Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Dec 19th, 2010 :: 1:33:25 to 1:45:54
Total video length: 7 hours 11 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:229 Duration: 0:12:29 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

John Cornyn

1:33:18 to 1:33:38( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: shall have the power by and with the advice and consent of the are senate to make treaties. the problem here, mr. president, is even though congress has told the administration about our concerns about constraing our missile defense capability and has told the administration

John Cornyn

1:33:25 to 1:45:54( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: John Cornyn

John Cornyn

1:33:39 to 1:34:01( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: about our concerns with regard to the exclusion of tactical weapons that are covered by the risch amendment, that in reality the administration really doesn't want our advice but merely seeks our consent. and i believe this is -- this matter is being treated with the

John Cornyn

1:34:02 to 1:34:22( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: kind of gravity and seriousness in a bipartisan basis that it deserves. but there are some very real differences between those of us who think that this treaty is as good as we can get and that congress's role is really to consent to something negotiated without taking our advice, and those who believe that congress

John Cornyn

1:34:23 to 1:34:47( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: should play more -- and the senate should play more than a rubber-stamp role when it comes to matters as serious as this. in section 1251 of the national defense authorization bill of fiscal year 2010, the senate did provide advice on these matters, but, as i indicated earlier,

John Cornyn

1:34:48 to 1:35:09( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: most of that advice was ignored in favor of a strategy of seeking our consent after this treaty was basically a fait accompli. it concerns me that -- and i admire our distinguished floor leader, senator lugar, who has a wealth of experience in this

John Cornyn

1:35:10 to 1:35:30( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: area, and i think we all acknowledge that. but it worries me that any attempt by the senate to offer amendments are called treaty killers. i don't really understand what our role is here if it's not to offer amendments to conform the treaty to what we believe is the best national security interests of the american people.

John Cornyn

1:35:31 to 1:35:51( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: well, one of the problems that i think the risch amendment reveals is, by excluding tactical nuclear weapons, we are giving the russians a huge advantage, and i think increasing instability rather

John Cornyn

1:35:52 to 1:36:13( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: than decreasing instability. and what i mean from that is the congressional research service, mr. president, has written a document, a research document, dated january 13, 2010, entitled "nonstrategic nuclear weapons," otherwise called tactical nuclear weapons.

John Cornyn

1:36:14 to 1:36:35( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: and on pages 4, 5, and 6, they go through a distinction, a factual distinction between -- a factual disingtsz between the weapons. and i would ask unanimous consent that those majors be made a part of the record following the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection.

John Cornyn

1:36:36 to 1:36:58( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: mr. cornyn: i thank the chair. mr. president, the congressional research service points out that the distinct between strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons not covered by this treaty is frankly a muddled topic. now, we do know by exclusion what is left not included; in

John Cornyn

1:36:59 to 1:37:19( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: other words, intercontinental ballistic missiles, sea-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers are included as strategic weapons and so thereby, everything that is not included, would be a tactical weapon. it's also, they point out on the pages that will be part of the record, that part of the

John Cornyn

1:37:20 to 1:37:40( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: definition can be determined -- or has traditionally been determined by the range of delivery vehicles and the yield of the warheads. mr. president, you think it's important to sort of -- i think it's foreign sort of try to as well as we can graphically draw a picture of what we're talking about when we're talking about

John Cornyn

1:37:41 to 1:38:04( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: nonstrategic or tactical nuclear weapons. i have in my hand a report taken from jane's information group publications called stree strategic weapon as many as, naval fighting weapons and all the world's aircraft, that covers a nonstrategic, therefore

John Cornyn

1:38:05 to 1:38:28( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: tactical, weapon known as the sh-11 gorgon nuclear weapon. the reason i raise this example of a type of weapon that the russians have, which is not covered by this treaty, is that

John Cornyn

1:38:29 to 1:38:49( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: the yield of this weapon is one megaton, one megaton. if you look at the size of the nuclear weapon that was used on hiroshima in 1945 that killed anywhere from 85,000 to 140,000 -- no one knows the exact number

John Cornyn

1:38:50 to 1:39:13( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: because of the radiation-induced injuries and the like -- but suffice it to say which caused devastation and brought japan to its knees in world war ii, that was, by contrast, a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead. in other words, this so-called tactical nuclear warhead not

John Cornyn

1:39:14 to 1:39:36( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: covered by this treaty is 100 times more powerful than the nuclear warhead that killed perhaps 100,000 people or more in hiroshima in 1945. so i mention this example -- and this is, by the way, an unclassified document; we

John Cornyn

1:39:37 to 1:39:57( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: doontscan'tgo into here on the floor more distinction on a continue usm between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. we're into the talking about -- we're talking about weapons that can wreak death and destruction

