The U.S. House on Thursday approved a bill that seeks to keep the Obama administration from implementing a strategic arms control treaty with Russia.
In a vote of 233-191, Congress’ lower chamber approved an amendment to its annual defense-authorization legislation that would provisionally block the Pentagon from using any fiscal 2015 funds to implement the New START accord. Expenditures would be prohibited until Moscow is deemed in compliance with several other arms control agreements, is “no longer illegally occupying” the Crimean Peninsula, and ceases destabilizing activities in other parts of Ukraine.
The House went on to approve the Fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act by a 325-98 vote. The White House earlier this week threatened to veto the bill over a number of its nuclear nonproliferation, missile defense and other military measures. The Senate is currently drafting its own version of the policy-setting legislation.
The New START pact entered into force in February 2011, after the Obama administration lobbied fiercely for its passage in the Senate. The treaty is considered one of President Obama’s key foreign policy accomplishments. It requires the United States and Russia by 2018 to cap their respective fielded long-range nuclear arsenals at 1,550 warheads. The pact also requires each side to limit to 800 its deployed and nondeployed strategic delivery platforms, including bomber aircraft and ground- and submarine-based ballistic missiles.
The amendment on New START implementation was introduced by Representative Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), who sits on the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
“I am pleased that the House adopted my resolution by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority,” Lamborn said in an emailed statement to Global Security Newswire. “I don’t think the United States should be spending money to disarm ourselves — to dramatically cut our strategic nuclear deterrent — if the other party to the treaty requiring these cuts is verifiably dishonest.”
The Obama administration is on record as being concerned that Russia may not be in compliance with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which outlaws either side from testing or deploying any cruise or ballistic missile with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles. The focus of the concerns reportedly is the test-launching in recent years of different missiles to ranges forbidden by the accord.
“The Russian Federation is clearly not trustworthy,” Lamborn said. “Their actions in Ukraine and violation of agreements such as the INF treaty and [Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty] should be cause for great concern.” The latter arms control treaty is a multinational pact that restricts deployments of heavy conventional weaponry on the continent; Russia withdrew from the accord in 2007.
The House also approved an amendment — sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) — that would boost fiscal 2015 funding by $99 million for the purchase of Standard Missile 3 Block 1B interceptors.
“My amendment would restore nine of the vital SM3-1B interceptors this administration would have otherwise cut from our defense budget,” said Franks, who co-chairs the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus, in a statement to GSN.
The Raytheon Co.-produced Block 1B missile is designed to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. The weapon is slated for deployment on four U.S. Aegis-equipped warships homeported in Spain and at an as-yet unfinished installation in Romania, as part of the Obama administration’s plan for supporting NATO missile defense.
The measure offsets the hike in spending by making a $75.3 million cut to the budget of a cross-service reconnaissance aircraft and a $23.7 million cut to an effort to implement benefit-reform proposals in the Defense Health Program.
“The rogue missile threat to the United States and our allies is inarguably and relentlessly expanding,” Franks said. “The best way to negate these threats is a credible, comprehensive missile defense system.”
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."