Why I May Filibuster New START Many of us have been concerned that the START Treaty would weaken our national security, and recent revelations of previously undisclosed talks with Russia on missile defense and movement of Russian tactical nuclear warheads only raise more questions that must be answered. I’ve asked for the full negotiating records, as have been provided to the Senate on previous treaties, but the Obama administration has continually denied that request and promised that missile defense was never part of the negotiations with Russia. But we have now learned that the State Department did in fact meet with Russia to specifically discuss missile defense, after months of denying these discussions ever took place. With the additional news that Russia moved warheads near the borders of our NATO allies this spring — warheads that are conspicuously not covered by START — it’s time to get some straight answers and for the State Department to provide the full negotiating records. The START Treaty could severely weaken America’s ability to defend our people and our allies against missile attacks from nations like Iran, and we need all of the facts on how this treaty was agreed to. Additionally, I will use every tool available to oppose an attempt to rush the debate over the START Treaty during this lame-duck session of Congress. The newly elected Republican senators have signed a letter asking our leadership to postpone debate on START until they take office in a few weeks and have ample time to review the details. Americans didn’t vote in November to ram through the Obama administration’s wish list this December. — Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) is chairman of the Senate Steering Committee and member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
|
'); $('#comments').slideToggle('slow');" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 13px; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-left: 13px; height: 25px; width: 561px; border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-style: dotted; border-right-style: dotted; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-left-style: dotted; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); cursor: pointer; ">COMMENTS 13
COLLAPSE
Posts
truth
12/02/10 18:07
Link
Report Abuse
Something is very wrong with the State Dept. and the obama administration when the full details of this Start Treaty are not open and transparent to ALL elected members of the Congress. We have TWO parties, not one. This is a Constitutional Republic, not a DICTATORSHIP. The fact that there are lies and evasions by our govt. to Congressional elected members is a major problem. Congressional members earn at least 174,000 per year to legislate-- to write, read, debate, and vote on bills that they understand fully--. Their job is not to OUTSOURCE their job to left wing groups such as the apollo alliance or others to write the bills for them, some 2300 pages that even the democrats do not read, but vote on blindly like dumb robots. How dare they outsource their jobs of legislating-- of writing the bills, how dare they not read them? Look at the unintended consequences of obamacare, all the lies that members were told--would not increase costs, could keep our own doctors, etc. and even the democrats did not read the bill but blindly voted for it, like dumb robots. How dare they! This is a Constitutional Republic, not a DICTATORSHIP. All 100 Senators, and 435 members of the House of Representatives should be involved in all the bills, not just blindly voting on them. The administration and the State Dept. better not be lying to Congress or the American people. Congress should be outraged and fight for the legislative branch not to be usurped or bypassed or ignored or consumed by the executive. Where is the outrage that the EPA, the FCC, Energy, and other depts. basically doing their own thing, making their own "laws", ignoring the will of the majority of the American people??? Ignoring Congress??? Do we not have 3 equal branches of the govt. any longer?
B Anthony
12/02/10 17:47
Link
Report Abuse
I think the fact that the State Dept. and the Obama Administration have not been forthcoming to all members of Congress and the American people about all the particulars concerning the details is a major reason to filibuster. How can the govt. lie and mislead Congress- all members. Too many bills have been voted on without any reading of those bills, even by democrats! How dare anyone vote on any bill without knowing fully all of the details of the bill. These people are paid 174.000 per year and they do not read the bills. The legislative branch is not even writing the bills, other left wing groups are and the members are required to vote yes without any discussion, debate, knowledge or questions???
What is going on?? Dictatorship? There are 100 Senators, and 475 Congressional members... They ARE PAID by the American people to do the job of writing,reading, debating, and voting on bills--not outsourcing their jobs to other groups and then voting blindly without knowledge, just like the obamacare bill. Look at all the unintended consequences of that bill, costs skyrocketing, employers getting waivers or dropping coverage, and members of Congress not even reading that bill before voting on it. Shame on all of them!! How dare they. They get paid alot of money and benefits to do their jobs and they have failed.. All members deserve to know what is in the bills, not just democrats. Heck, most democrats don't even know what is in their bills. They are all dumb robots. Can we get some real leaders in our Congress!!!