John Cornyn

1:39:58 to 1:40:19( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: that really, i think most of us hesitate to even contemplate. so this is not an inconsequential amendment. this is a very important amendment that the senator has brought. and, you know, i listened to him a little earlier -- i was in my office in the hart office building. but i listened to senator risch cite some very distinguished

John Cornyn

1:40:20 to 1:40:40( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: authorities on the other side of the aisle, and this comes from the congressiona "congressional record" in march of 2003 talking about the moscow treaty. senator after senator -- senator according to on be, the distinguished senator from north dakota; senator biden, now vice president biden, but then

John Cornyn

1:40:41 to 1:41:03( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: senator from delaware; senator reed from rhode island, a distinguished expert on the armed services committee and national security matters; senator conremarked the other senator from north dakota -- to a man, they noted and expressed concern about the failure to deal with tactical and nuclear

John Cornyn

1:41:04 to 1:41:25( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: weapons in the moscow treaty of 2003. the senator from california, senator feinstein, also noted the absence of any dealing with nuclear -- tactical nuclear wessments i mention this, mr. president, to say again, no one is talking about the visions

John Cornyn

1:41:26 to 1:41:47( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: among us. we are talking about a unified concern request the threat that tact -- with the threat that tactical nuclear weapons poses. so i think it is simply a mistake. but it is a correctable mistake that the negotiators of this treaty and the administration

John Cornyn

1:41:48 to 1:42:09( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: have excluded tactical nuclear weapons. as others have stated, the united states has an advantage at this time of strategic nuclear weapons, so basically we're going to have to cut our stockpile while the russian federation, which does not have as many as this treaty would allow, would be allowed to build

John Cornyn

1:42:10 to 1:42:31( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: up to that cap. but in the area of tactical nuclear weapons, the russian federation has one classified estimate was anywhere -- around 10 times what the united states has in terms of tactical nuclear weapons. i was talking in my office with

John Cornyn

1:42:32 to 1:42:52( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: tom egostino, the head of the national nuclear security administration, swuj who has long served in this area and who has confirmed that this tactical nuclear asymmetry is very real. according to hirnlg he said the actual numbers are classified, as i alluded earlier. but he confirmed that there is roughly a 10-1 ratio, roughly,

John Cornyn

1:42:53 to 1:43:16( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: give or take. he said there is a big difference between the two. it seems to me that from a bargaining standpoint, it would have made all the essential in the world for the obama administration to have insisted on reductions in the russian tactical nuclear weapons as part of the new start. if not now, i would say when?

John Cornyn

1:43:17 to 1:43:38( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: if not in 2003, if all of the colleagues whose names i mentioned i recallier thought it was good idea to deal with tactical nuclear weapons back in 2003, to me is strikes me as being even more important to do it now rather than kick the can down the road and to not take advantage of the rench that we would have due to the russian's

John Cornyn

1:43:39 to 1:43:59( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: desire to maintain their arsenal tactical nuclear weapons. but vice president biden recognized that this omission was potentially dangerous in 2003 and i'll just quote him. he said, "getting a handle on russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms control and

John Cornyn

1:44:00 to 1:44:20( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: nonproliferation objectivity of the united states government." so one has to question why that top objective remains unmet under new start. james is less injerks the former secretary of -- james schlesinger, the former secretary of defense, has testified that the significance of tactical nuclear weapons

John Cornyn

1:44:21 to 1:44:41( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: rises steadily as strategic nuclear arms are reduced. this is a sobering conclusion, mr. president, and it helps illustrate the importance of this glaring omission in the new start treaty. simply put, this treaty in its current form represents a lost opportunity to compel the

John Cornyn

1:44:42 to 1:45:02( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: russian federation to downsize their tactical nuclear arsenal. this amendment provides an opportunity to lay the groundwork for that goal to be accomplished in the future. following the senate ratification of the start treaty, president george herbert walker bush committed the u.s. to unilaterally reducing our tactical nuclear weapons.

John Cornyn

1:45:03 to 1:45:23( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: not surprisingly, while the russians made a similar commitment, they failed to follow through and never completed those promised reductions. today, russia's widespread deployment of tactical nuclear weapons raises concerns with their safety and security. these weapons are often located

John Cornyn

1:45:24 to 1:45:44( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: at remote bases close to potential battlefields, sometimes far from central command authority. questions have been raised regarding the stability and reliability of those russian troops charged with monitoring and securing those weapons. in 2008, secretary gates said that he was worried that the russians themselves didn't even

John Cornyn

1:45:45 to 1:45:57( Edit History Discussion )

John Cornyn: know the numbers and locations of old land mines, nuclear artillery shells and so on that would be of interest to rogue

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