During his colloquy yesterday with Senator Kerry, Senator Kyl argued that New START’s preambular language noting an interrelationship between offensive and defensive forces, together with Russia’s unilateral statement stating that improvements in U.S. missile defense capabilities could be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty, gives the Russians powerful leverage over the future direction of U.S. missile defense programs

As such, some Republicans plan to support a treaty killing amendment to be offered by Senator McCain (today?) to remove the language on missile defense from the preamble so that Russia can’t threaten to withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. expands its missile defenses.

In a Dear Colleague letter sent to other Senators yesterday, Senator Lugar (R-IN) reiterated that amending the preamble in this way would be pointless and counterproductive:

For more information on how the treaty’s preamble does not meaningfully limit U.S. missile defenses, see here and here.

In the wake of yesterday’s impressive 66 – 32 procedural vote in favor of moving to executive session to consider New START, the Senate spent the day “debating” the treaty – without considering any amendments to the treaty or the resolution of ratification.  

Meanwhile, our military leaders continued to stress the national security urgency of prompt ratification.  “We need START, and we need it badly,” proclaimed Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Gen. James Cartwright at a White House press conference.  Or as the Associated Press put it: “Military leaders dispute GOP on arms control pact”.

For the most part Senators gave speeches in support and in opposition to the treaty.  Those who spoke in favor of the treaty included: Kerry (Massachusetts), Lugar (R-Indiana), Cardin (Maryland), Boxer (California), Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Udall (Colorado), Shaheen (New Hampshire), Bingaman (New Mexico), Menendez (New Jersey), Dorgan (North Dakota), Conrad (North Dakota), Durbin (Illinois) and Casey (Pennsylvania).

Opponents who spoke included: Kyl (Arizona), Thune (South Dakota), Burr (North Carolina), Cornyn (Texas), Inhofe (Oklahoma) and Sessions (Alabama).  Senator Chambliss (Georgia) also raised numerous concerns, but did not indicate how he would vote.  Despite repeated calls from Senator Kerry for amendments, Republicans offered none.  Instead they complained about the lack of time to consider the treaty and rehashed substantive objections that have been addressed and answered time and time again over the past seven months.  As Senator Kerry put it: “We’re ready to vote on the treaty. The only thing we’re waiting for are the people who say we don’t have time.”

Two moments from the debate stood out.  First, immediately following a 45-minute statement from Senator Kyl, Senator Isakson (R-Georgia) gave a stirring speech about the importance of the treaty and his reasons for voting to support it in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Said Isakson: “I came to the conclusion that verification is better than no verification at all. Transparency is what prevents things like 9/11 from ever happening again.”  While he did not join the majority in yesterday’s procedural vote, his impassioned defense suggests that he will support final approval of the treaty.  

The second noteworthy moment was an evening colloquy between Senator Kyl (who once again made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose the treaty) and Senator Kerry.  The two Senators went back and forth on the Department of Defense’s plans to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear delivery systems and missile defense.  On missile defense, Kyl disagreed with the entire military brass in claiming that the treaty imposes meaningful limits on U.S. missile defenses and gives the Russians powerful leverage over the future direction of these programs.

Kyl made it clear that there will be amendments offered to strike New START’s preambuar language and Article V, Paragraph III of the treaty, which prohibits the conversion of ICBM and SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense interceptors and vice versa.

Given some last minute changes to the Senate schedule before adjourning for the day, New START will be on the floor again tomorrow – the schedule after that remains murky.  Will the Republicans begin offering amendments?  Stay tuned.

UPDATE 12/17 8:30 AM: Due to Republican opposition, Majority Leader Reid has pulled the Omnibus appropriations bill from consideration in favor of a short term CR, which should be wrapped up by Saturday night to avoid a government shutdown. Reid also filed cloture on the DREAM Act and DADT repeal last night, meaning votes on those two issues will occur on Saturday as well. With the omnibus out of the way, the road should be even clearer to debate and vote on New START before Christmas (how soon before Christmas is anyone’s guess). Those Republicans arguing that the Senate shouldn’t consider New START at the same time as an enormous spending bill (a specious argument to begin with) no longer have that leg to stand on.

William Broad’s article, “U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable,” which appeared in today’s New York Times, relays the Obama administration’s push for increased public awareness of what to do in the event of a nuclear blast.  

