In light of the ongoing debate in the Senate over whether to approve the Obama Administration’s New START treaty with Russia, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and I recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) asking that they delay action until the 112th Congress can convene and review the treaty.
While we recognize that it is the role of the Senate to give advice and consent to the ratification of this treaty, it will be the role of those of us in the House of Representatives to ultimately appropriate the funding necessary to modernize our nuclear weapons complex, stockpile and arsenal, as well as to conduct oversight of the implementation of the treaty.
In light of this role, we outlined in our letter specific concerns with the treaty as it is currently written:
It is our understanding that, in the latest version of its program for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex and stockpile, the Administration is proposing to spend approximately $84 billion over ten years, which will have to be approved by the House. In advancing this proposal, the House could find itself in a circumstance where meeting its legislative responsibilities in the area of national security is made more difficult by the entry into force of New START.
Most importantly, many House Republicans believe this treaty may weaken the ability of the U.S. to defend itself against missile attacks. This is largely because the Administration has made indications to Russia that in the context of this treaty the U.S. will not pursue missile defense options that could affect the strategic balance between the two states.
The Administration has also proven to show a lack of transparency during this process by refusing to provide senators with the full negotiating record or specific details of the Tauscher-Rybakov discussions. The Reagan Administration provided updates during the original negotiations to staff on the Arms Control Observer group. We believe Senators should not be a rubber stamp for the Administrations diplomatic agenda and should demand access for the treaty negotiation record. Furthermore, the hearing process for New START in the Senate has been biased. The overwhelming majority of the witnesses were treaty proponents.
We have clear concerns that, should the Senate approve this treaty in a premature manner, it would impede the ability of the House and the Senate to draft future defense measures that will meet the nation’s essential security requirements. The threat of rogue nations like Iran and North Korea make it imperative that we not ratify a treaty absent the necessary review and scrutiny that would be afforded by permitting the Senate to debate this treaty in the 112th Congress.
For the full text of the Franks/Price letter, please click here.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is Chairman of the RSC’s National Security Working Group and Chair of the House Missile Defense Caucus.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
Dumping START and cleaning up after the O's mess would be a good beginning...
anotherindyfilmguy (Diary) Wednesday, December 8th at 6:27PM EST (link)Repealing “health care” overhaul/takeover would be a great second thing to do.
Isn’t there a committee that reviews old laws for repeal/modification etc? Could that be a good place to start re-reviewing the health care bill and recommending it’s complete repeal?
Santorum? Well, at least he’s not Romney…
http://www.zazzle.com/enemy_of_the_statist_tshirt-235977043035297478
What Did WE Get?
edintexas Thursday, December 9th at 9:28AM EST (link)The main theme I read/hear from the proponents of ratification is that it will provide us with the capability to verify Russian compliance with the terms of the treaty. But that capability is less than we had with the just terminated START Treaty, and a simple agreement to continue that treaty would have provided greater verification for us.
We are told that the unilateral decision to limit our defensive capabilities is non-binding, but the Russians claim it IS binding. We have agreed to give the Russians all defensive system test data, and us theirs. Since their technical expertise is absolutely equivalent to ours, that is a great deal – NOT. The probability is we will get information we already know, they will gain from our data. And that is only if they are honest about sharing.
This treaty requires us to reduce our stockpile while giving the Russians the ability to build more launch systems. It does not allow us to use current nuclear missile systems with non-nuclear warheads and not count them in the total allowed. It does not allow us to convert offensive systems to defensive systems, something future developments might make desirable. It might even preclude using current silos to base defensive systems, as the silos are generally considered part of the “system”. IIRC, we agreed to freeze development of new nuclear warheads, something we haven’t been doing for something like a couple of decades – so no big deal, right? Except the Russians have been working diligently on new developments over the past 10 years while we’ve done nothing. So our technical edge is disappearing and we are now also bargaining away our current numerical edge.
Tactical weapons are not covered by this treaty, and Russia has 10 tactical nukes to our 1. In today’s world of submarine, air and ground launched missiles, a nuclear weapon doesn’t need to be an ICBM to strike at most of the US, and all of Europe. We are assured by the Administration that tactical weapons treaty negotiations will commence once this treaty is ratified. Right.
And finally, the Russian Duma committee which had approved the Treaty for a final vote has reportedly rescinded that approval and blocked a final vote by the Duma.
Ratifying a treaty which gives us nothing isn’t diplomacy. Agreeing to a treaty which gives us nothing isn’t “negotiating”. Russia is rapidly coming to Putin’s heel and the hope for democracy is near death. We do not need to help Putin by giving him everything while we get nothing, he’s doing very well in exerting totalitarian control over Russia (and seeking to control those countries nearby) without any further assistance from us.