|
Roll Call 298.
Ratification (enactment) of a nuclear weapons reduction treaty limiting the number of warheads the U.S. and Russia could maintain in their nuclear arsenals to 1,550
Dec 22, 2010.
|
Y |
Y |
W |
|
Roll Call 297.
On an amendment that would have required the president to certify that he had negotiated a legally binding agreement stating that Russia would not use “covers” with respect to its nuclear warheads (“covers” literally conceal nuclear weapons and thus hinder weapons inspections). This amendment was offered to a resolution accompanying a nuclear weapons reduction treaty known as the “New START Treaty.”
Dec 21, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 296.
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.”
Dec 21, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 295.
On an amendment that would have required the U.S. Senate to review rulings made by a commission established to resolve disputes (relating to a nuclear weapons reduction treaty) between Russia and the U.S. if those rulings “create new rights or obligations for the United States.” This amendment was offered to a resolution accompanying a nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
Dec 21, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 294.
On tabling (killing) an amendment that would have required the president to certify that Russia had returned all military equipment owned by the United States that was confiscated during the Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia in August 2008. This amendment was offered to a resolution accompanying a nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
Dec 21, 2010.
|
Y |
Y |
W |
|
Roll Call 293.
On an amendment – to a nuclear weapons reduction treaty – that would have explicitly limited the capacity of Russia and the U.S. to maintain rail mobile launchers (which enable nuclear weapons to be launched from trains). This amendment would have had the effect of killing the treaty for the foreseeable future;any tampering with the treaty’s language would have torpedoed the agreement entirely.
Dec 21, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 292.
A nuclear weapons reduction treaty limiting the number of warheads the U.S. and Russia could maintain in their nuclear arsenals to 1,550 – On the motion to end debate on the treaty
Dec 21, 2010.
|
Y |
Y |
W |
|
Roll Call 287.
On an amendment that would have required the United States and Russia to begin negotiations on an agreement to limit the possession of tactical nuclear weapons. (“Tactical weapons” are short-range nuclear weapons designed to be used on the battlefield.) This amendment was offered to a nuclear weapons reduction treaty. The amendment would have had the effect of killing the treaty for the foreseeable future;any tampering with the treaty’s language would have torpedoed the agreement entirely.
Dec 20, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 286.
On an amendment that would have increased the number of nuclear delivery systems permitted under a nuclear weapons reduction treaty. (A “nuclear delivery system” refers to the technology that launches a nuclear weapon in a manner that will enable it to detonate on or near its target.) This amendment would have effectively killed the treaty for the foreseeable future.
Dec 20, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 285.
On an amendment (to a nuclear weapons reduction treaty) that would have required additional inspections of nuclear weapons facilities. This amendment would have effectively killed the treaty for the foreseeable future.
Dec 20, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 283.
On an amendment stating that there was a “greater need for transparency” with respect to U.S. and Russian tactical weapons systems. This amendment was offered to a nuclear weapons reduction treaty, and would have had the effect of killing it entirely for the foreseeable future. (“Tactical weapons” are short-range nuclear weapons designed to be used on the battlefield)
Dec 19, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 282.
On an amendment that would have eliminated language in a nuclear arms reduction treaty which some senators believed could harm U.S. efforts to build a missile defense system. This amendment would have effectively killed the treaty for the foreseeable future.
Dec 18, 2010.
|
N |
N |
W |
|
Roll Call 139.
A vote on passage of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization bill (S. 2400) placing a condition that the Defense Department can only acquire the next set of missiles for its Missile Defense Program after operational testing on the system is completed or at least initiated.
Jun 23, 2004.
|
Y |
Y |
L |
|
Roll Call 133.
A vote on passage of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400) that would shift $515.5 million earmarked in the bill for the Bush administration's Missile Defense Program to nuclear nonproliferation programs and other homeland security and anti-terrorism activities.
Jun 22, 2004.
|
Y |
Y |
L |
|
Roll Call 125.
On passage of a Republican amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S. 2400) requiring the Defense secretary only to "establish criteria" for operationally realistic testing the Missile Defense Program, as opposed to conducting "operationally realistic" testing on the missiles prior to deployment.
Jun 17, 2004.
|
N |
N |
L |
|
Roll Call 124.
On passage of a Democratic amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act (S.2400) permitting deployment of the Bush administration-backed Missile Defense Program (a ground-based, midcourse missile defense system that would be used to intercept enemy nuclear warheads before they reach the United States) only after the mission-related capabilities of the system have been confirmed by operationally realistic testing.
Jun 17, 2004.
|
Y |
Y |
L |
![[POW!]](images/boxer_l2.gif)