Administration officials claim that the survivability from the fallout is greater than one might typically imagine.  The key is getting to adequate shelter and staying put, rather than fleeing as most people might do in such a situation.  

Even remaining sheltered for just a few hours would significantly reduced the number of fatalities from radioactive fallout, concludes a report from a multiagency modeling effort led by Lawrence Livermore Labs in California.  The results from this model found that there would be approximately 285,000 casualties due to fallout a mile from ground zero if people did not seek shelter.  Minimal protection (e.g. a car) would reduce this to 125,000 casualties, and shelters such as a basement would further reduce the number of casualties 45,000.  

The report concluded that the best shelter is in a large office building or an underground garage.

What is problematic, however, is figuring out how to educate the public without causing undue fear or panic.  Upon arriving in office, President Obama attempted to initiate a planning for disaster response, but was impeded by political roadblocks.  Cities such as Las Vegas did not want to participate in mock disasters, claiming that it would reduce tourism.  

The fact remains that public awareness and education is crucial.  Broad notes that there was insufficient disaster planning for Hurricane Katrina, which, as we all know, led to a very uncomfortable moment between Kayne West and Mike Myers.  

If we want to avoid future uncomfortable moments, it might make sense to pursue a disaster management program which educates the public about how to minimize the risks from fallout.  

This would be a much better use of our time and resources than, say, preparing for the very unlikely event of thousands of incoming Russian ICBMs from which escape is almost impossible.

Why? Because for more than 50 years, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and its predecessor, the Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD), have tracked Santa.

The whole deal is pretty high tech, involving radar, satellites, Santa Cams and even fighter jets.

That’s right… fighter jets.

According to NORAD, Santa tracking begins with something called the “North Warning System.”  On December 24, NORAD keeps a constant eye on this system, consisting of 47 installations along the northern border of North America, for signs that Santa has left the North Pole.

Once Santa has lifted off, satellites positioned in geo-synchronous orbit at 22,300 miles from the Earth’s surface and equipped with infrared sensors that enable them to detect heat begin tracking Rudolph’s nose — which, naturally, gives off an infrared signature.

Then the Santa Cams kick in.  The Santa Cams are fairly new (they’ve only been around since 1998, the year NORAD went online with its Santa Tracker) and capture images and videos of Santa and his reindeer as they deliver presents to children the world over.

Last, the jets.  Canadian CF-18s and US F-15 and F-16s fly alongside Santa and, I guess, make sure he’s safe from terrorist attacks?

Seriously, though, the website is adorable and changes daily.  Today, Santa apparently took a short break from making toys to dance with Mrs. Claus, who no doubt feels a bit neglected this time of year.

And before you flip over such an egregious use of government funds (scrooge), rest assured that the program is primarily funded by the likes of Booz Allen Hamilton, Google, and Toys for Tots.

The NORAD Tracks Santa Operations Center (NTSOC) opens on December 24th at 4:30 a.m. EST (3:30a.m. CST, 2:30a.m. MST, and 1:30a.m. PST) until 5:00am EST (4:00a.m. CST, 3:00a.m. MST, and 2:00a.m. PST) on December 25th.  Official Santa trackers are standing by at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO to take your calls.

The day we have all been waiting for has finally arrived – New START is heading to the Senate floor! Unfortunately there’s not likely to be much debate today, as Sen. DeMint has promised to force a reading of all 356 pages of the treaty and its supporting documents, which apparently will take 15 7-12 hours! Gotta love the GOP: Many Republican Senators have been harping for weeks that there is not enough time to consider the treaty before the end of the year, and now when the treaty actually hits the floor, these same Senators plan to deliberately waste time by forcing a reading of a treaty that’s been available for review for nearly 8 months!

Stay tuned to this space for updates, commentary, and musings on all things New START. And if you’d rather not learn about the treaty by listening to its reading on the Senate floor, check out our START briefing book on the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation website. Below is an excerpt: Our handy primer on the basics of treaty ratification procedure…

UPDATE 12/15, 2:45 PM: It looks like Sen. DeMint has backed off his threat to force the reading of the text of the treaty. The procedural motion to proceed to executive session passed by a vote of 66-32, which included the support of nine Republicans. Debate will commence tomorrow!

