On September 30, after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 14 to 4 to send the New START Treaty to the full Senate for a vote (see the October International Debates) Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton applauded Committee Chair John Kerry (MA-D) for his leadership on the issue. But ratification of the U.S.-Russia nuclear arms reduction agreement is far from certain.
The Secretary said that the committee vote “demonstrates unequivocally that national security is a bipartisan commitment. As we have seen with every arms control agreement, going back to the original START I Treaty that was passed, ratified by the Senate 18 years ago tomorrow, this is an obligation and responsibility that senators addressed with regard to the day-to-day politics.” (Read her full remarks here.)
But is that possible in the current governing and political climate?
Secretary Clinton made it clear that she would like to see a vote on New START during the lame duck session following the election. One reason proponents are pushing for a quick vote on ratification is that current verification agreements expired last December. Senator Richard Lugar (IN-R), ranking minority member on the Foreign Relations Committee, has said that the lapse is “very serious and impacts our national security.”
Others, including Senator Kit Bond (MO-R), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argue that the verification measures in the treaty are weak and must be carefully reviewed before a final vote. This point of view is expressed in a September 28 Heritage Foundation memo, which charges that the Obama Administration has attempted to “spruce up the appearance of the verification regime in order to convince the Senate to rush to consent to the ratification of New START.”
The Administration and Senate supporters of the Treaty thus face a difficult choice: whether to push for a vote on New START in the lame duck session or wait until next year, when the makeup of the Senate and competing legislative priorities may make ratification more difficult.
