a high probability of detecting cheating, such as uploading of more warheads,

Jeff Bingaman

3:24:53 to 3:25:15( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: which would take days to months for russia to achieve. condition two of the resolution of approval out of the committee speaks to the monitoring issue by requiring the president to certify that our national technical means or other intelligence assets combined with the -- our on-the-ground verification capability is --

Jeff Bingaman

3:25:16 to 3:25:36( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: quote -- "sufficient to effective monitoring of russian compliance with the provisions of the treaty." third, there's a large policy issue of strategic stability. this treaty provides a framework of transparency through inspections and accountability of warheads and launchers. if we're worried about unchecked growth of russia's strategic

Jeff Bingaman

3:25:37 to 3:25:57( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: nuclear forces not now but five years from now, it makes great sense to approve this treaty. many have criticized the treaty because it does not deal with russia's numerical advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, such as gravity bombs or submarine-launched cruise missiles. i would point out that none of

Jeff Bingaman

3:25:58 to 3:26:18( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: preeofthe previous arms control treaties have dealt with tactical nuclear weapons. while i agree that we should have discussions with russia on tactical nuclear weapons, we need this treaty to restart the process of negotiations if we have ever going to achieve the goal of reducing tactical nuclear weapons. this treaty lays the groundwork

Jeff Bingaman

3:26:19 to 3:26:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: for a subsequent negotiation to address tactical nuclear weapons, many of which are deployed close to our nato allies, and if we cannot demonstrate that we have the ability to enter into finding -- into binding obligations on strategic nuclear forces, which are the most easily verifiable, how can we advance to the next step with russia on reducing their

Jeff Bingaman

3:26:43 to 3:27:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: tactical nuclear weapons which number in the thousands and which are the most easily concealed of the weapons? fourth point, let me turn to the issue of modernization of our own nuclear arsenal. despite our unsustainable budget deficit -- and i notice the senator from alabama's here on

Jeff Bingaman

3:27:04 to 3:27:25( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: the floor today. he and i both voted again the -- the tax bill. i don't know all of his reasons. one of mine was the unsustainable deficits faced by this country today. but despite these unsustainable budget deficits, this

Jeff Bingaman

3:27:26 to 3:27:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: administration is commit an additional $14 billion over the next ten years for a total of $84 billion to modernize our nuclear weapons enterprise to ensure that as we draw that nuclear arsenal down, reduce the numbers in the nuclear arsenal under new start, we will be capable of maintaining those

Jeff Bingaman

3:27:48 to 3:28:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: weapons that we do rely upon. now, this chart shows the ten-year projections for weapons stockpile and infrastructure funding, and you can see that there is a very substantial commitment of funds by this administration to maintain the reliability of our stockpile.

Jeff Bingaman

3:28:09 to 3:28:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: the fifth point i wanted to make is that concerns have been raised regarding the nonbinding russian unilateral missile defense statement. this is separate from the binding provisions of th treaty. this is a nonbinding statement that russia made that it considers the treaty effective only where there is, as they put

Jeff Bingaman

3:28:31 to 3:28:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: it, no qualitative or quantitative buildup of the missile defense capabilities for the united states of america, end quote. in testimony before the armed services committee, secretary of state clinton stated unequivocally that the treaty does not constrain our missile defense efforts. secretary clinton went on to say

Jeff Bingaman

3:28:53 to 3:29:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: that russia has issued a unilateral statement expressing its view but we have not agreed to this view, we are not bound by it. in fact, we have issued our own statement making it clear the united states intends to continue improving and deploying effective missile defense. in the same hearing, secretary of defense gates said -- quote -- "the treaty will not

Jeff Bingaman

3:29:15 to 3:29:35( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: constrain the united states from deploying the most effective missile defense possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses." secretary gates then goes on to say in that hearing, he went on to say that -- quote -- "as the administration's ballistic missile defense review and budget makes clear, the united states will continue to improve

Jeff Bingaman

3:29:36 to 3:29:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: our capability to defend ourselves. our deployed forces and our allies and partners against ballistic missile threats." from a historical perspective, i'd note that similar unilateral statements on missile defense were made by russia in connection with start i, in connection with start ii, both

Jeff Bingaman

3:29:57 to 3:30:17( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: of which treaties were approved by the congress. consistent with the statements that secretaries clinton and gates made, the foreign relation committee's resolution of approval contains an understanding included in the instrument of ratification that -- quote -- "it is the

Jeff Bingaman

3:30:18 to 3:30:41( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: understanding that the new start treaty does not impose any limitations on the deployment of missle defenses other than the requirement of paragraph 3, article 5, and that section of the treaty prohibits the use of slbm and icbm launchers for missle defense or the conversion

Jeff Bingaman

3:30:42 to 3:31:02( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: of missle defense launchers for icbm except for those that have been converted before the treaty was signed." on the question of whether we should vote on the ratification in this congress or leave this to the next congress, some senators have claimed that we simply need more time. other treaties have laid before the congress for longer periods,

Jeff Bingaman

3:31:03 to 3:31:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: but this is simply not the case. arms control treaties since the a.b.m. treaty in 1972 were either taken up, debated, and ratified -- taken up, debated and ratified within the same congress or in the cases of start ii and the moscow treaty and the chemical weapons treaty,

Jeff Bingaman

3:31:24 to 3:31:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: they were taken up, debated and approved within the congress from which the foreign relations committee reported a resolution of approval. this historical precedent on the ratification of arms control treaties runs counter to what some of my colleagues have been advocating. it is this congressional session of the congress that received the treaty that held 21 hearings

Jeff Bingaman

3:31:46 to 3:32:06( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: and briefings on the treaty, that submitted over 900 questions as part of the advice and consent process, and it should be this congressional session of the congress that should finish the job. mr. president, let me conclude with what -- where irstarted, that -- where i started, that is

Jeff Bingaman

3:32:07 to 3:32:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: the new start treaty is a relatively modest treaty in terms of the reduction in the numbers of nuclear warheads. our military commanders have analyzed the force structure under the treaty. they've concluded it maintains our nuclear deterrent. it provides own the ground intelligence through

Jeff Bingaman

3:32:28 to 3:32:49( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: verification that the intelligence community believes will allow us to be better off with these provisions than without them. finally, mr. president, it's clear that this treaty does not impede our missle defense programs. in my opinion, there is no credible argument i've heard that the ratification of this

Jeff Bingaman

3:32:50 to 3:32:55( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Bingaman: treaty would undermine our national security. i urge my colleagues to vote for the ratification of the new start treaty.

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid