Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its first official hearing on New START with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen.

There were strong positives for the treaty. The three witnesses presented a robust defense of New START and provided very credible responses to some of the major criticisms of the treaty.

At the same time, the critics keep raising the same issues and even invented some new ones.

The positives:

=Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lugar (R-IN) remain strongly supportive of the treaty and are helping move it through the legislative process.

=Both Clinton and Gates made the common sense argument that the United States is better off with the treaty than without it and listed a number of advantages of having the treaty in effect, including enhanced strategic stability and greater visibility into what Russia is doing with its strategic nuclear weapons.

=Mullen sought to address concerns that the treaty would hurt U.S. national security by noting that the U.S. will still retain a nuclear triad of missile and bombers in sufficient diversity and capability to deter other nuclear states and maintain strategic stability with the Russians.

=The endorsement of New START by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger before this committee two weeks ago was key to demonstrating early support from the Republican establishment and he was cited several times during the hearing.

=The witnesses referred to the agreement between the U.S. and Russia (and China) announced at the hearing on an Iran sanctions resolution as evidence that the cooperation between the U.S. and Russia is paying off.

=Kerry provided a good response to a DeMint (R-SC) request for the New START negotiating record by reading from language agreed to by the Foreign Relations Committee at the time of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe treaty that it is not advisable to send the full negotiating record to Congress because it would damage diplomacy and inhibit candor.

=Gates replied forcefully and passionately (as passionate as the even-keeled Secretary of Defense gets) to GOP charges that the treaty inhibits missile defense by saying that the U.S. has a comprehensive missile defense program that is going forward notwithstanding what the Russians are saying and that Russian opposition to U.S. missile defense plans has existed for 40 years. The U.S. can afford missile defense and the Russians cannot, so the Russians try to stop our program by political means. But, said Gates, the U.S. is putting its money where its mouth is on missile defense, and will request even more funding for missile defense in next year’s budget (I would stand up and cheer if I didn’t think the program was an incredible waste of money).

=Gates noted that while the number of Russian delivery vehicles is already below the number specified in the treaty, the number of warheads is actually above the limit in the treaty, so they will be reducing the number of warheads. Mullen noted the overall importance of limiting the number of nuclear weapons that exist, regardless of who might have a few more or a few less, and the importance of cooperating in doing so.

=Gates also responded well to the new issue raised that there are only 18 inspections permitted under this treaty compared to 28 under START I. Gates explained that New START uses a streamlined formula for inspections, so for all practical purposes there are the same number of inspections under New START as there were under START I.  Isakson said this should be put into a memo that an 8th grader could understand (and he is right). Clinton added that the number of facilities is much smaller due to the removal of facilities in post-Soviet states, and that proportionally speaking 18 offers an increased number of inspections.

=And Gates similarly responded to the question about the modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex by saying that he has been trying for three and a half years to obtain funding for modernization efforts and the nuclear infrastructure, and that now is the first time he might receive it.  And ironically, he said, it’s in connection with an arms control agreement. Gates finished his response by noting the NNSA administrator Tom D’Agostino has already testified that the resources in the President’s budget are exactly what’s needed to get the job done.

=Mullen urged for timely ratification of the treaty, noting that 6 months without a treaty means 6 months without any verification, which is dangerous.

=Sen. Risch (R-ID) endorsed the treaty when he said “It’s a good thing to have to treaty,” but then went on to complain about missile defense restrictions.

=Democrats on the committee plus Lugar were helpful in drawing out positive points for the treaty.

But, but . . .

As many times as good responses are supplied to criticisms, the same points get raised over and over (clearly my write-up of the Schlesinger responses either was not convincing or no one read it).

For example, Senator Corker (R-TN) listed a series of criticisms that other GOP Senators kept reiterating:

=The treaty limits U.S. missile defense.

=U.S. and Russia should have come to a common understanding on missile defense before signing the treaty.

=The Russians are already below the New START limits and only the U.S. will have to make cuts.

=Russian tactical nuclear weapons are not covered.

=It is not clear how violations of the treaty will be dealt with.

=The modernization funding for the U.S. nuclear complex is not sufficient.

Near the end of the hearing, DeMint went over the wall when he questioned why the U.S. and the Russians should have nuclear parity (after all, 31 or so countries depend on the U.S. nuclear deterrent) and advocated building a missile defense that would protect the U.S. against all missiles, including Russian nuclear forces (an issue settled four decades ago because, as Gates pointed out, it would be enormously destabilizing and enormously expensive). Gates also noted that U.S. missile defense programs under both the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration have been focused on the threat from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran – not Russia.

In all, it was a useful hearing with great witnesses, but the Republican critics have yet to be convinced. But they also have yet to oppose the treaty.

Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.

The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America’s nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America’s nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.

Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.

This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.

That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people’s representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.

This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton’s famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.

In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.

Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.

The New START Treaty – Maintaining a Strong Nuclear Deterrent

Earlier today, the President submitted the New START Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. An important milestone for the President’s non-proliferation agenda, the treaty will limit the U.S. and Russia to significantly fewer strategic arms, while permitting each Party the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the Treaty limits.

The President has also provided to Congress a classified report, as required by Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010, on the comprehensive plan to: (1) maintain delivery platforms; (2) sustain a safe, secure, and reliable U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; and (3) modernize the nuclear weapons complex. This report is based on the policies and principles in the Nuclear Posture Review and describes a comprehensive plan for sustaining a strong nuclear deterrent for the duration of the New START Treaty and beyond. The plan includes investments of $80 billion to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex over the next decade.

Nuclear Force Structure under New START. The Secretary of Defense, based on recommendations from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has established a baseline nuclear force structure that fully supports U.S. security requirements and conforms to the New START limits. This force structure – which provides a basis for future planning — provides the flexibility to make adjustments as appropriate, and as permitted by the treaty:

• The United States currently has 450 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. The baseline plan will retain up to 420 deployed ICBMs, all with a single warhead.

• The United States currently has 94 deployable nuclear-capable bombers. Under the baseline plan, some will be converted to conventional-only bombers (not accountable under the treaty), and up to 60 nuclear-capable bombers will be retained.

• The United States currently has 14 strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs). Under the baseline plan, all 14 will be retained. The United States will reduce the number of SLBM launchers (launch tubes) from 24 to 20 per SSBN, and deploy no more than 240 SLBMs at any time.

Over the next decade, the United States will invest well over $100 billion in nuclear delivery systems to sustain existing capabilities and modernize some strategic systems.

Stockpile Stewardship and Infrastructure Modernization. U.S. nuclear weapons will undergo extensive life extension programs in the coming years to ensure their safety, security and effectiveness. Maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent requires that the United States operate a modern physical infrastructure and sustain a highly capable workforce. The Administration’s modernization plan will ensure that our nuclear complex has the essential capabilities to support a strong nuclear deterrent – as well as arms control, non-proliferation, and counter-proliferation requirements — over the next decade and beyond. The President is committed to modernizing the nuclear complex and maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing.

The President requested $7 billion in FY 2011 for stockpile sustainment and infrastructure investments, a nearly 10% increase over FY 2010. As outlined below, the Administration intends to invest $80 billion in the next decade to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex.

Projections for Weapons Stockpile and Infrastructure Costs (then-year dollars in $ billions)
FY2010 6.4
FY2011 7.0
FY2012 7.0
FY2013 7.1
FY2014 7.4
FY2015 7.7
FY2016 8.4
FY2017 8.9
FY2018 9.0
FY2019 8.7
FY2020 8.8

This week saw more confident language surrounding ongoing UN sanctions talks:

“I am very confident that unless Iran does something significant that demonstrates that it is taking confidence building measures, I am very confident we will get a Security Council resolution that is supported by the majority of the UN Security Council.”

In his comments this past Tuesday, White House WMD czar Gary Samore confirmed his belief that both Russia and China are likely to support an eventual resolution.

Unfortunately, Samore is not so confident about the zombie fuel swap, noting that that current Brazilian and Turkish efforts are unlikely to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough and, as such, the US is holding out little hope for the deal.

“The Iranians have frankly not been prepared to accept that offer, it’s pretty clear to anybody,” Samore said, “and Turkey will soon satisfy themselves of that.”

He also added that Iran’s “nuclear clock is not moving as quickly as some feared, because of problems the Iranians have had in terms of their centrifuges,” but declined to say whether the centrifuge problems were a result of alleged Western attempts to thwart work by the machines.

Meanwhile, Congress is hard at work making the case against exemptions for cooperating countries from corporate sanctions, such as those requested by the administration…

On Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Chairman Joe Lieberman, heard testimony from GAO that, despite existing US sanctions, seven firms involved in the Iranian oil, gas and petrochemical sectors received $880 million in US government contracts over the past four years.  

CQ Today reports that:

Although the GAO report, dated May 4, did not attempt to determine whether the seven firms violated the existing U.S. sanctions enacted in 1996, senators were quick to interpret the findings from Congress’ independent investigative arm as further evidence that successive administrations have failed to enforce the restrictions.

Lieberman made clear after the hearing that “a lot of the ‘should’s’” in the 1996 bill language will need to “become ‘shall’s’” this time around.

To that end, Lieberman announced that he would put together a letter to both Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates detailing the panel’s concerns, including the GAO’s latest findings.

Though it may look like the administration has dropped a pretty significant ball here by not pressing harder for exceptions, especially when those same exceptions could potentially make or break the aforementioned, very confident, support needed for UN sanctions, it seems that the administration may be busy waging its own private, very sanction-ish, campaign on the sidelines.  

Since March, a significant number of foreign companies have announced plans to cut, suspend, or rein in ties with Iran, including oil majors Eni, LUKOIL and Royal Dutch Shell, Indian refiner Reliance Industries, US construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar, and luxury German carmarker Daimler.  KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young have also declared themselves free of any business ties to Iran.

Reuters reports that all this may be the handiwork of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who has been traveling to foreign capitals to talk to governments, financial regulators, banks and business leaders for months:

“We view the business community as an ally and we talk to them in that sense. We have information regarding Iranian illicit conduct that they might not have, and we provide them with the advantage of our viewpoint so they can better assess their own risks.”

Levey notes that his goal not to squash Iran’s economy completely, and he would prefer to minimize the impact of these cuts on Iran’s citizens, but “It’s hard to get it surgically precise.”

Remember: 100% of your contributions to candidates goes directly to those candidates;
Council for a Livable World does not take a penny.

After trailing for months, multiple public opinion polls now show U.S. Representative Joe Sestak (D) is pulling ahead of party-changing incumbent Senator Arlen Specter.

And just in time. The primary is May 18, one week away.

Your last minute contribution to the Sestak campaign will help keep him on the air for the final days of the campaign.

The Muhlenberg College/Allentown Morning Call tracking poll released today and conducted May 6-9 shows Sestak ahead of Specter 47% to 42%. A few weeks ago, Specter had led by 20 percentage points or more.

More good news: over the weekend, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review endorsed Sestak: “Mr. Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, could not be a better messenger for the Democrats’ agenda. He’s incredibly intelligent, thoughtful and articulate. And his expertise on matters military is impressive. Pennsylvania Democrats would be wise to nominate the public-service minded Joe Sestak and reject the personal opportunism of Arlen Specter.”

The Democratic Party establishment is behind Specter; progressives are behind Sestak.

Please dig deep, and consider a contribution of $10, $25, $50 or more. It can make a real difference in this race for the U.S. Senate.

Sestak is a three star Navy admiral. Sestak knew he would face an uphill fight for this seat, but was undaunted.  He has the strong support of the grassroots and net-roots communities and has once again proved to be a tireless campaigner. Sestak is not a stranger to come-from-behind victories.  He has won when he was not supposed to in the past and can win this time.

Senator Specter switched from Republican to Democrat to save one job – his. Specter’s longtime voting record establishes him as an opponent of our nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation agenda. Specter scored just 2% on the Council for a Livable World voting scorecard over his long Senate career.

Sestak has been a leader in advocating for nuclear disarmament and smart national security policies. While Specter served 28 years as a loyal Republican Senator, Sestak spent his career serving in the United States Navy.

Click here to see the latest Sestak ad about Specter and his good friends George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.

Political experts believe Sestak’s hard hitting television ads have been a key factor taking the lead in this close race.  But he needs your support now to keep them on the air and compete against swift-boat style attacks from the well-funded Specter.

This race is a great opportunity; get behind a progressive with an excellent chance of winning on May 18.