What: All Issues : War & Peace : Nuclear Weapons : On an amendment that would have required the president to certify that he had negotiated a legally binding agreement stating that Russia would not deploy a significant number of nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles during the duration of a nuclear weapons reduction treaty. This amendment was offered to a resolution accompanying a nuclear weapons reduction treaty known as the “New START Treaty.” (2010 senate Roll Call 296)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

On an amendment that would have required the president to certify that he had negotiated a legally binding agreement stating that Russia would not deploy a significant number of nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles during the duration of a nuclear weapons reduction treaty. This amendment was offered to a resolution accompanying a nuclear weapons reduction treaty known as the “New START Treaty.”
senate Roll Call 296     Dec 21, 2010
Progressive Position:
Nay
Progressive Result:
Win

This was a vote on an amendment by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that would have required the president to certify – prior to the enactment of a nuclear weapons reduction treaty -- that he had negotiated a legally binding “side agreement” to the treaty stating that Russia would not deploy a “significant number” of nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM). This amendment was offered to a “resolution of ratification” on this treaty between the U.S. and Russia (known as the “New START” treaty). Resolutions of ratification allow the Senate to offer explanations and interpretations of provisions of the treaties they approve. The amendment was not offered to the treaty itself.

Kyl urged support for his amendment: “Now, we did not want to insist that they go back and renegotiate the treaty…so what we are suggesting by this amendment is simply to…just have it be a side agreement where the two parties would agree to limit the number [of SLCMs]. Our administration would limit the Russians so they would not have a significant number of these particular weapons.…I think this is fairly straightforward.….I hope my colleagues will recognize this is not a treaty killer, and it is something that needs to be addressed.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) urged opposition to the amendment: “If we were to adopt this amendment, I think we all would agree it would cause a considerable delay in the implementation of the START treaty. Let me remind my colleagues that the START treaty, according to our military experts, is needed now…Although it would be nice to have all of these side agreements with Russia on a lot of other issues, every time we ask our negotiators to do that, it takes time. It takes a lot of time to negotiate….This is an important issue [SLCMs], but it shouldn't delay the ratification and implementation of the New START treaty so that we can get our inspectors on the ground, giving us the information we need for our own national security as it relates to the strategic capacity of Russia.”

The Senate rejected this amendment by a vote of 31-62. Voting “yea” were 31 Republicans. All 55 Democrats present and 7 Republicans voted “nay.” As a result, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have required the president to certify – prior to the enactment of a nuclear weapons reduction treaty -- that he had negotiated a legally binding “side agreement” to the treaty stating that Russia would not deploy a “significant number” of nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name