Wildhorses
12/02/10 16:51
Link
Report Abuse
If this is such a win-win, why not let Demint and others see the document and the process leading up to it? After all, doesn't the Senate have a constitutional role in international treaties?
ColdWarrior
12/02/10 16:40
Link
Report Abuse
I know that Kissinger, Schultz, Baker and Colin Powell endorse the treaty: External Link
. On the other hand, Richard Perle and Edwin Meese seem to think President Reagan would not have endorsed it. No matter how well they knew him, Meese and Perle are engaging in speculation, while Kissinger et al. are simply expressing their support for what they see as a win-win for the United States, Russia, and the world. If I can be confident that missile defense will be advanced and not affected by this treaty--and I am satisfied by the confidence exhibited by these former secretaries of state--then I would have to urge Senator Demint to endorse it as well.
LibertyMark
12/02/10 16:38
Link
Report Abuse
@Conan776 - So what? Now Russia is our buddy? Didn't they just sell missile defense components to Iran? Wake up and smell the threat
@RiotLibrarian - "He should be honest..." Did you READ the piece?
@Polo Bear - What you get for reading the Constitution! FDR abrogated this Article II Section 2 a loongggg time ago, and the Senate has been looking the other way ever since! Do your own googling, you will be appalled.
Get real, folks, the Lame Duck Congress has one job and one job only right now: Extend the Bush tax cuts (really, prevent the Obama Tax Increases). that's it!
Everything else should be left until after the 112th Congress is sworn in. The people have spoken and repudiated this Congress.
TommyJeff
12/02/10 16:30
Link
Report Abuse
Quick tip for a sitting Senator: Know how to do your job.
You cannot filibuster a treaty - read Senate rule 30.
Recently elected senators have no legislative rights until January 3rd - read the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 20.
Andrew
12/02/10 16:23
Link
Report Abuse
Yeah, Riot, the military also "strongly and almost unanimously" opposed the Iraq surge. How'd that work out for them?
ColdWarrior
12/02/10 16:22
Link
Report Abuse
Sure Conan776, the Cold War did end twenty years ago, but it's still an extremely dangerous world full of many nukes that aren't American. Our nuclear arsenal is considerably smaller than during the Cold War; it's about one-quarter the size of our nuke arsenal at the end of the Cold War. The thing is, if we're going to reduce our nuclear arsenal further, we'd better make sure we get something CONCRETE in return for it. Only lunacy would dictate unilateral reduction when the Russians and the Chinese are still armed to the teeth.
12/02/10 16:11
Link
Report Abuse
"why I MAY filibuster..."
Such resolve.
Conan776
12/02/10 16:06
Link
Report Abuse
C'mon, Senator. The Cold War ended 20 years ago. Can't we please reduce our massive nuclear arsenal and reap a peace dividend yet?
RiotLibrarian
12/02/10 16:03
Link
Report Abuse
He should be honest and admit that this is about denying Obama a victory, and has nothing to do with national security. The military has come out strongly and almost unanimously for this treaty, and Republicans are treating the military brass with absolute derision on this matter.
Sorry, I trust the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all of the heads of U.S nuclear programs for opinions on nuclear policy before I trust that of a market researcher.
Polo Bear
12/02/10 15:58
Link
Report Abuse
Why the need for a Filibuster? I may be wrong here, but i thought Treaties required 2/3 of the Senate to be ratified, which by my math would be more than the 60 required to break a Filibuster.
I have to admit, math has never been a strong suit.
LauraLHollis
12/02/10 15:56
Link
Report Abuse
Why ask the State Department for the negotiation records? Can't you just get them from Julian Assange?