Can the party establishment deliver in Tuesday’s primaries? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/how-powerful-is-the-party-esta.html Senate primaries in Indiana, Ohio and North Carolina on Tuesday should give us a good indication of h…

I blogged a few weeks ago about Democrats worried about the special election to replace the deceased John Murtha.  Polling since that post indicates that the Republican, Tim Burns, may be poised to defeat Democrat Mark Critz.  A Research 2000…

The prospects for ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction agreement rose dramatically today.

Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who was a key figure in torpedoing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999 and opposed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, today endorsed ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty.

He is widely admired by Republicans for his extensive experience and forceful positions on nuclear issues and has been a close ally of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Schlesinger and Kyl almost dual-handedly killed the test ban treaty.

His endorsement of the treaty follow that of other Republican heavyweights such as Former Republican Secretaries of State George Shultz, Former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley, Former National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator Ambassador Linton Brooks, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former START negotiator Richard Burt.

It also follows enthusiastic support for the treaty by uniformed and civilian Pentagon leadership.

Public opinion polling shows strong support for the treaty as well: 60% in a Quinnipiac poll and 70% in a CNN poll.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee along with former Secretary of Defense William Perry, Schlesinger said, “It is obligatory for the US to ratify this treaty,” while acknowledging that this treaty and all treaties have shortcomings.

Schlesinger also agreed with Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who identified that, “failure to ratify New START is detrimental to U.S. influence over other countries’ non-proliferation policies.”

(Note: All Schlesinger quotes and statements are taken from John Isaacs’ notes, rather than from a transcript, and may not be exact.)

Dr. Schlesinger made several other statements that will help the treaty’s prospects for ratification. While he acknowledged that there is less verification in this treaty than in START I, which was signed in 1991, he argued that, “all in all, verification possibilities are still adequate.”

He identified that there though missile defense is mentioned in the treaty preamble and the treaty itself, “the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense in a serious way.”

In response to a question from Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), both Schlesinger and Perry agreed that New START had to be ratified as a precursor for dealing with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons, where the Russians have a significant advantage.

Dr. Schlesinger even went so far as to soften some treaty criticism in his prepared statement, which stated: “As to the stated context of strategic nuclear weapons, the numbers specified are adequate,” and he then added, “at the reduced level,” a change from “though barely so” wording in his prepared text.

He endorsed the Obama administration’s new nuclear weapons budget for Fiscal Year 2011 when he said, “the add-on for next year looks to be significant.”

In short, New START, which has yet to be formally sent to the Senate, starts off (no pun intended) in good shape before the inevitable slings and arrows of congressional debate.

In an effort to avoid Republican delay tactics, the Democratic majority has tended to skip over the whole conference process in recent years in favor of less formal means of reconciling House and Senate bills.  In fact, while the 103rd Congress went to conference a total of 62 times, the 110th went just 10.  So yesterday was a special occasion – Nearly five months into the year, the first conference committee of 2010 came together for – what else? – a discussion of sanctions on Iran.

“It’s been so long since I participated in a conference, I’m trying to remember how they work,” joked Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.  To that, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank responded that the last time he and Dodd’s committees had met in conference, the Senate panel was chaired by Paul S. Sarbanes (House 1971-77, Senate 1977-2007).  

“Well I feel better,” Dodd replied.  “I thought you were going to tell me Alexander Hamilton.”  Har har.

All joking aside, as CQ Today so aptly put it in this morning’s edition, “Conference committee members spent more time trying to one-up one another’s tough talk on Iran than discussing the differences between the two bills.”

Rubber meets the road on only one issue: The State Department’s request for broad waver authority to exempt “cooperating countries” from corporate sanctions.  Some lawmakers chose to break from their biting language on Iran and vowed to fight against the main change that State wants the conference to make to the legislation.

Congressman Brad Sherman went so far as to say the department was asking Congress to “reward the fact that they have illegally ignored the law by writing provisions that allow them to do it legally.”

“The idea of country by country waivers is absurd,” Sherman said. “They will waive virtually every country unless they decide to simply ignore the law.”

Members of the administration have expressed that a waiver is necessary to ensure the support of China and Russia in concurrent bilateral sanctions negotiations – but Congress isn’t waiting.

“Iran and its spinning centrifuges do not wait. … We can no longer wait for a Security Council resolution that has been going on for months,” said Rep. Howard Berman.

In the end, the words of Rep. Ed Royce may have summed up the event:

“Even crushing sanctions might not do the job,” said Royce, “but we ought to try.”

The conference has stated the non-binding goal of finishing its work by May 28, but a final decision could come even sooner.

SENATE SHOULD RATIFY NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT TREATY,
U.S. VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL;

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1448

American voters say 60 – 33 percent that the U.S. Senate should ratify the nuclear disarmament treaty President Barack Obama recently signed with Russia, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Support for Senate action is 74 – 21 percent among Democrats and 63 – 32 percent among independent voters, while Republicans oppose the measure, 48 – 43 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey finds.

Voters agree 79 – 17 percent that the biggest threat to U.S. security is the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon.

American voters approve of most of President Obama’s nuclear policy:

·        54 – 42 percent in favor of reducing the number of U.S. nuclear weapons;

·        49 – 47 percent favor the U.S. stopping development or testing new nuclear weapons;

·        57 – 36 percent support banning use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations;

·        58 – 36 percent disapprove of a ban on U.S. use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations even if they launch a biological or chemical weapons attack on the U.S.;

·        49 – 44 percent disapprove of Obama announcing the U.S. won’t use nuclear weapons in certain situations.

Voters support 70 – 28 percent the U.S. and Russia working to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world, but they say 87 – 11 percent that such a goal is not realistic.   And voters say 25 – 18 percent that Obama’s nuclear policy increases, rather than decreases, the chance of nuclear war, while 47 percent say the nuclear policy doesn’t make a difference.

“American voters like the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, but they believe it is just that – a dream,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.   “They agree with many elements of President Barack Obama’s nuclear policy and they want the Senate to ratify the latest arms reduction treaty with Russia.

“But very few voters believe any of this makes the world any safer,” Brown added.

[Note – there are questions on other foreign policy issues, including Iran, the Middle East and Afghanistan]

From April 14 – 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,930 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points.