Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted 412-12 (with 4 members voting “present”) to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, a broad, aggressive sanctions bill that few if any analysts think will actually “put the squeeze” on Iran. The bill was added to the suspension calendar, which is reserved for “non-controversial” legislation, allowing limited debate and requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. (Also on the calendar was a bill honoring the 50^th anniversary of “Kind of Blue.” Punishing the Iranian people by trying to cut off gas imports is as uncontroversial as liking Miles Davis? Actually, that bill only got 409 votes).

I won’t rehash all the arguments that I laid out in my blog series and Op-Ed. As Steve Clemons wrote, this bill is not rooted in sound policy; it is Congress caving to political pressure and grasping at straws trying to channel frustration and demonstrate they are “tough on Iran” ™. One of the most offensive angles to this development is that many of the same members of Congress who championed Iranian human rights after the disputed presidential election are now throwing their weight behind sanctions that have been vocally opposed by members of the Green Movement.  As Matt Duss over at Think Progress tells us:

I’ll give Rubin credit for this much: At least, unlike IRPSA sponsor Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), Rubin hasn’t ridiculously suggested that the Iranian people actually want the U.S. to impose sanctions that will hurt the Iranian people. Rubin just says that we shouldn’t care. But, of course, we should care — at least if we’re serious about creating the political space necessary for Iran’s Green movement to successfully challenge, and ideally replace, the current regime. Blunt, poorly-designed sanctions like those contained in IRPSA, while perhaps providing Congresspersons opportunities for sanctimonious grandstanding, do just the opposite: They would offer Iran’s hardliners a powerful propaganda lifeline, and would likely facilitate greater regime consolidation right at the moment that the conservative consensus around Ahmadinejad is starting to crack up. This is probably the reason why Green movement leaders and spokespersons in the West have condemned them.

The vote, while only one step toward implementing sanctions, is counterproductive in and of itself. When I visited Iran in May, I heard time and again that Iranians have doubts about the US’s sincerity in reshaping the relationship between our countries. One local businessman described US policy toward Iran as “holding out a carrot, but hiding a bottle behind your back.” Congress is making gross miscalculations when they assume that the “good cop/bad cop” dynamic toward Iran is helpful. There is little incentive for Iran to negotiate in good faith when it appears that Congress is intent on punishing them regardless of their willingness to come to the table. Two months is a ridiculously small amount of time to pass judgments on the efficacy of diplomacy and move to harsher action.

There are other opportunities for impacting the debate on sanctions before the bill becomes law. The Senate has not voted on similar legislation, and most likely won’t get to it until 2010. The administration has weighed in and is pushing for adjustments to the bill before President Obama is willing to sign it. Josh Rogin at The Cable reports:

The feeling in Congress, multiple sources told The Cable, is that all parties concerned see today’s House action as only the latest in a long series of negotiations about how Iran sanctions might materialize. Also, as is often the case, the Berman bill is likely to undergo significant changes after passage, particularly when it goes to conference and has to be reconciled with whatever the Senate and the administration negotiate.

“Everybody is excited, but hold your horses,” said one Hill source. “This has to be thoroughly vetted before it goes to Obama’s desk.”

That will be a tough fight for House conferees, considering that they will be negotiating against both the Senate and the White House with the implicit and omnipresent message about the Senate bill being, “This is what we can get passed and signed.”

Moreover, there’s a recognition inside the system that the House version of the bill, as stands, has some provisions that are seen as problematic. For example, the Berman bill would mandate some sanctions that are optional under current law, which the administration fears would raise trade and WTO compliance issues.

Specifically, regarding third countries’ complicity in complying with the sanctions, the Berman bill would expand their obligation from having to act on “actual knowledge” of violations, to penalizing countries that have “constructive knowledge” of violations — in other words, holding them to account for things they should know or should have known.

Looking ahead, our most important priority must be building support for serious negotiations with Iran, and engaging in actual diplomacy—not just putting a deal on the table and then telling Iran to take it or leave it. Once we declare diplomacy dead, we are left with an unpalatable set of options—including sanctions and military action– that will not reduce tensions between our countries and will only exacerbate the situation. Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett offer a vision of what real engagement with Iran would look like:

Serious engagement with a country with which the United States has deeply strained and potentially conflictual relations requires a lot more than simply a willingness to talk “without preconditions”.  Among other things, it means a willingness to define the end goal of a diplomatic process at the outset—in the way that the Nixon Administration worked with Chinese leaders to define a long-term agenda for the strategic realignment of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.  The breakthrough with China would not have been possible except through such a strategically-grounded approach.  And, at this point, that is the only way in which relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran can be put on a fundamentally more positive trajectory.

