 | WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) secured a key ruling that would allow the Senate to amend the preamble to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Last week, Barrasso joined a group of Senate Republicans in requesting a clarification from the Senate Parliamentarian on whether or not the Senate has the authority to amend treaty preambles. Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin officially confirmed that the Senate does in fact have the authority to amend treaty preambles. |
“START’s preamble specifically places limits on missile defense and weakens the ability of the United States to defend itself. I look forward to offering my amendment on the Senate floor to strike the limitations on our missile defense from the treaty’s preamble. Since the Administration claims the preamble language is non-binding, they should have no problem eliminating this restrictive language from the treaty.
“Most Americans would agree that preambles affect policy. After all, we value and respect the preamble to our own constitution – ‘We the people…’
“Today, the Senate Parliamentarian delivered a consequential ruling when he confirmed that the Senate can amend treaty preambles. We now have the clear authority to improve START’s preamble.”
Background:
The Administration has come out claiming START’s preamble is non-binding. On May 18, 2010 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said:
“The treaty’s preamble does include language acknowledging the relationship between strategic offensive and defensive forces, but this is simply a statement of fact. It does not constrain our missile defense programs in any way.”
On September 16, 2010, Senator Barrasso offered an amendment in a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations business meeting to strike restrictive language from START’s preamble.
During that same business meeting, an objection was made to Senator Barrasso’s amendment on procedural grounds. The claim was that under Senate precedent, preambles to treaties are not allowed to be amended.
On December 14, 2010 Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin clarified that the Senate is in fact allowed to amend preambles to treaties:
“We have been asked to re-examine the precedent from May 18, 1998, noted at footnote 31 in the Treaties chapter of Riddick’s, which states that preambles to treaties are not amendable. In that instance, a Senator asserted that 10 years earlier the Vice President had stated that preambles to treaties were not amendable, and that Senator asked if that were still the case. The Chair said that it was still the case. However, in 1978 the Vice President simply indicated that there were no preambles, not that they were not amendable. The statement from 1988 could not affirm what was not stated in 1978, so the probative value of each for the stated point of procedure is eroded.
“We have found no other authority to support the conclusion that preambles to treaties are not amendable, nor have we heard an argument to support that position. Unless it can be demonstrated to us that there is in fact valid precedent or convincing logic preventing the Senate from amending preambles to treaties, we will advise from this point forward that preambles to treaties may be amended.” ###
TEXT CREDIT: US Senator John Barrasso 307 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Main: 202-224-6441 Fax: 202-224-1724 Tollfree: 866-235-9553
