Tweet
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement upon the signing of the new START treaty (I really want to pump the “Prague Treaty” into the media bloodstream, but it looks like it isn’t happening) that expressed confidence he would be able to find the 67 votes needed for ratification. Reid cited three committees – Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence – that would be involved in bringing this bill to the floor.
Strategic arms control treaties similar to this one have historically passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support, and I am confident that this agreement will receive the 67 votes from both sides of the aisle needed for passage. There is no need to play politics with something as important as this is to our national security. I look forward to passing this out of committee and working with Chairs Kerry, Levin and Feinstein to bring this treaty to the Senate floor.
John Kerry, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, for his part set a timeline of early May for new START. (h/t)
“Today’s signing of the START treaty strengthens our security while affirming the vital role the nuclear arsenal plays in our nation’s defense. I will work closely with Senator Lugar and our colleagues to see that this historic treaty is ratified this year.
“The White House has indicated that the full treaty will be completed and submitted to the Senate in early May. I plan to begin hearings on the treaty in the coming weeks, and then report a proposed resolution of advice and consent to ratification out of the Foreign Relations Committee for approval by the full Senate as soon as possible.
“The Senate has a long history of approving strategic arms control treaties by overwhelming margins and I am confident we will renew that spirit of cooperation and bipartisan tradition on arms control and national security to approve ratification of this vital treaty. This is too important to delay.”
There’s an awful lot of focus on “long histories” in both statements, which may not reflect current partisan realities. Ranking member on Foreign Relations Dick Lugar previously signaled support for the treaty, so it’s likely to get out of committee unscathed, but I have trouble counting to 8 – the number of Republicans who would be needed for passage. And that’s assuming that hawkish types like Joe Lieberman and Jim Webb don’t bolt.
Between now and then, expect to hear a lot of bogus nonsense about missile defense.
10 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Prague Treaty sounds good to me.
I worked briefly on some “missile defense” related stuff way back when St Ronnie first proposed.
The one constant was that no matter what direction “missile defense” took, the cost to defeat it would be a minute fraction of the cost of building it.
I like “Prague Treaty” as well.
Also, that the ICBM silo photo is credited to Telstar Logistics is highly amusing ;-)
As much as I am truly appalled in general by the Obama presidency to date, and as much as the arms reduction plan could I’m sure be more aggressive and better, this reduction treaty is I think the first unassailable, positive, actually-good thing the Obama team has done. Maybe the insufficient, pitiful little stimulus bill can be counted there, too, who knows.
But the point is that anyone who actually doesn’t vote in favor of this legislation in either chamber of congress, without being able to articulate a damn good reason why, is pretty much unredeemable. A planned, staged reduction in nuclear arms is undeniably a good thing.
And I haven’t seen in media yet a serious complaint about the treaty … just my little two cents.
Perhaps the complainers are holding back and waiting for a diatribe from Limpy Limbaugh about it.
Actually I’m hoping that Orahma is keeping missile defense on the table as a carrot to move disarming along. I mean, it doesn’t work and the Russians hate it so it seems to me that it’s a great bargaining chip to win concessions at a very small cost or even, in fact, a benefit to US for canceling the program as well.
I’d like to THINK that but it’s only wishful speculation at this point.
One has to wonder what
bribesthe Republicans will extract from the O’adminstration for their support of this treaty?Minimum Deterrence. The time is now.
I’m sure they’ll get Obama to agree to all sorts of nonsense. And then they’ll all vote against it. They’re Republicans. It’s their nature.
Treaties like this get discussion and a vote, not amendments.
I suppose they might get revision if there is some glaring egregious flaw, but that’s probably a very unlikely thing.