As Foreign Minister Mottaki sometimes says, with reference to the much-hyped “overtures” from the Obama Administration, “Before I go into a room, I need to know what is going to be in it”.  But that is something the Obama Administration has never provided to the Iranian leadership.  Yes, President Obama’s references, in his inaugural address, to dealing with the “Islamic Republic of Iran” in an atmosphere of “mutual respect” were fine, and the Nowruz message was lovely.  There have also been non-public messages to the Iranians, indicating that the Obama Administration is open to talking about a wide range of issues besides the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

But the Obama Administration has yet to make a case to the Iranian leadership that it seeks a genuine strategic realignment of relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic and how such a realignment would address the Islamic Republic’s core national security and foreign policy interests.  Until it does that, the Obama Administration has not pursued serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran.  Certainly, the P-5+1 incentives package that the Obama Administration inherited from the George W. Bush Administration is wholly inadequate as a framework for genuinely strategic engagement.  But the Obama Administration has decided not to go beyond this wholly inadequate package in its own representations to Iran.  That is not how strategically consequential diplomacy is done.

Throughout the year, we have worked to oppose broad, unilateral sanctions on Iran. I have made the case many times on this blog that these sanctions will not only fail to elicit positive changes in the Iranian regime’s behavior, they will likely backfire and undermine diplomacy with Iran, our only real hope for relieving tensions between our countries.

Powerful lobby groups and hawkish politicians have been drumming up support for the bill and have put it on the suspension calendar– a quick way to pass “non-controversial” legislation–for next week. This is absolutely the wrong time to make this move as delicate negotiations are taking place.  We need as many members of Congress as possible to take a stand against this wrong-headed approach.  Below is a letter Peace Action West sent to members of Congress urging them to vote no on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act:

On behalf of Peace Action West’s 50,000 supporters, I am writing to urge you to vote against the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Not only are the sanctions embodied in the bill unlikely to inhibit Iran’s nuclear program, they could easily backfire and undermine delicate negotiations.

As Jim Walsh, Thomas Pickering and William Luers write in Arms Control Today:

“Although sanctions can be an effective policy instrument, they are only that: an instrument or tactic for achieving a goal. Given their track record, new sanctions are hardly the tactic one would rush to as a promising choice. More importantly, by narrowly focusing on a tactic rather than the strategic objective, there is the risk that policymakers will produce the very thing they seek to prevent: an Iran with nuclear weapons.”

Read their full piece, “Iran and the Problem of Tactical Myopia,” here: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_12/WalshPickeringLuers

While there has been frustration moving forward with the P5+1 negotiations with Iran, it is essential that the international community and the Iranian government stay at the negotiating table. As Walsh, Pickering and Luers note, sanctions are not in and of themselves a strategy to address concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and improve relations. The other option–military action–would be disastrous, and would most likely rally the Iranian people around an unpopular regime and encourage Iran to accelerate nuclear development.

Passing broad unilateral sanctions at this sensitive time would be counterproductive and threatens to adversely affect the Obama administration’s Iran strategy. While testifying to the Senate Banking Committee, Undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey stated that unilateral sanctions could undermine efforts to enact smart, targeted sanctions that impact people responsible for Iranian policy, saying,  “not only do we want to have the impact on the economy, we want to make sure that [the sanction] is going to affect the decision making in Iran and not target the wrong people in Iran and, similarly, to make sure that we maximize the chance of getting international support for these things.”

Rep. Berman, lead sponsor of the bill in the House, has himself noted that unilateral sanctions are the least desirable choice for responding to Iran; diplomacy is the preferred approach, followed by multilateral sanctions. Two months is not adequate time to determine the efficacy of diplomatic efforts and move on to “the fourth best option”–sanctions that would be detrimental to the broad population in Iran and would not elicit positive changes in the regime’s behavior. Despite bluster from the Iranian regime, they do not have the technical capacity to pose an imminent threat with their nuclear program. With our own intelligence agencies telling us that Iran would not have enough fuel for a nuclear bomb until at least 2013, there is ample time to pursue tough-minded, pragmatic negotiations.

Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation highlights a key problem with this approach: “From my perspective, the sanctions path on trying to influence Iran’s behavior has more to do with providing a focus for American frustration and emotion than achieving a successful course correction with Iran.” Congress must remain clear-headed about what policy options are most likely to bring about our desired results: a stable Iran without a nuclear weapon, and improved relations between our two countries. Passage of H.R. 2194 would set us on a dangerous path and could undermine the most promising approach to reaching these goals.  We strongly urge you to vote against the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

Call your representative at 1-800-427-8619 and urge him or her to vote against the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

Cop it in-store or on their online store ($11.99)

http://orchardshop.com/

Graphics/Titles by Nic Jamieson

Last night, the House of Representatives voted a whopping 344-36 (with 22 voting “present”) to condemn the report on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza by renowned human rights investigator Judge Richard Goldstone as “irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.” Goldstone, a self-described Zionist, led investigations into human rights abuses in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and his home country of South Africa. Goldstone turned down the original mandate to investigate Israel and only agreed to participate when he was given a mandate to scrutinize both Israel and Hamas. He found possible war crimes on both sides of the conflict and recommended internal investigations by both parties.

Judge Goldstone has been attacked, but as he himself has pointed out, critics in the US and elsewhere have not been able to point to specific substantive flaws in his findings. Watching interview with Bill Moyers, it’s hard to see how such a reasonable person could be demonized by so many.

You can find subsequent segments of the interview here.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), one of the few principled representatives who voted no on the resolution, explained in a Politico piece before the vote why Congress should read the Goldstone report rather than just dismissing it:

Instead, Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read.

This is a mistake. The stance of this Congress will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards. Rather than undermine the report or Goldstone, we are at risk of undermining Congress’s and President Barack Obama’s reputation as honest brokers.

Israel can still pursue its own investigation, and critics of the Goldstone report should recognize that Israel is strong enough to withstand inquiry. Self-reflection is one of the hallmarks of a strong democracy. In fact, Israel has investigated itself in the past in connection with the Sabra and Shatila incidents. When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa and others have pursued the truth through investigations — however uncomfortable — their people and politics have emerged stronger.

We stand for the values of democracy, truth and justice. There is no reason for Congress, Israel or any other party to fear an honest judge. Richard Goldstone is such a judge, and his report should be studied, not dismissed.

What does it say about our Congress that nearly 80% of the House would vote to condemn an even-handed report that so few have them have probably even read? Click here to see how your representative voted.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn the Goldstone report.

The vote urged the Obama administration to keep the report accusing Israel and Hamas of war crimes in last winter’s Gaza war from advancing through the United Nations system, passed 344 to 36 with 22 voting “present.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which lobbied hard for the non-binding resolution, said it “strongy applauds” its passing.

“Congress is sending a strong message that the United States will not agree to turn the victim into the perpetrator,” AIPAC said.

The vote comes on the eve of debate on the report in the U.N. General Assembly; the report has already been endorsed by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The resolution “calls on the President and the Secretary of State to continue to strongly and unequivocally oppose any endorsement of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora, including through leading opposition to any United Nations General Assembly resolution and through vetoing, if necessary, any United Nations Security Council resolution that endorses the contents of this report.” 

The resolution was introduced by U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), its chairman.

Source: Orchard Skateshop

Out Of Body Experience Trailer

Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard L. Berman (D-CA) said Thursday the committee will mark up the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194) (IRPSA) on October 28.

Later that day, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was pressed by Chief Deputy Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and “committed to moving the bill quickly to a vote once it is passed out of the committee.”

When he introduced the bill last Spring, Berman made it clear:

“I fully support the Administration’s strategy of direct diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I have no intention of moving this bill though the legislative process in the near future,” Berman continued. “In fact, I hope that Congress will never need to take any action on this legislation, for that would mean that Iran at last has complied with the repeatedly-expressed demand of the international community to verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program and to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons once and for all.”

So why are these people talking about passing these sanctions without the administration asking for it,  while continually undermining current negotiations? (Day 2 of talks wrapped in Vienna today.)

