Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) gazes adoringly at a nuclear weapon

While the media was obsessed with its favorite kidnapping story, they have failed to notice that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has been holding our security hostage by using partisan tactics to delay ratification of New START in exchange for $10 billion in ransom money for the nuclear weapons complex.

From the beginning, we knew that false claims about the need to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal (read: build new nuclear weapons) would enter into the debate around New START and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Despite scientific evidence that current programs in place can safely maintain our arsenal as we reduce its size, Jon Kyl and other members of Congress are trying to argue that the exorbitant amount of money the Obama administration is allocating to the nuclear weapons complex is insufficient.

In an example of what I would consider an unwise negotiating strategy, the Obama administration anticipated these arguments and increased the budget for the nuclear weapons complex by 10% (while declaring a spending freeze on critical domestic funding no less) prior to any debate on New START.  While the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review states that they have no intention of building new nuclear weapons, they are setting the stage for future weapons development by increasing the US’s capacity to build weapons.  New weapons production could quickly and easily be ramped up by a president who does not share President Obama’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation (or as one of my colleagues puts it when arguing against this increase, President Palin. Shudder).  While many viewed this investment in the nuclear weapons complex, along with a ten year modernization plan promising $180 billion for the complex and delivery vehicles, as a way to isolate Kyl in the debate around nuclear weapons treaties, quite the opposite has happened.  While only two senators have stated their intention to vote against New START, many are waiting to hear that Kyl is satisfied before they are willing to throw in their support.  Kyl is slowing down the entire process, and has far more power than he should in this debate, not less.

New START is a modest but important treaty.  Similar arms agreements have passed by large bipartisan margins.  As of today, it has been 252 days since the previous START agreement expired, meaning 252 days without on-site monitoring and verification of Russia’s arsenal.  Reinstating that verification and demonstrating a US commitment to reducing nuclear weapons are critical to US national security, but Sen. Kyl is hijacking the process for $10 billion in unneeded nuclear weapons pork.

Given Kyl’s obstinacy on this key national security issue, I was struck by the irony of his position regarding President Obama’s immigration policy:

Last month, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona accused the administration of holding the Southwest border “hostage” by using border security as an immigration-reform bargaining chip.

Apparently using security as a bargaining chip is only OK when Jon Kyl does it. Kyl and other Republican senators who are delaying consideration of New START need to stop playing politics with nuclear security and accept the scientific evidence that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable.  If they don’t, the Obama administration and their fellow senators need to call them on their obstruction, and force them to choose in a floor vote on New START if they are really going to oppose a treaty that every reasonable foreign policy expert supports.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) on April 8 to reduce both countries’ large nuclear arsenals. New START also provides for verification measures such as on-site inspections and data exchanges. The treaty includes the following reductions:

* 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads
* 800 total deployed and non-deployed missiles and bombers
* 700 deployed missiles and bombers

Now the treaty needs the support of 67 senators in order to be ratified and enter into force. To hit that threshold, at least 8 Republican senators will need to support New START.

Update: The Committee vote has been postponed until September 15th, 2010. The sooner more Republicans get on board in support, the more likely the treaty will be able to come to the floor during a lame duck session late this fall.

Coalition partners can go to our New START page for updated resources and tools. It’s important that we all push our supporters to keep contacting their Senators, and telling them to vote Yes on New START.

If you are not already a coalition partner, and want to see what you can do to help, visit our list of local and national organizations. You can click on the name of the organization and be directed to its website to see how to take action or find resources on New START.

On the April 5 anniversary of President Obama’s speech from Prague, the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World delivered a letter signed by more than 100 faith, peace, and arms control organizations. As part of his speech from Prague, President Obama stated that negotiating a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia “will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.” The coalition’s letter asks that the president use the occasion of the April Nuclear Security Summit to announce a new summit on nuclear disarmament in 2011. The letter can be viewed here.

The Campaign is continuing to collect signatures from endorsing organizations and will redeliver the letter in May around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Organizations can sign on to the letter here.

Countries pledged to take specific actions to contribute to the four year goal of securing vulnerable nuclear material during the summit. Ukraine has announced it will give up its highly enriched uranium in the next two years. Chile shipped its 40 pounds of highly enriched uranium to the US for safekeeping last month. South Korea will host a follow up Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 providing an opportunity to ensure progress is being made.

“Nuclear materials that could be sold or stolen and fashioned into a nuclear weapon exist in dozens of nations,” Obama said Tuesday morning. “Just the smallest amount of plutonium — about the size of an apple — could kill and injure hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”

…The objective is to secure nuclear material in military installations, civilian research reactors and universities worldwide and to prevent smuggling. Experts say there is enough nuclear material in the world to make more than 120,000 nuclear weapons.

Countries pledged to take specific actions to contribute to that four year goal. Ukraine has announced it will give up its highly enriched uranium in the next two years. Chile shipped its 40 pounds of highly enriched uranium to the US for safekeeping last month. South Korea will host a follow up Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 providing an opportunity to ensure progress is being made. A final communiqué was produced at the end of the two-day conference, according to the Washington Post:

The three-page communique spells out 12 obligations of the nations in attendance, including a promise by each of the signatories to maintain effective security of the nuclear material in their countries.

And it commits the nations to a specific work plan, also to be adopted Tuesday, that spells out best practices, encourages the participants to join international efforts to restrict the exchange of nuclear material, and directs nations to make new investments in nuclear security measures.

The proposed FY 2011 US budget includes an increase in funding for programs to help secure loose nuclear material internationally. In a tough budget year, we will be calling for Congress to ensure those programs are fully funded. William Hartung notes on his Talking Points Memo blog:

One key element in the effort to keep the world’s deadliest weapons out of terrorist hands is financing — money to pay for consolidating nuclear weapons-making materials in fewer sites and better guarding the sites that remain, among other tasks. The Obama administration fell far short in its first budget, allocating slightly less than the Bush administration had done in its final year in office. But in this year’s budget, funds devoted to these purposes have been increased by a healthy 31%.

For more information on how to prevent nuclear terrorism and the summit, check out the Fissile Materials Working Group website.

(Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

After a year of negotiations, the President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new treaty today to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles in both countries and make the world that much safer.

But will the Senate do the right thing and ratify the treaty, or will they hold it hostage to partisan politics?

 Please click here to ask your senators to support ratifying the New START agreement to reduce our nuclear arsenal.

At the signing ceremony today in Prague, President Obama spoke about how the treaty opens the door to further actions to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Here’s an excerpt:

Together, we’ve stopped that drift, and proven the benefits of cooperation.  Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and non-proliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.  It fulfills our common objective to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  It includes significant reductions in the nuclear weapons that we will deploy.  It cuts our delivery vehicles by roughly half.  It includes a comprehensive verification regime, which allows us to further build trust.  It enables both sides the flexibility to protect our security, as well as America’s unwavering commitment to the security of our European allies.  And I look forward to working with the United States Senate to achieve ratification for this important treaty later this year.

Finally, this day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia — the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — to pursue responsible global leadership.  Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation.

While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey.  As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts.  And going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.

The White House has posted both the treaty text and the protocol online here.

The treaty allows for modest reductions down to 1,550 Russian and US deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a total of 800 missiles and bombers to deliver nuclear weapons, and limit of 700 deployed missiles and bombers. Significantly, once it is ratified, it would put in place verification measures to ensure both sides are playing by the rules by allowing on-site inspections and data exchanges. Putting in place legally binding verification measures is important, as the expiration of the original 1991 START treaty means that there are no such measures officially in place. The treaty allows a full 7 years for these reductions to be made and once ratified will remain in effect for 10 years.

The next step is for the treaty to “be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which under the Senate rules has exclusive jurisdiction over treaties….Similarly, past practice suggests that other Senate committees, such as the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, may also conduct hearings and report their views to the Foreign Relations Committee, but the treaty would not be formally referred to those committees.”

On the merits of the treaty alone, there is no reason for this not to gain strong bipartisan support, as have past nuclear weapons treaties with Russia. We need a supermajority of 67 senators to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). Our safety shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world today mean 23,000 chances for accidental launch or theft by terrorists. However, the polarized and divisive atmosphere in the Senate could throw a monkey-wrench into the effort to gain the support of the 67 senators needed for ratification of New START. Sen. Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, is also likely to try to delay or oppose the new treaty. Reuters notes:

Analysts say potential obstacles to the Senate’s consent lie not so much in what is in the new treaty, but concerns that some Republicans have raised about related matters: U.S. missile defense programs and the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

U.S. politics and procedural rules could also delay Senate action and indirectly, that of Russia’s Duma. Russian officials say they want to “synchronize” ratification, suggesting they may not be willing to vote until the Senate does.

But Senate Republicans soured by the recent healthcare battle with Obama may be in no rush to hand him a foreign policy victory ahead of November congressional elections.

These factors will make it crucial for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to show strong leadership during the ratification effort. Assuming the treaty is submitted to the Senate in early May, that leaves precious little time for the Senate to hold hearings and have a vote before the elections. Reid will have to make sure Republican and Democratic support is rounded up quickly, and schedule a floor vote this year. Additionally, debate over the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal needs to be grounded in reality. The independent and expert scientific groups called the JASONs has found that current efforts to maintain our arsenal are working just fine.

A number of senators have already begun voicing their support for New START. Today, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) issued this statement on how the treaty will make Americans safer:

President Obama has demonstrated his global leadership by successfully negotiating a START Treaty that will make America safer by reducing the number of Russian and American nuclear weapons, strengthening our ability to verify information about Russia’s nuclear arsenal, and decreasing international dangers of nuclear proliferation.

The treaty, along with the new nuclear posture review announced Tuesday, sends a positive signal to the rest of the world that safety and security is best achieved by reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not by building them up.

The new START Treaty will soon come to the Senate to be approved.  The United States has a long history of bipartisan support for nuclear arms control dating back to Presidents John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.  I look forward to joining Senate colleagues from both parties in support of this agreement.