Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

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

John and I visited the online pages of The Hill today to make the case for New START in 2010.  Here’s the trailer:

The heavy breathing from Republicans over a nuclear treaty signed by a Democratic president contrasts sharply with their ho-hum acceptance of treaties signed by GOP Presidents, including the Treaty of Moscow signed by George W. Bush that had zero verification provisions. And the START I treaty signed by George H.W. Bush was approved by an overwhelming 93-6 vote on October 1, 1992, one month before the 1992 presidential election.

In recent days there appear to be signs that a growing number of Republicans are warming to voting on New START before the end of the year. As Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) stated on Tuesday, “I believe that we could move forward with the START treaty and satisfy Senator Kyl’s concerns and mine about missile defense and others.”

This is as it should be. The Senate is expected to remain in session for at least another two weeks, which is more than enough time to consider the treaty. The 1991 START I treaty required five days of debate, while the 2002 Moscow Treaty only took two days. The treaty has been extensively reviewed: More than 20 hearings and briefings have been held and the administration has answered 900 questions from Senators. There is no substantive reason why the Senate shouldn’t take up and approve the treaty before the end of the year. To do otherwise would be to deny the U.S. military an important tool it says it needs.

CQ Today reports that Senate and House appropriations panel aides have completed an informal conference of the fiscal 2011 Defense spending bill.  The agreement is set to be included in a Senate omnibus proposal that Senate Democrats hope to pass as early as next week.  At the same time, Democratic appropriators are hard at work on Plan B: a long-term continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through the entire fiscal year.

At this point nothing is certain.  Senate Republicans oppose an omnibus and could block the proposal, and in that case, even a yearlong CR is not assured.  In the end, Congress could choose to pass a short-term CR and defer any decisions to the next Congress, effectively wiping the slate clean and throwing out any progress that was made this year.

Another approach, supported by Susan Collins of Maine, would be to pass a “minibus,” that covers only the bills dealing with the Defense Department, veterans’ programs and Homeland Security.  Collins said yesterday that she opposes bringing an omnibus to the Senate floor.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also said that he opposes the omnibus approach, but Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye said Tuesday that the chances of securing GOP support for the omnibus are “beginning to look good.”

Whatever the case, the current CR is set to expire December 3, so the House is reportedly preparing to vote this week on a second CR that will fund the government through December 17.  After that, it’s anybody’s guess.