Both are under pressure to move the bill, and both are looking to pass the onus onto the other. Ultimately only the Obama administration would lose out because Berman and Hoyer are acting at cross purposes with it.

Stimulation:

The industrial designer Craighton Berman from Chicago designed this stimulation cup :

“‘Stimulation’ brings nicotine & caffeine together into one vessel, but the design keeps one from enjoying both at the same time. Users must make decisions– and ultimately value judgments– on the stimulant of their choice. Which will make them feel better? Which is a more unhealthy habit? Are the two experiences intrinsically linked, or are they better appreciated on their own? ‘Stimulation’ explores the fine line between ritual & habit– and ultimately addiction.”

Coil lamp:

This is amazing! A lamp made of a simple plexi-glass core and a cord!

“‘The entire form is created exclusively from a single 100 foot extension cord that has been wrapped around a laser-cut clear plexiglass form. This simple transformation elevates the status of the humble, everyday extension cord to the realm of high design.”

For more designs and information, check the website.

As the talks with Iran start today, we made our argument in the San Jose Mercury News explaining why sanctions will backfire and we need to let diplomacy bear fruit:

It was right before the Iranian elections and I listened as my cabdriver raced through the outskirts of Tehran. He shared his loathing for the regime, rooted in family tragedy. His brother was one of thousands of political prisoners murdered by the regime at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. When we explained that we came to Iran as part of a U.S. peace delegation, he replied, “What you are doing is very important because I hate this regime, but I would pick up a gun to defend it.”

Negotiations with Iran begin today in Geneva. Following last week’s revelation that Iran has a clandestine nuclear site near Qom, Congress is pushing with full force toward a unilateral fuel embargo. Most members of Congress forget the hard lessons of history, which this cabdriver reinforced: Sanctions are likely to backfire.

Click here to read more.

Posted by Audiegrl

This is the fifth segment of a series that The Rachel Maddow Show will be telling the truth about the lies about ACORN and the right-wing political machine that took them down.

Continuing a TRMS Investigates series, Rachel profiles notorious lobbyist Rick Berman whose nefarious clients now include the ACORN smear campaign.

Click here for Part One

Click here for Part Two

Click here for Part Three

Click here for Part Four

Here’s what we reported on today:

• Poverty Task Force Begins Work In Frankfort
• Preservation Groups Work to Move Civil War Monument
• Louisville Receives Stimulus Grant For Firehouse
• Berman Reacts to District Accountability Scores
• Clark Co. Lawyer Joins Medicaid Fraud Unit
• Plans Announced For Botanical Garden
• Bank Executive Opposes Regulating Financial Industry
• Norton/Anthem Officials To Meet

2148 E. High, as it appeared in March

POTTSTOWN PA – Automobile sales of some kind, although the specifics are not yet available, are being planned for a return to the 2148 E. High St., Pottstown PA, location formerly occupied by the Norco Auto Group.

The windows of the site’s main showroom-and-garage building were covered with paper Friday (Sept. 18, 2009) to prevent passers-by from peering in. Computer-printed signs on its doors announced: “Coming Soon. New Auto Concept.”

Inside, workers were busy with a variety of tasks but could not provide details on what brand of cars would be marketed there, or whether they would be new, used, or both.

Norco Auto, headed by Lower Pottsgrove (PA) Township commissioner James Phillips, ended operations at the prominent East High Street location almost a year ago under what similarly computer-generated signs on the doors said were “poor economic conditions.”

Sign up to get The Sanatoga Post delivered free daily by e-mail.
See our galleries for photos that appear in The Post. Got news for us? E-mail The Post.

La vente de Christie’s du 7 octobre 2009 à New York, composée uniquement de photographies, marque la poursuite du démantèlement de la collection Berman. La collection est si considérable qu’un thème a pu être retenu pour cette vente: le paysage américain en couleur.

Ceci dit, il y a des photographies aussi en dehors de ce thème. Il y a 189 lots dont 58 William Eggleston et 21 William Christenberry qui font donc pas loin de la moitié de la vente à eux deux. Les prix semblent honnêtes avec certains lots estimés en fourchette basse à 2 – 3000 USD ce qui, au cours du dollar actuel, les rend accessibles à bon nombre de collectionneurs français.

Le catalogue est ici.

