Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday delayed a key committee vote on the "New START" nuclear arms control agreement, pending additional efforts to garner more Republican support (see GSN, July 30).

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman had planned to hold a vote today, but he announced instead he would grant lawmaker requests for additional time to study the matter during the August recess. Committee members should now prepare to mark up the ratification resolution on Sept. 15 or 16, Kerry said during a panel meeting at the Capitol.

"My interest is not in trying to jam this through," he said. "I respect every senator's right to further examine it."

The change in plans dashes the Obama administration's earlier hopes of winning treaty ratification before the end of summer (see GSN, April 27).

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the follow-on to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in April. If implemented, New START would cap each side's deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and delivery systems at 700. An additional 100 platforms -- such as bombers or missiles -- could be held in reserve.

Kerry said there are already enough votes on his panel to approve the treaty and move it onto the Senate floor. All of the committee's 11 Democrats and at least one Republican, ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), are expected to support the pact.

However, Kerry and White House officials are pressing for additional GOP support prior to sending the ratification resolution to a full Senate vote. U.S. ratification would require 67 votes in the Senate, meaning that the treaty must gain the backing of at least eight Republicans.

"If we had passed it out today, which we could have, we [still] would not have taken it up [on the Senate floor] before we get back," Kerry said. "I think it's better to send a stronger message from the country and a broader base of support."

As it now stands, senators will have six weeks to review the treaty language and supporting documents before the pact goes before a vote.

The additional time should allow the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence to complete reviews and issue their findings on the accord, Kerry said in a letter sent yesterday to his panel colleagues.

The committee leader said that by mid-August, he will circulate a draft resolution approving the treaty.

"Members who wish to suggest language for inclusion should do so during recess," Kerry stated in the letter, obtained by Global Security Newswire. "Your input is welcome as we work to craft a resolution that can enjoy broad support."

"Some members want to see a draft of the actual resolution of ratification" before a committee tally is taken, Lugar explained during a brief interview after the committee meeting.

He told GSN the process would allow for the possibility that committee members would attach "understandings" to the resolution that could affect how Washington interprets the treaty's negotiated text (see GSN, July 27).

"Members have an opportunity to offer their amendments to whatever the staffs are preparing," Lugar said. "But that really remains to be seen what members will actually offer."

During yesterday's meeting, Lugar said he would have preferred to put the agreement to a committee vote this week. That would have given Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) a bit more time to schedule a floor vote in September, before Congress breaks again for the run-up to the November elections, the committee's ranking Republican said.

"It's no longer a matter of parliamentary debate, it's a matter of national security," Lugar said. "We ought to vote now and let the chips fall where they may. It is that important."

"I don't expect [Reid] to set a date until the committee has actually acted," John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The calendar should allow roughly two weeks for a Senate vote to occur before the October recess, following Kerry's mid-September committee action.

"Can they in two and a half weeks in the fall dispose of these matters?" Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, asked in an interview yesterday. "That remains to be seen."

A floor vote might be pushed to a lame-duck session of Congress after Election Day, or to a new congressional session early next year, following the holiday break, he said.

Isaacs differed with this calculus. All of the political horse-trading should be complete once the August recess comes to a close, he said. At that point, the committee and floor votes could be dispatched relatively quickly, simply formalizing the politicking accomplished behind the scenes, Isaacs said.

For that reason, he anticipates the floor vote will take place before the elections, when Democrats are widely viewed at risk of losing a half-dozen or so Senate seats.

Sokolski scolded the administration for appearing to base the timing of the vote on domestic political considerations, rather than on any urgent security need to see the U.S.-Russia treaty implemented.

"They wanted another notch in their belt going into the elections," giving the president and his party a foreign policy boost, he said.

Isaacs also disputed that contention, saying there are legitimate military and intelligence reasons why the agreement should enter into force sooner rather than later.

"It has been 241 days and counting since START I expired and with it our on-site monitoring and verification presence in Russia," Isaacs said. The pause in treaty verification activity since the 1991 agreement expired last December has reduced transparency on both sides, he said.

New START verification measures are to include "on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring," according to a March White House statement, referring in the latter instance to spy satellites and other sensors.

The agreement also provides for the exchange of "telemetry," or data gathered during missile tests that can indicate weapon capabilities, the statement said.

Should the verification hiatus persist, a Cold War mentality might creep back in, with each side basing its force structure decisions on overly pessimistic assumptions about what weaponry the other side might be fielding, Isaacs said.

Kerry yesterday also cited a need to resume U.S.-Russian verification measures. "That is one critical reason for us to act on New START as soon as possible," he stated in his letter.

A number of Republicans are waiting for Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a leading conservative voice on national security issues, to take a stand on the New START agreement.

"When Kyl says, 'I'm satisfied,' I think that's when they'll do the vote," Sokolski said.

Kyl, the Republican whip, has voiced reservations about the accord but has indicated he might support it if convinced the administration will provide sufficient funds to update nuclear research and production facilities, as well as modernize aging weapons.

In February, prior to concluding New START negotiations, the White House committed an additional $5 billion to the nuclear complex over the next five years. The increase constituted the largest percentage rise in funding for any agency across the federal budget (see GSN, Feb. 2).

"Kyl wanted to demonstrate that he was No. 1 on security issues in his caucus, and [he] has," Isaacs said. Now, the more funds Kyl can generate for the nuclear complex in talks with the White House, the more "it adds to his power," the arms control advocate added.

Time is on Kyl's side.

"The only way this treaty gets in trouble is if it's rushed," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said in a recent interview with Reuters. "All they have to do is find enough money to satisfy Senator Kyl that they are prepared to do what they said they would do."

Lugar noted that New START skeptics have cited national security worries as a basis for withholding their support for the compact. GOP lawmakers have questioned whether the agreement might limit Washington's ability to deploy missile defenses -- a doubt that treaty advocates strongly dispute -- or provide for sufficient verification measures like on-site inspection and data exchange.

The Indiana Republican, though, hinted that politics leading up to the November elections is driving an amount of opposition to the pact.

"At some point, we have to begin to think about the United States of America and our security interests," Lugar said at yesterday's meeting.

If it comes down to a vote over whether Washington should rearm rather than reduce its nuclear stockpile, "then we better get to it," he said.

"But I hope that's not the vote that we are going to have," added Lugar, noting that he wants to see strong bipartisan support line up behind New START.

Though some Senate conservatives -- notably Foreign Relations Committee members Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) -- have declared their opposition to the pact, others appear potentially open to voting for approval. Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) said last week he was leaning toward ratification, and indicated his view that Kyl might vote in favor, as well.

Panel member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) also said last week that he might endorse the treaty if he is assured there will be sufficient federal funds for nuclear infrastructure, including one facility in his state: the Y-12 National Security Complex near Oak Ridge, where weapon component assembly and dismantlement takes place.

Another Republican on the committee, Senator Johnny Isakson (Ga.), is also believed open to a possible "yes" vote, though it remains unclear what strings, if any, might be attached to his backing, Isaacs said.

While Sokolski urged that the Senate take more time in moving forward with New START advice and consent, he agreed with the Democratic view that strong bipartisan backing for the agreement would help bolster U.S. credibility around the globe.

"You want the vote to be respectable," he told GSN. "You want the number of votes in favor of the treaty to be overwhelming -- not 67, but 87 or 97."