Clinton on Verge of Losing Treaty
By TOM RAUM
01:11 AM ET 10/06/99
WASHINGTON (AP) - History shows that presidents often expend huge amounts of
energy on winning Senate ratification of treaties, and can sometimes pull off unexpected
victories. This appears not to be one of those times. Even strong advocates of the
international ban on nuclear testing now before the Senate concede they are seriously
short of Republican support in advance of next week's planned vote. For now, President
Clinton is vowing to fight on. But other Democrats are suggesting it's only a matter of
time until a face-saving way can be found to back away from the brink. U.S. rejection of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which 154 nations have signed, would be a humiliating
defeat for the Clinton administration.
And many Republicans suggest that proceeding with the vote might put them in an
awkward position, as well. But presidents never relish losing treaty fights, and often
pull out all the stops in seeking to prevail.
A good case in point: President Carter's one-vote margin of victory in 1978,
after a bruising months-long battle, in winning Senate ratification of treaties
relinquishing U.S. control of the Panama Canal.
Clinton has yet to line up a single prominent Republican in support of the test
ban treaty. And he'll need 22 Republican votes, assuming he can get all 45 Senate
Democrats. Clinton also went all-out to win Senate ratification of the Chemical Weapons
Treaty in April 1997. The Senate's 74-26 vote sounded like a wide margin. But it was only
seven votes more than the two-thirds needed for treaties.
Clinton's effort followed a historical pattern in which presidents, especially
those in second terms, invest a lot of political capital to win treaty fights.
On the chemical weapons measure, all of the Senate's 45 Democrats were joined by
29 Republicans in supporting ratification. Clinton called it a ``strong bipartisan vote.''
But that time, Clinton had the support of two key Republicans: Lott himself, and
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
This time both Lott and Warner have come out against the test ban treaty.
Lott generated the wrath of the conservatives for his support of the
chemical-weapons treaty. Senate Republicans close to Lott said the Mississippi Republican
wasn't about to get in the same bind on the test ban treaty.
Also, Republican resentment has been rekindled toward treaties that they
perceive could put the United States at a disadvantage, now that the date at which the
Panama Canal is to be turned over to Panama is fast approaching.
Dumping a four-foot-high pile of 250,000 petitions near the Capitol Building on
Tuesday, a conservative group opposed to a Hong Kong business' lease on canal ports
appealed to Congress to ensure the canal stays open to U.S. shipping.
Democrats complain that other milestone arms control treaties and agreements
provided far more than the two days of floor debate that Lott is offering this time.
For instance, the point out that the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
consumed eight days of committee hearings and 18 days of Senate floor debate.
The so-called START I Treaty of 1992 ate up 19 days of committee hearings and
five days of floor debate; and the NATO enlargement treaty adopted last year accounted for
seven days of committee hearings and eight days of debate.
Not all treaties brought to the floor make it, of course. The Montreal Aviation
Protocols was the last treaty rejected in a floor vote. It failed 50-42 in 1983, according
to Senate Historian Richard Baker.
However, defeated treaties don't automatically die. That one was returned to the
clerk's desk at the front of the Senate - and remains there today.
Woodrow Wilson saw his second term undermined by his failure to win Senate
ratification for his League of Nations Treaty and one-termer Carter paid a large political
cost for his hard-fought victory on the Panama Canal Treaties.
Ronald Reagan devoted considerable time and energy in his second term to
nuclear-weapons reduction treaties with the Soviet Union. Why did Clinton have so much
trouble marshaling support this time for a treaty that's been before the Senate for two
years? ``In this case, the numbers weren't there,'' said Fred Greenstein, a political
scientist at Princeton University. ``It does seem to me he's never been very good at
establishing priorities, narrowing damage and staying on top of issues over a sustained
period of time.''
Related Links:
Way Out of Nuke Vote Sought
Votes Scarce for Nuke Test
Ban
