Cloture invoked in debate of New START treaty

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One by one, Republican senators have been breaking ranks with their Senate leadership — Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl — and announcing their support for the New START treaty. A vote to invoke cloture of debate passed today by the critical two-thirds vote that will be needed for final passage, 67-28. New arms treaty with Russia passes key hurdle, advances to ratification vote:

The "cloture" vote indicated that the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), one of the Obama administration's highest priorities, is all but certain to be ratified when the Senate holds a final vote, expected as soon as Wednesday.

* * *

Tuesday's crucial vote advancing the treaty came after several Republican senators publicly declared their support, apparently putting the pact over the top despite the objections of the Senate's top two GOP leaders and the bulk of their caucus. The Republican declarations of support followed intense last-minute efforts by administration officials, senior military leaders and other advocates of the pact to ensure its passage on grounds that it enhances U.S. national security and nonproliferation interests.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's top military officer, and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates appealed to the Senate to approve the treaty.

In floor speeches before Tuesday's vote, two Republicans from Tennessee – Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking GOP leader in the chamber, and Bob Corker – announced their support for the pact.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) issued a statement declaring her backing for ratification, and Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) gave a floor speech reaffirming that he would vote for the pact.

Alexander and Corker were the eighth and ninth Republicans to publicly commit to voting for the treaty, but several others had said they are leaning toward doing so. The pact needed at least nine Republican votes to reach the two-thirds threshold necessary for passage.

The cloture vote was considered critical as an indicator of sufficient support for final passage.

* * *

Two Democrats missed the cloture vote Tuesday: Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), who just underwent surgery for prostate cancer, and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), who is attending events in his home state.

Bayh's spokesman, Brian Weiss, said he would be back in time for the final vote, and that "he supports ratification." A spokeswoman for Wyden said he is recovering in the District and would make it to the Senate for the ratification vote if necessary. Without Wyden's presence – and assuming all other senators show up – ratification would require 66 votes.

* * *

The administration had worked for months to win the support of Kyl, the main Republican negotiator, ultimately pledging to spend an additional $14 billion to ease his concerns about modernizing the country's aging nuclear complex. But when the senator from Arizona declared in November that there wasn't time to pass the treaty during the lame-duck session, the administration decided to work around him.

The White House is optimistic it has the supermajority of two-thirds of senators required to pass the treaty.

* * *

Historically, nuclear arms-reduction treaties have passed with overwhelming majorities.

"This has become, hands down, the most partisan debate," said Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Call your senators to vote for ratification of the New START treaty.

UPDATE: Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly has this highlight from the debate:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) apologized to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who was standing nearby, because their colleagues have the audacity to overlook Kyl's incoherent and dishonest whining and bizarre habit of moving the goalposts after the White House agreed to Kyl's demands.

"To Senator Kyl," Graham said, "I want to apologize to you for the way you've been treated by your colleagues."

The nerve. Democrats voted on a pending treaty? And didn't give Kyl veto power over U.S. foreign policy? And insisted on listening to the unanimous judgment of military and diplomatic leaders, instead of the bitter tirades of a confused senator? What were they thinking?

Or as Greg Sargent put it, "Yeah, right: It's an absolute outrage that these Senators are prioritizing their own sense of what's right for the country and the world, over the influence, standing and fragile ego of a single fellow Senator."

No word yet on whether Democrats should expect an apology from Kyl for the way he treated them.

Just submit your resignation and leave with your tail between your legs.