Harry Reid kicks off campaign tour in Searchlight

NEWS
Harry Reid kicks off campaign tour in Searchlight
Monday, April 12, 2010

••• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already had a lot of things on his plate to get done in the Senate this year, even before last week’s news broke. Now he’s facing two more big issues in the midst of an election year (and in the midst of a fight for his own political life in Nevada) – a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, and an upcoming confirmation battle over a Supreme Court nomination. Given that Harry Reid’s Senate is not exactly known for moving with blinding speed (to be fair, few Senates are), one has to wonder whether Harry Reid can deliver on some of these big issues before the midterm elections or not.

The three major issues which Reid presently faces are the “New START” treaty, the Supreme Court nomination battle, and Wall Street reform. There are other issues just as large (and just as confrontational) which conventional Washington wisdom has already decided Reid isn’t even going to tackle in an election year (comprehensive immigration reform and a new energy policy, to name two of the biggest), although it must be said that politics is always fluid, so this conventional wisdom may prove wrong by November. Add to this the regular issues which the Senate must deal with (such as the budget), as well as pressing political problems like jobs legislation, and it’s pretty easy to see that Reid faces an overwhelming list of things to do this year.

Which means that a lot of the focus in Washington this year is going to be centered squarely on the Senate. Nancy Pelosi’s House has shown that it is much quicker and more productive, passing dozens of good bills (many with widespread Republican support), which have then done nothing but languish in the Senate. This backlog adds even further to Reid’s “to do” list. To be fair, the House does not have such constitutional duties as ratifying treaties or confirming judges. Because the Senate does, and because it faces one of each right now, it is just going to shrink the available time for the Senate to act on legislative issues this year.

Just considering the three highest-priority items on that list currently, it’s easy to see how they could eat up most (or all) of the Senate’s time between now and Election Day. Wall Street reform is the first of these scheduled for a showdown on the Senate floor. And – much like the health reform bill – this is a huge and complicated issue, with plenty of room for watering things down and inserting loopholes in the fine print. Which is exactly what both Republicans and Democrats who have sold their soul to the banking industry are going to attempt. If they don’t kill the bill outright, that is, or delay it endlessly until Reid cries “Uncle!” and shelves the whole debate.

To be blunt, Reid’s performance in the health reform struggle does nothing to inspire confidence that the donnybrook over Wall Street reform will be any different. To Reid’s credit, on health reform, he did finally deliver. About nine months late, but given the constraints he was working under (especially when Democrats lost the filibuster-proof majority they theoretically had), putting anything at all on the president’s desk was indeed a big achievement. But this time, we don’t have those extra nine months. And the constraints Reid faced then have not gone away. Which leaves passage of any meaningful Wall Street reform a real open question, at this point.

The next big, contentious issue on Reid’s schedule will be shepherding President Obama’s Supreme Court pick through the confirmation process. This fight will be different for two reasons. The first is that, ultimately, it is a binary choice for senators to make – either “yea” or “nay.” Unlike a legislative battle, where changing a paragraph here or there can gain you some votes, with a court nominee you’re either going to be for him or her, or against him or her – there’s no middle ground. The second reason this fight will be different is that it will have a real and concrete deadline. Justice John Paul Stevens is stepping down at the end of the Supreme Court’s current term, and the Senate really is going to need to act before the next term begins – which happens before the election. Meaning Harry Reid is going to face a deadline he won’t be able to ignore. And, so far, he hasn’t been all that impressive about meeting deadlines lately – although (again, to be fair) he did manage to do so the last time he faced this situation, confirming Sonia Sotomayor in a timely enough fashion for her to join the high court before its term began last year.

The third big issue Reid faces will be the Senate exercising their constitutional duty to ratify (or reject) the New START treaty which President Obama just signed. However, there is no real deadline on treaty ratification (at least, not as far as I know – there may be such a deadline in the language of the treaty itself). What this means is that if Harry Reid has to “punt” any of these three issues past the election itself, this is going to be the prime candidate to get put off.

The Senate returned to work today, after a two-week vacation. Or, as they officially and euphemistically call it, a “State Work Period” (even though they are fooling precisely nobody with this cheerfully Orwellian label). From today until Election Day dawns, the Senate has a further seven weeks of vacation time scheduled (so far). That’s one week for Memorial Day, one week for Independence Day, and five whole weeks for the “August In D.C. Is So Hellish Month.” And these are just the vacation periods scheduled so far (the “tentative” schedule currently says nothing about post-Labor Day vacations). Which is not to say that they aren’t going to take a big chunk of October off, to go home and campaign their little hearts out. In the last two midterm election years (2006 and 2002), the Senate took off six weeks and three weeks, respectively. In particular, 2006 was a relaxed and leisurely year for the Senate, as they worked precisely one week in all of October and November combined (a six-week election break was followed by one week of work, then two weeks off for Thanksgiving – nice work, if you can get it, eh?).

