Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary general of NATO, published an op-ed today urging the Senate to approve the New START Treaty.  “Ratifying the New Start treaty would create opportunities for even greater cooperation [with Russia] in the future and enhance European security,” he writes.  

Rasmussen’s timing is propitious.  In an article published today in the Morning Sentinel, Senator Collins of Maine said the following on New START:

The one outstanding concern is that the treaty does not deal with nuclear tactical weapons, the short range battlefield weapons, where the Russians have a 10 to 1 advantage over our arsenal.

In addition:  

I am writing a letter to (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) asking what the administration’s plans are for dealing with the imbalance in tactical weapons. If that concern is answered to my satisfaction by the administration, I will vote for the treaty.

To answer Senator Collins concerns, I refer to secretary general Rasmussen’s comments on tactical nukes in today’s op-ed :

The New Start treaty would also pave the way for arms control and disarmament initiatives in other areas that are vital to Euro-Atlantic security. Most important would be transparency and reductions of short-range, tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, which allies have called for in our new “Strategic Concept.” This is a key concern for allies — not only those closest to Russia’s borders — in light of the great disparity between the levels of Russian tactical nuclear weapons and those of NATO. But we cannot address this disparity until the New Start treaty is ratified. Which is another reason why ratification would set the stage for further improvements in European security.

Senator Collins is right to be concerned about tactical nuclear weapons. But let’s take this one treaty at a time, get New START done, and pave the way for talks on an agreement on tactical nuclear weapons. As Rasmussen notes, we will not make any progress unless we ratify New START.

Earlier this year, both relevant House and Senate subcommittees decided to fully fund Non proliferation programs despite the current economic climate and competing funding demands.

However, the first Continuing Resolution passed at the end of September to fund the government through December 3 funded most government programs at FY 2010 levels, including programs to secure and safeguard nuclear weapons and materials.

In response, the Fissile Materials Working Group (FMWG) put together a letter to members urging them to fully fund these crucial programs at FY-2011 levels. You can find the text to the letter below.

Dear Colleague,

We urge you to support funding for threat reduction and nonproliferation programs at FY 2011 requested levels in the next continuing resolution oromnibus appropriations bill that Congress must pass to fund the government. This funding is a necessary step to achieve the cooperative international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear, chemical and biological materials in the foreseeable future.

Most experts agree that the threat of nuclear terrorism is the greatest peril facing our country today. Twenty countries are believed to possess bombgrade nuclear material that is not secure. Nuclear security will require a global effort, but U.S. leadership is critical.

In April 2010, the President convened an unprecedented Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. during which the leaders of 47 nations pledged their support for the four-year goal and made promises to take concrete measures toward achieving it. Numerous bipartisan reports have outlined the urgency of the danger and warned that more needs to be done to ensure that terrorists never obtain a nuclear weapon or materials usable for a nuclear device.

In FY 2011, the Obama administration requested $3.1 billion for international WMD security programs, a $320 million increase over the FY 2010 budget. The FY 2011 request includes significant increases for key threat-reduction and nonproliferation programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Defense, including the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the International Material Protection and Cooperation Program, and the “Nunn-Lugar” Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.

Earlier this year, both relevant House and Senate subcommittees decided to fully fund these important programs despite the current economic climate and competing funding demands.

However, the first Continuing Resolution passed at the end of September to fund the government through December 3 funded most government programs at FY 2010 levels, including programs to secure and safeguard nuclear weapons and materials. This was a setback to efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism because the overall funding request and congressional appropriations for threat reduction in FY 2010 was actually less than the amount Congress appropriated in FY 2009.

There is a bipartisan consensus that limiting access to vulnerable nuclear weapons-usable materials will greatly reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The global financial cost and terrible destruction of a nuclear terrorist attack would dwarf the costs of preventing such an attack.

We urge you to ensure that threat reduction and nonproliferation programs at NNSA and the Department of Defense are funded at the FY 2011 level for the remainder of the fiscal year. Our national security demands it.