Here’s what we reported on today:

• U Of L Seeking Flood Photos And Videos
• Officials Concerned About Records Preservation Program
• Seum Won’t Run For Mayor
• Public Comment Sought For Arena Traffic Plan
• Berman Says JCPS Off To A Smooth Start
• Health Department Unveils Bike Lockers, Library

I got a coupon in the mail from Victoria Secret for a free pair of panties. I find myself torn between using it and tossing it. I know it’s free panties! From sexy Victoria. Here’s my problem, I don’t wear a size 2 and every time I go in there I end up feeling worse about my curves.

I am not a “fat” girl. I am a woman who looks like a woman, you know hips, boobs, and a butt that rocks! I am stuck in that no-womans land between Lane Bryant and VS.

The good news is if you have a small independent adult store in your town that sells lingerie you can usually get them to order something for you if they don’t already have your size.

Elegant Moments is good for a girl on a budget, one size fits all usually runs up to about 175 lbs. The stockings run long. The queen size fits comfortably up to about 220.

Shirley’s of Hollywood is a bit more luxe but definitely has a curvy woman in mind!

Personally I think all women should own some sexy lingerie, trashy lingerie, first date panties, and the I’m definitely getting lucky tonight crotchless panty. Wear these for yourselves, not for what your partner is going to say.

Next time you’re heading to a boring meeting slip on the new Berman Astrea I vibrating panty!

I love to wear lingerie. The problem is that men always rip it off too quickly. When women are dolled up in lingerie they feel sexy. So let us wear it for five minutes.
Karen McDougal

Remember when the Home Run Derby didn’t suck?  Is it just me, or is it impossible to watch?  Let’s just say if I had to choose between watching the derby or any Vin Diesel flick then I would hate my life.  I remember back in my younger years when it was exciting to watch and it was awesome.  Now it has become boring and stale so I’m going to fix it.  Listen up MLB/ESPN because as always, I am here to help.

1. No more Brandon Inges. I don’t want to see an 0  for in the Home Run Derby.    In fact I don’t care if the guys who participate in it are even All Stars.  Give me Adam Dunn, Mark Reynolds, Russel Branyan and the biggest mashers you can find.
2. No more “Swing Off”. All it does is tire out the competitors.  Biggest bomb advances, thats what we’re here to see anyway.
3. Shorten It. This thing lasts longer than Hanukkah.  I don’t need to see a concert on the field, especially by whoever that was on Monday.  I also don’t need to see Albert Pujols take 43 pitches trying to win some guy a car.  Let the guy hit the ball from home, go pick it up and hit it again from where it landed.  If it goes out he wins.  If not, he can play for the Natinals.
4. Get rid of Chris Berman. This goes for any broadcast, not just the derby.  But this is even worse because he feels as if he has free rein to ramble on and on using terrible nicknames.  How does someone get such a high profile job in sports without knowing anything about sports?  It’s like letting Helen Keller teach Spanish.

That is it.  My new Home Run Derby.  Enjoy.

~ Jjaks Clayton

Dr. Joshua Berman’s essay “The Case for God: A Political and Economic Perspective” states as its thesis that the Pentateuch (also known as the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Old Testament, for readers unfamiliar with Jewish scriptural terms) was a stunning departure from contemporary social and political thought and the source of modern egalitarian politics.

This is untrue. Based on the first page of Dr. Berman’s essay, I have cited several claims that are contradicted by excerpts from the Pentateuch itself, and further examples are easily found. Berman fails to cite any sources for his claims, not even specific book/chapter/verse citations of the Pentateuch, instead saying only that the essay is based on his book.

If Dr. Berman is reading this, I would like to challenge him to defend the thesis of his paper, and to explain how he can claim the Pentateuch as the birthplace of modern egalitarian political thinking when it contains numerous enthusiastic endorsements of slavery (Sarai’s cruelty to Hagar in Genesis), rape (Lot turning his daughters over to the crowd in Genesis and other examples), murder (too many to count), genocide (countless examples, especially in Deuteronomy), and nationalistic chauvinism such as that seen throughout Deuteronomy.

A report from Jefferson County Public Schools concludes that PRP football coach Jason Stinson did not violate any rules or deny his players water during a practice last August in which a player collapsed and later died.