UPDATE 12/16, 9:00 AM: Read my take on the healthy start for New START over at the Chain Reaction, the Council for a Livable World’s blog!

• The Senate does not actually ratify treaties—that is the job of the President:
  1. The Senate provides advice (on the substance) and consent (with two-thirds of the Senate required to approve a treaty)
  2. The Senate considers on the Senate floor the text of the treaty and the resolution of ratification

• To ratify a treaty, the President signs and deposits the instrument of ratification along with the other parties to the treaty at an agreed upon location.
• The resolution of ratification of a treaty can be as short as a paragraph or many pages long. The resolution of ratification for the 2002 Treaty of Moscow was longer than the treaty itself (three and one-half pages).
• The President submits a treaty to the Senate along with its associated protocols and annexes, as well as an article-by-article analysis of the treaty. The protocols and annexes provide details of verification procedures, for example. The New START agreement is approximately 20 pages, but the associated documents are over 300 pages.
• Letters exchanged between the negotiators are often included in the package delivered to the Senate but are not binding, can be in the form of a unilateral statement or can be responded to by the other party either in agreement or disagreement.
• The treaty is first considered in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has sole jurisdiction over the crafting of the resolution of ratification.
• Other committees such as the Senate Armed Services and Senate Intelligence committees will often hold hearings as well and may express views to the Foreign Relations Committee but do not consider the resolution of ratification.
• Once a treaty is reported from the Foreign Relations Committee
  and placed on the Senate’s Executive Calendar, it must lie over for
  1 calendar day before second reading and Senate consideration, unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to waive this requirement. The Senate can then be called to enter executive session to consider the treaty at any time by a nondebatable motion. Unlike a bill the motion to proceed to a treaty cannot be filibustered, but it may be the subject of a roll call vote.
• When the Senate begins considering a treaty under the current
  Rule XXX procedure, the treaty is to be read for a second time.
  This reading is to be in full and it can be waived only by unanimous
  consent. This requirement is almost always waived.
• The text of the treaty itself then is open to amendment. In a very recent ruling, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the non-binding preamble of a treaty can also be amended.
• The Senate has never added an amendment to the text of an arms control treaty because the amendment would have to be approved by the other party(ies) to the treaty. Any amendment to the text of the treaty requires 51 votes, not a two-thirds vote, to be adopted (which means that a simple majority of the Senate can defeat any of the amendments).
• After debate on the treaty itself, the next step is for the Senate to consider this resolution. The Senate is not to begin considering the resolution of ratification on the same day it completes debate on the treaty itself and disposes of any amendments to it, unless the Senate by unanimous consent determines otherwise.
• The resolution of ratification can be changed on the Senate floor through conditions, reservations, understandings and declarations. A simple majority vote, not a two-thirds vote, is required to approve any of these additions (which means that a simple majority of the Senate can defeat any of the additions).
• Once the Senate has begun consideration of the treaty, cloture can be filed at any time. Two days must pass for that cloture vote to occur. If cloture is successful then there is a 30 hour limits on debate on both the treaty and the resolution of ratification. At the end of the 30 hours there is a vote on any pending amendment(s) to the resolution of ratification and then immediately on passage of the resolution which will need the two thirds vote.
• Cloture is not often invoked on treaties because they are usually considered according to a prior unanimous consent time agreement reached between the Majority and Minority.
• In the Senate, the process (of treaty ratification) is often more important than the substance of treaties

• Timing of Senate action on treaties has varied greatly:
  1. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was ratified within a matter of six weeks
  2. The 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty took four months
  3. The 2002 Moscow Treaty took nine months
  4. START I took over a year because of the collapse of the Soviet Union
  5. New START could be ratified within 5-6 months after it is negotiated if opponents do not try to hold up treaty approval
• Previous arms control treaties have been debated on the floor for a short period of time. The 1991 START I treaty required four days of debate, while START II, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the 2002 Moscow Treaty each took two days. The INF treaty was on the Senate floor for 9 days.
• If a treaty is rejected on the floor – as was the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999 – it can be sent back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (where it will remain on the Senate calendar).

Click here to read the details of Senate consideration of arms control treaties since 1987.

*For more information, see “TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.” A Study Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, January 2001, Available at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf