Senate Republicans are at odds over whether to postpone a vote on ratification of the New START arms treaty, or bow to White House pressure and vote by the end of the year.
One group favors delaying the vote and is led by Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican and minority whip, who is viewed as a key Senate arms-control specialist and regards the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) as a top priority.
Other Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, in recent days signaled that they are open to holding a ratification vote in the final days of the 111th Congress.
Mr. McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Friday that he hoped the treaty would be brought up in the Senate this week and that proponents are working to address Republican concerns.
The White House continues to push senators to vote on START during the lame-duck session. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. predicted that the treaty would eventually pass with more than 75 votes in the Senate, eight more than the White House needs for the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution for ratification.
The split among Republicans on START mirrors divisions between former Republican national security officials. On Monday, a group of 32 Reagan-era officials, called the New Deterrent Working Group, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Democrat.
“We urge you and your colleagues to resist pressure to consider the New START treaty during the lame-duck session. The Senate should reject this accord and begin instead a long-overdue and vitally needed process of modernization of the nuclear stockpile and refurbishment of the weapons complex that supports it,” the letter stated.
The signers included retired Judge William P. Clark, President Reagan’s national security adviser, and Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration.
The letter, organized in part by Frank Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, contrasts with other letters made public earlier this month from five former Republican secretaries of state who support the treaty. Those signers were Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Colin L. Powell.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not sign the letter, but said recently that she favors addressing the treaty in the next Congress.
Former President George H.W. Bush said last week that he favors ratification of the New START.
At a news conference unveiling the letter favoring rejection of START, Mr. Gaffney read a statement from Mr. Kyl that said, “for weeks it has been clear that the executive branch is determined to press the Senate to take up and approve the New START treaty during the lame-duck session under circumstances that are consistent neither with our constitutional responsibility to provide informed and thoughtful advice and consent to treaties in general, nor with the attention this accord in particular requires.
“Accordingly, for weeks I have warned there is not sufficient time in this session to consider New START,” Mr. Kyl stated. “Next year, there will be a better opportunity to address concerns with the treaty.”
Mr. McCain, a leading Senate Republican voice on national security affairs, said Friday at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies that he thinks a vote is feasible in the next three weeks. “I still hope we will be able to bring this up next week, and a lot of work is being done to that effect,” Mr. McCain said. “My colleague, Sen. Jon Kyl, is doing a tremendous job working with the administration to resolve the issues associated with nuclear modernization. I’ve been focusing my efforts on addressing the key concerns relating to missile defense. And I think we are very close.”
Mr. McCain’s communications director, Brooke Buchanan, said Monday that “at this point, Sen. McCain still has concerns about missile defense in the treaty.”
“Until his concerns are addressed, he cannot support the treaty. He is talking directly to the White House about it and with his colleagues in the Senate.”
The preamble of the New START links strategic offensive and defense arms, and the text prevents using old offensive-missile silos for anti-missile interceptors. Russia also issued a statement saying it will withdraw from the treaty if the United States expands its missile defenses, something treaty critics have said could constrain future missile-defense programs.
Russia says U.S. missile defenses could render its nuclear deterrent useless.
Mr. Gaffney, now president of the private Center for Security Policy, also read a statement from Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, who expressed opposition to the treaty.
“I remain concerned that START will have devastating consequences for our national security, because the current language does not ensure the United States modernizes its nuclear arsenal, which is an important deterrent for the United States and its allies,” Mr. Inhofe said.
Until recently, Mr. Kyl has said he would support New START ratification if the Obama administration committed more clearly to modernizing the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Other Republicans, however, remain opposed to the treaty. Last month, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, gave a floor speech stating that intelligence assessments show START verification provisions will make it impossible to determine whether Russia is abiding by the treaty’s limit of 1,550 warheads.
In their letter, the New Deterrent Working Group stated that “were the United States to slash its strategic nuclear forces to match those the Russians can afford, it would ironically ensure that it has far fewer nuclear weapons — not parity with the Kremlin — when the latter’s 10-to-one advantage in tactical weapons is taken into account.”
Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that point was specious.
“The Russians have had a larger number of tactical nuclear weapons than we have for a couple of decades,” he said. “They are a concern because they are a target for terrorists, but they are not so much a concern as a military threat. The United States still has more than enough firepower to deter any nuclear attack.”
• Eli Lake can be reached at elake@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.