Natalie Gonnella
The barbs are flying on Capitol Hill as Senate Democrats try to move ahead on START. As Daniel Foster at NRO yesterday kept us apprised of how it's so far played out, we thought it was worth taking a look at how the leading GOP frontmen on the bill have voiced support or opposition in the run-up to today's Hill action. Senators Lugar and Kyl have each done their part to get the party to go the way of their respective wishes.
Here they are in their own words:
Senator Richard Lugar:
For ratification
Supported by former Secretaries of State Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice (with caveats), Senator Susan Collins, Senator Olympia Snowe
Senator Lugar is the most vocally supportive (and he has been vocal) Republican in the Senate with regard to the START treaty. He firmly believes ratification is in the best interest of US security and has called on the chamber to schedule a vote as soon as possible. Lugar has also rebuked many in the party who claim to be against a decision in the lame duck session, accusing them of displacing their responsibility as lawmakers:
"At the moment, the Republican caucus is tied up in a situation where people don't want to make choices" – The Atlantic Wire
"Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote." – The Courier Journal
Senator Lugar believes the treaty should be ratified because:
Nuclear missiles still pose a substantial risk to the American public, ratification of START will make America safer:
“A rejection of New START would be greeted with delight in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Burma…these nations want to shield their weapons programs from outside scrutiny, and they want to be able to acquire sensitive weapons technologies. They want to block international efforts to make them comply with their international obligations. Rogue nations fear any nuclear cooperation between the United States and Russia because they know that it limits their options." – Statement by Senator Lugar
“We are deeply concerned about North Korea and Iran and other programs in which there may be one, two, five, 20 — we're talking about thousands of warheads that are still there; an existential problem for our country. To temporize at this point I think is inexcusable.” – Statement by Senator Lugar
New START allows the US to more fully monitor Russian nuclear capabilities (since the conclusion of the previous treaty last December, the US has not had the opportunity to investigate Russian nuclear stockpiles)
“New START will enable American verification teams to return to Russia to collect data on the Russian arsenal and verify Russian compliance. These inspections greatly reduce the possibility that we will be surprised by future advancements in Russian weapons technology or deployment. Rejecting this treaty would inhibit our knowledge of Russian military capabilities, weaken our non-proliferation diplomacy worldwide, and potentially re-ignite expensive arms competition that would further strain our national budget.” - Statement by Senator Lugar
Failure to ratify the treaty could have serious implications for US-Russian relations, particularly with regard to other nuclear cooperation (such as the Nunn-Lugar effort to secure loose nuclear materials throughout the former Soviet Union)
"For fifteen years, the START Treaty has helped to keep a lid on the U.S.-Russian nuclear rivalry. It established a working relationship on nuclear arms with a country that was our mortal enemy for four and a half decades. START’s transparency features assured both countries about the nuclear capabilities of the other...Failure of the U.S. Senate to approve the treaty would result in an expansion of arms competition with Russia. It would guarantee a reduction in transparency and confidence-building procedures. It would diminish cooperation between U.S. and Russian defense establishments. It would complicate our military planning...If we reject the treaty it will be harder to get Russia’s cooperation in stopping nuclear proliferation. - Statement by Senator Lugar
The budgets are there to support the treaty’s provisions:
“This is not a political judgment. The President and the Vice President are not saying this. They did not request these views. These are the nuclear weapons experts in the United States and these are their views. They are telling us this plan gives them confidence that we can credibly modernize and maintain our nuclear weapons under the 1251 plan. They saw no reason to further question the 1251 plan. I do not believe we should question their judgment…we believe that the proposed budgets provide adequate support to sustain the safety, security, reliability and effectiveness of America’s nuclear deterrent within the limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads established by the New START Treaty with adequate confidence and acceptable risk.” - Senator Lugar in a Statement
Delaying until next year could push this issue into the abyss of congressional unknowns with ratification taking months or even years:
"Endless hearings, markup, back to trying to get some time on the floor... It will be some time before the treaty is ever heard from again" – Senator Lugar, The Cable, Foreign Policy
Against ratification (as the treaty currently stands)
Supported by: Mitt Romney, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator John Thune
Senator Kyl has opposed ratification due to concerns with the treaty’s current provisions. He has requested further time to debate these issues (much to the annoyance of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid) and, although willing to consider ratification following further discussion, does not believe the lame duck session (and the lead up to the Christmas holiday) is the best place for productive dialogue on the issue:
“When Majority Leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization. I appreciate the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the issues that we have raised and I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Kerry, DOD, and DOE officials.” – Senator Kyl, Statement
"If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification then theoretically there would be time…But he has made it clear he has a different agenda in mind. I think clearly they have two sets of priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They've got to do that." - Senator Kyl, MSNBC, Meet the Press
"The START treaty is a very important document, and there are very important ramifications that need to be thoroughly considered with appropriate amendments and sufficient time to consider them" - Senator Kyl, Statement
Senator Kyl argues that:
The treaty limits US missile-defense systems while providing Russia with the upper hand in the agreement:
“First, it's not clear that the treaty's verification provisions are adequate. Second, the treaty's failure to take into account Russia's enormous tactical nuclear weapons arsenal (more than 10 times larger than that of the U.S.) and the limitations it places on U.S. conventional global strike capabilities are serious flaws. Third, the treaty links missile defense to strategic arms reduction—a linkage that had been wisely broken by the Bush administration.” – Senator Kyl in the WSJ
The treaty is non-binding and allows both parties to withdraw (Russia has already made withdrawal threats, as they did during the original START agreement, should the US decide to expand missile defense capabilities):
“The Russians have unilaterally declared that the article which allows either Russia or the U.S. to withdraw from the treaty is intended to allow Russian withdrawal if it believes new U.S. missile defense capabilities pose a threat to its strategic nuclear forces. This has the potential to constrain improvements to U.S. missile defenses, if objected to by the Russians” Statement by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain
More needs to be done to maintain and modernize America's current nuclear arsenal:
“I’ve come to the conclusion that the administration is intellectually committed to modernization now. No sane person could not reach that conclusion… Whether they’re committed in the heart is another matter. Suppose Start is ratified, and they no longer have to worry about that? Will they continue to press for the money?” – Senator Kyl, New York Times
(Andrew McCarthy (NRO), Trent Franks (Politico) and IBD provide interesting commentary on specific security concerns with regard on these points.)
While symbolically important for disarmament and the US relationship with Russia, the START treaty has been on the congressional backlog for months. Only in recent weeks, amidst significant Republican gains, has the Obama Administration pushed for ratification. As John Bolton commented:
“If the Obama administration were truly confident in the merits of its arguments, it would not fear a debate when the new Congress convenes in January. But its obsession with frog-marching the Senate to a vote in December reveals its gnawing insecurity that New START cannot withstand full scrutiny in the light of a real Senate debate, as opposed to the theatrics now about to unfold. There is simply no possibility for an appropriate debate, let alone adequate consideration of key amendments to the treaty or its accompanying resolution of ratification.”
It's unclear if the frogs will be marching towards ratification, for the moment they're certainly hopping around the Hill as the Senate opens the floor for debate on the treaty. At this writing, it's not clear how the scales will tip. My guess is that if START dies, it will pass next year with little public commotion after everyone digests both Lugar and Kyl's arguments and has more time for debate. All the 'hoop-la' right now is politics at its best, policy content at its worst. Which is a shame, since both Kyl and Lugar have put so much effort into the substance.
Comments