Taken together, the two weeks for holidays, the five weeks in August, and the (likely) four weeks or so before the election where the Senate won’t be in session, the schedule leaves only a little over four months’ worth of actual working time to get anything done. The Supreme Court pick is likely going to eat up roughly a month of this time, possibly more. Wall Street reform is going to take at least a month or two (and that is being wildly optimistic, I should add). Even if Reid punts on the treaty ratification, it’s easy to see that the calendar is going to be an awfully tough one for Senate Democrats to get much done outside of the major issues this year. Which puts even more pressure on them to deliver on the major issues themselves, I should add.

Congressional Democrats would like to campaign this year on the things they’ve been able to accomplish. As well as (knock wood) an economy that is visibly getting better for people, of course. So far, the things Democrats have been able to accomplish haven’t exactly resonated with the public (health care, the stimulus, etc.). Whether Democratic officeholders have anything else to put before the voters as solid Democratic accomplishments is going to hinge mostly on Reid’s performance for the rest of this year.

If Harry Reid can manage to produce, he may improve his own currently-dismal re-election chances in Nevada, as well as give the Democratic voter base a reason to get enthusiastic about voting in November. But, if Reid cannot deliver, a lot of Democrats are going to be sucked down on Reid’s “coattails” come Election Day. Now, obviously, there are other factors at play in this election season – which, like all midterms, is problematic for the president’s party – but Harry Reid could either give Democrats a real boost in their chances at the polls by delivering a few big wins (and, one hopes, a whole bunch of smaller wins), or he could squander this opportunity and not provide legislative victories for Democrats to tout on the campaign trail.

Harry Reid has the rest of this year to produce some solid Senate victories. And the question remains: Can Harry Reid actually deliver? For many Democrats, the answer to this question is a whole lot more than merely academic, and may in fact mean quite a bit to their own chances in the upcoming election.

U.S. And Russia Sign Historic Nuclear Treaty

NEWS
U.S. And Russia Sign Historic Nuclear Treaty
Thursday, April 8, 2010

••• U.S. President Barack Obama and the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, have signed a landmark nuclear arms treaty in the Czech capital, Prague.

The treaty commits the former Cold War enemies to each reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1 550 – 30 percent lower than the previous ceiling.

It also limits the number of deployed “launchers” – ballistic missiles and heavy bombers – to no more than 700.

The deal replaces the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 1991.

After it was agreed, Obama hailed the deal as the most comprehensive weapons control agreement in nearly two decades.

“With this agreement, the United States and Russia – the two largest nuclear powers in the world – also send a clear signal that we intend to lead,” he said.

The treaty must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma.

The U.S. and Russian leaders signed the New START treaty at 12:00 pm CET (8:00 am EDT) in Prague Castle (Spanish Hall), the Czech president’s residence.
Speaking after the signing ceremony, President Obama said the treaty demonstrated that both countries had halted the deterioration of their relations, which had prevented agreement on mutually important issues in the past.

“When the United States and Russia are not able to work together on big issues, it’s not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for the world. Together we’ve stopped that drift and proven the benefits of co-operation,” he added.

Mr. Obama said the pact was “an important milestone for nuclear security and non-proliferation” and set the stage for further arms cuts.

“While the New Start treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey. 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.”

He said the talks – beginning this summer – would cover missile defence, threat assessments, and the completion of a joint assessment of emerging ballistic missiles.

For his part, President Medvedev said the negotiating process had not been simple, but the treaty represented a “win-win situation” that would enhance strategic stability and bilateral relations.

“The result we have obtained is good,” he said. “We have got a document that fully maintains the balance of interests between Russia and the U.S. The main thing is that there are no victors or losers here.”

But Mr. Medvedev said disagreements remained between Moscow and Washington over U.S. plans for a missile defence shield, which have been modified by Mr. Obama.

On Tuesday, Russia’s foreign minister warned that it could abandon the New Start treaty “if a quantitative and qualitative build-up of the U.S. strategic anti-missile potential begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russia’s strategic forces”.

It was Moscow’s concerns over Washington’s plans to base interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic that helped delay the new treaty. President Obama shelved the idea in September, although new plans include ground-based interceptor missiles in Romania.

The White House has said it hopes and expects the U.S. Senate to ratify the New Start treaty this year. Senate ratification requires 67 votes, which means it must include Republicans.

The Russian lower house of parliament must also approve the treaty, but as long as the Kremlin supports it, ratification there is expected to be a formality.