The report says 15-year-old Max Gilpin may have been ill before practice and that condition could have contributed to his death. While the report clears Stinson of any rules violations, it does say that the coach told his players at the practice that they would run until someone quit the team. The school system will soon ban such language under its ethics code.

“While that kind of negative motivation may be used in some amateur and even professional sports, that kind of culture has no place in JCPS’s athletic program,” says Superintendent Sheldon Berman.

Stinson and other school employees are being sued by Gilpin’s parents and Stinson is awaiting an August 31st trial on a reckless homicide charge. Berman declined to comment on what impact the school district report will have on those proceedings.

“I don’t know where the other cases will go, but in fact we believe there is substantial evidence—I believe there is substantial evidence—to support our case and to support the argument that’s made here and the conclusions that are drawn here,” he says.

Stinson is currently on administrative leave from the school system.

The office of prosecutor Dave Stengel declined to comment on the report.

June 24, 2009

Larissa Levine, Caitlin McNeil, and Elizabeth Saam

With President Obama’s upcoming trip to Russia, questions surrounding the United States’ arms treaty (START)with Russia, due to expire at the end of the year, have become a hot topic in Washington. On June 24, 2009 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing “The July Summit and Beyond: Prospects for U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Reductions” to address these issues. Witnesses the Honorable William J. Perry, the Honorable Thomas Graham, Jr., and Dr. Keith B. Payne presented their opinions on the issue and then responded to questions by House members.

START, signed in 1991, placed limitations on the deployment of nuclear missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as allowing for continuous inspection and verification between the nations. However, both countries have been accused of violating the treaty, leading to questions concerning future dependability.

The Obama administration has declared intentions of ultimately reaching a global nuclear zero, but those at the hearing questioned the feasibility of this goal. However, they did agree that the renegotiation is a small step in the right direction. They emphasized that rapid movement toward nuclear zero could lead to further proliferation by those states threatened by shrinking nuclear protection from America, such as Japan. Furthermore, other nations, including North Korea and India, may be influenced to increase their own global power by taking advantage of America and Russia’s reduction. Finally, the witnesses emphasized that nuclear zero will be impossible, as long as nuclear possession is considered necessary by any country for its security and/or power.

The witnesses discussed Russian and U.S. strategies and intentions regarding the current negotiations, which began in May of this year. They agreed that Russia’s interests are rooted in both pride and a desire for parity with the United States. While neither nation can boast of arms strength equal to Cold War levels, each nation still holds a majority of the nuclear power existing today. Together, the United States and Russia hold 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons. That being said, a significant portion of Russian Cold War systems will soon be out of service due to age. Dr. Payne emphasized that one of Russia’s main goals is to ensure that both countries are on the same level militarily, especially in terms of submarine missiles and inter-continental ballistic missiles.

The panel suggested that the United States initially should not seek to make any further reductions at this point in the renegotiation. Instead, they suggested the United States prepare to explore the possibilities for the future of arms reductions. Further, they agreed that the United States should discuss reductions in tactical missiles.  This strategy, however, is not desirable for Russia, since Russia has an advantage over the United States in this regard.

Both the panel and the Representatives recognize that the Russo-American relationship is one of the single most important international relationships for the United States. Since Nato is an organization that was originally created to balance the Soviet Union’s power, the panel agreed that further Nato expansion would only antagonize Russia today. Another round of expansion would not make geo-political sense, and to include Ukraine would place the Russian navy base in Sevastopol, Ukraine under the influence of Nato. Such expansion, noted Congressman Rohrbacher, has resulted in a state of “renewed belligerence” between the United States and Russia. Ambassador Graham emphasized that while “the American people have a great interest in the well-being of the Ukrainian people,” relations with Russia should not be compromised for the sake of admitting them into Nato.

The close of the hearing emphasized the importance of people-to-people relationships that occur outside of the current public policy negotiations. The representatives present acknowledge that relations between the United States and Russia can be developed through programs that bring average people together. The United States has already sponsored widely successful programs to promote this cause in both the farming and medicine.
While the panelists did not reach a consensus on the path to nuclear zero, all present believed that these U.S.-Russian negotiations are a step in the right direction.

Full statements for Chairman Berman and the witness panel may be found here.

In attendance: Representatives Berman, Ros-Lehtinen, Rohrbacher, Lee, Smith, Woolsey, Inglis, Scott, Delahunt, Fortenberry, Poe and Watson