Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Dec 19th, 2010 :: 2:09:30 to 2:15:35
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:176 Duration: 0:06:05 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Saxby Chambliss

2:09:27 to 2:09:47( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: each amendment, deliberate each amendment, but i think it's important to us to consider a -- the road ahead here. i reserve the balance of our time. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia's recognized. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today in support of the risch amendment and the distinguished senator from

Saxby Chambliss

2:09:30 to 2:15:35( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Saxby Chambliss

Saxby Chambliss

2:09:48 to 2:10:08( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: massachusetts just helped make the case as to why this amendment is so important. i -- in every hearing we've had in armed services and intelligence, every conversation i've had either in person, by telephone with every administration official, everyone who's in support of this, i raised the issue not of what's in the treaty as being

Saxby Chambliss

2:10:09 to 2:10:30( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: the most significant thing in my mind, but the issue of what's not in there and that's the issue of tactical weapons. i hear what the senator's saying. and what you reinforce to me is that we've been talking to the russians about tactical weapons for over two decades and we have not yet been able to get them to sit down at the table with us.

Saxby Chambliss

2:10:31 to 2:10:52( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: and if we get them now, when? i understand what the president said that he's going to make a real effort to get them to the table, but we -- you get them to the table when you have leverage. the russians want this treaty. they want this treaty bad. we had the opportunity, in my opinion, to discuss tactical weapons with them to get them to the table for this treaty.

Saxby Chambliss

2:10:53 to 2:11:13( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: but we didn't take the opportunity to do that. so i am rising today, mr. president, to talk about the issue of tactical nuclear weapons with respect to new start and the two amendments that have been filed on this issue, the risch amendment as well as an amendment filed by senator lemieux. we all know that tactical nuclear weapons is one of the

Saxby Chambliss

2:11:14 to 2:11:34( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: issues that the treaty does not address and also an area where there's huge disparity between the united states and the russians relative to the numbers of weapons. perhaps most importantly, the intent of arms control treaties is to control and limit arms in order to create predictability and security.

Saxby Chambliss

2:11:35 to 2:11:55( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: and by not addressing tactical nuclear weapons in this treaty, we have left the least predictable and the least secure weapons in our nuclear inventories out of discussion. russia has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 weapons. i don't know what the numbers have been.

Saxby Chambliss

2:11:56 to 2:12:16( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: there have been some numbers bantered around here. the numbers vary widely and the point is we don't know. and that is the real problem with tactical weapons. many of these nuclear weapons are near eastern europe in proximity to u.s. troops as well as to our allies. these weapons are different. not primarily in terms of how

Saxby Chambliss

2:12:17 to 2:12:39( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: powerful they are because the warheads are in some cases similar in size to stratigic nuclear weapons. instead they're different primarily in terms of the range of the delivery systems. the russian advantage in tactical nuclear weapons is at least 5-1. could be as high as 10-1. again, we don't know because they won't tell us. it is also the case that the

Saxby Chambliss

2:12:40 to 2:13:00( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: u.s. and russia both agreed in the 1990's to reduce tactical nukes. the united states has, but we don't know that the russians have. they said they have. but do we really trust the russians? we shouldn't. in fact, we have cited the -- and in -- we have cited the

Saxby Chambliss

2:13:01 to 2:13:22( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: expansion of nato as a change in the -- in the stratigic landscape since then. tactical weapons are the least secure nuclear weapons in our nuclear inventories. they are deliverable by a variety of means and for these reasons are more of a threat of being stolen, misplaced or mishandled than stratigic nukes.

Saxby Chambliss

2:13:23 to 2:13:44( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: it is a mistake and unfortunate that this treaty does not address tactical nuclear weapons, because in an adwreement to reduce -- agreement to reduce these weapons is where we need to focus. relative to the overall security to the united states and the world, it is, frankly, more important than reducing and controlling stratigic nuclear weapons. briefly on senator risch's

Saxby Chambliss

2:13:45 to 2:14:05( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: amendment, the amendment would add a statement to the preamble of the treaty which addresses the relationship between the nonrelationship and stratigic offensive arms. that is, the relationship between the stratigic and tactical nuclear weapons. senator risch's amendment is correct in that as the number of stratigic offensive arms is

Saxby Chambliss

2:14:06 to 2:14:26( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: reduced, this relationship becomes more pronounced and requires an even greater need for transparency and accountability and that the disparity between the parties' arsenals could undermine predictability and stability. we are reducing stratigic nuclear weapons under this treaty.

Saxby Chambliss

2:14:27 to 2:14:48( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: by doing see we're making tactical nuclear weapons much more important and much more relevant and, therefore, we should seek to achieve great transparency and accountability on both our s as well as on the russian side. that brings me to the second amendment which is not pending but which is filed and which i'm

Saxby Chambliss

2:14:49 to 2:15:10( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: a cosponsor and that is senator lemieux's amendment. that would require the u.s. and the ruins enter into negotiations within one year of ratification to address the disparity in nuclear weapons. both of these amendments address what i believe is one of the most crucial issues and one of the issues the treaty should have addressed but didn't and i urge my colleagues to support both these amendments, but

Saxby Chambliss

2:15:11 to 2:15:34( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: particularly today the risch amendment. the presiding officer: who

Saxby Chambliss

2:15:35 to 2:15:35( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: yields time?

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