During private talks before the signing ceremony, Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev also discussed Iran’s nuclear programme.

The U.S. wants the U.N. Security Council to approve tougher sanctions against Tehran, over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

“Unfortunately Tehran is not reacting to an array of constructive compromise proposals. We cannot close our eyes to this,” Mr. Medvedev said afterwards.

President Obama Announces the New START Treaty

NEWS
President Obama Announces the New START Treaty
Friday, March 26, 2010

••• Climaxing months of hard negotiations, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed today to sharp cuts in the nuclear arsenals of both nations in the most comprehensive arms control treaty in two decades. “We have turned words into action,” Obama declared.

The completion of this agreement gives Obama his biggest foreign policy achievement just days after his biggest domestic accomplishment: winning approval of his health care overhaul.

Obama said the pact, to be signed on April 8 in Prague, was part of his effort to reset relations with Russia and a step toward “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

The agreement would require both sides to reduce their arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons by about a third, from 2,200 now to 1,550 each. The pact, replacing and expanding the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, which expired in December, was a significant gesture toward improved US-Russian relations that have been badly frayed.

The reductions would still leave both sides with immense arsenals – and the ability to easily annihilate each other.

“In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time,” Obama said at the White House. “Today, we have taken another step forward in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children.”

In Russia, Medvedev’s spokeswoman Natalya Timakova told the Interfax news agency, “This treaty reflects the balance of interests of both nations.”

A Kremlin statement said, “The new treaty stipulates that strategic arms will be based exclusively on the territories of each of the nations.”

Both sides would have seven years after the treaty’s ratification to carry out the approximately 30 per cent reduction in long-range nuclear warheads. The agreement also calls for cutting by about half the missiles and bombers that carry the weapons to their targets.

“We have turned words into action. We have made progress that is clear and concrete. And we have demonstrated the importance of American leadership – and American partnership – on behalf of our own security, and the world’s,” Obama said.
Though the agreement must still be ratified by the Senate and both houses of the Russian Parliament before it takes effect, Obama and Medvedev plan to sign it next month in Prague, the city where last April, Obama delivered his signature speech on arms control.

For his administration, a major value of the treaty is in setting the stage for potential further successes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, standing with Defence Secretary Robert Gates alongside Obama, noted next month’s international meeting of leaders on nuclear proliferation being hosted by the president in Washington, focused on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists and rogue states.

“We come with more credibility, Russia comes with more credibility, having negotiated this treaty,” she said.

Ratification in the Senate will require 67 votes, two thirds of the Senate, meaning Obama will need support from Republicans. Some Republican senators had previously expressed concerns about concessions being made by U.S. negotiators.

Clinton, asked whether approval could be achieved given the recent fierce partisan battles and close votes over health care, said it could.

“National security has always produced large bipartisan majorities, and I see no reason why this should be any different,” she said. “I believe that a vast majority of the Senate, at the end of the day, will see that this is in America’s interest. And it goes way beyond politics.”

In Russia, the treaty goes first to the State Duma, the lower house, and then to the Federation Council.

Speaking in the White House briefing room, Obama said the treaty by the globe’s two largest nuclear powers would “send a clear signal that we intend to lead” the rest of the world in reducing the nuclear threat.

Clinton noted that the U.S. and Russia still possess more than 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons. “We do not need such large arsenals to protect our nation,” she said.

She emphasized the verification mechanism in the treaty, a key demand of the US that was resisted by Russia and was one of the sticking points that delayed completion of the deal. It will “reduce the chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations,” she told reporters.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that by helping to build trust “this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do – protect and defend the citizens of the United States.”

He said U.S. commanders around the world “stand solidly behind the treaty.”

Gates cautioned the treaty – and an accompanying review of nuclear posture – will require more spending to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal. At the same time, the defense secretary called it an “important milestone” in consigning Cold War nightmares to the past.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband welcomed the “historic” agreement.

He said the U.K. was committed to a world free from nuclear weapons and “stands ready” to take part in a future multilateral disarmament process.

He said: “As the Prime Minister told President (Barack) Obama when they spoke yesterday, the U.K. welcomes this agreement which is an important further step towards a world free from nuclear weapons.

“The international community must now seize the opportunity this creates for the 2010 NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference and beyond.

“That means continued efforts by all states possessing nuclear weapons to work towards their total elimination.

“It means concerted action from the international community to tackle countries like North Korea and Iran which seek to develop nuclear weapons in breach of their treaty commitments.

“And it means the safe expansion of nuclear power.”

The new treaty will also set out new verification procedures that are considered less cumbersome and expensive than those in Start.