Sincerely,

Matthew Bunn
Project on Managing the Atom
Harvard Kennedy School of Government

David Culp
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Charles Ferguson
Federation of American Scientists

Howard L. Hall
The University of Tennessee

John Isaacs
Council for a Livable World

Daryl G. Kimball
Arms Control Association

Alan J. Kuperman
University of Texas at Austin

Kenneth Luongo
Partnership for Global Security

Vlad Sambaiew
The Stanley Foundation

Paul Walker
Global Green USA

Jim Walsh
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Peter Wilk, MD
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and 20 colleagues sent a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on December 2 to say not so fast on New START (8 months is too fast?).

The Senators said:

The letter serves as a signal that these 22 Senators are most likely to vote no when the Senate takes up the treaty. See list below.

Also noteworthy are the dogs that did not bark (fans of Sherlock Holmes?).

The tendentious 22 (actually only 21 Senators are listed, perhaps because the Ensign office could not read one of the signatures) :

John Ensign (NV)

Jim DeMint (SC)

Mike Enzi (WY)

Kit Bond (MO)

Jim Bunning (KY)

David Vitter (LA)

John Barrasso (WY)

James Inhofe (OK)

Roger Wicker (MS)

Mike Johanns (NE)

John Cornyn (TX)

Richard Shelby (AL)

Richard Burr (NC)

Sam Brownback (KS)

 Pat Roberts (KS)

Orrin Hatch (UT)

John Thune (SD)

Mike Crapo (ID)

James Risch (ID)

Tom Coburn (OK)

Chuck Grassley.(IA)

Congress is in the end game. Finally. Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the Senate to go home on December 17. We do too, so long as the Senate approves New START before going home. But Reid also laid out an extensive agenda for the next two weeks — in…

This week, Americans for Tax Reform released a letter, signed by a strong coalition of conservative leaders, asking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) to reject, “the notion that spending cuts can be avoided in certain parts of the federal budget.”

From the letter:

Proponents of a larger Department of Defense budget have argued that security outlays should be weighed against mandatory spending levels, suggesting that explosive entitlement growth serves as an appropriate metric for defense spending. This not only ignores the unsustainable nature of entitlement spending but also the reality of defense spending, which has increased by 86 percent since 1998.

[snip]

And yet, defense spending continues to enjoy protected status. The Pentagon is slated to spend $6.5 trillion over the next ten years – equal to the current projected deficit spending in the same time period. Ignoring the burden military spending places on the taxpayers promotes the same reckless spending ethos that led to failed “stimulus” policies, government bailouts and a prolonged economic recession.

[snip]

True fiscal stewards cannot eschew real spending reform by protecting pet projects in the federal budget. Any such Department of Defense favoritism would signal that the new Congress is not serious about fiscal responsibility and not ready to lead.

This is a serious statement from the likes of Grover Norquist, Brent Bozell, Richard Viguerie, and others.

The full list of names is after the jump…

Al Regnery, The American Spectator
Bill Pascoe, Citizens for the Republic
Bob Barr, Liberty Guard
Brian Burch, CatholicVote.org
Chip Faulkner, Citizens for Limited Taxation
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
David A. Keene, American Conservative Union
Duane Parde, National Taxpayers Union
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
Joe Seehusen, Liberty Guard
John Tate, Campaign for Liberty
Karen Kerrigan, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
L. Brent Bozell, Media Research Center
Lewis K. Uhler, National Tax Limitation Committee
Lisa Miller, Tea Party WDC
Matt Kibbe, Freedomworks
Mattie Corrao, Center for Fiscal Accountability
Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
Rick Watson, Florida Center-Right Coalition
Seton Motley, Less Government
Susan Carleson, American Civil Rights Union
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Tom Giovanetti, Institute for Policy Innovation
Tom Schatz, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
William Greene, RightMarch.com