DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group By Nickolas Roth In March 2013, the Senate voted down an amendment offered by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to cut $700,000 from their budget that was set-aside for the National Security Working Group (NSWG). What many did not realize at the time was that this relatively small and obscure proposed cut would have eliminated one of the last traces of the bipartisan Congressional approach to debating arms control. The NSWG first began as the Arms Control Observer Group, which helped to build support for arms control in the Senate. In recent years, there have been calls from both Democrats and Republicans to revive the Observer Group, but very little analysis of the role it played. Its history illustrates the stark contrast in the Senate’s attitude and approach to arms control issues during the mid- to late 1980s compared with the divide that exists today between the two parties. The Arms Control Observer Group The Arms Control Observer Group was first formed in 1985. At the time, the United States was engaged in talks with the Soviet Union on the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. To generate support for ongoing negotiations, Majority Leader Senator Bob Dole (R-KS), and Minority Leader Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), with the endorsement of President Ronald Reagan, created the bipartisan Arms Control Observer Group. The Observer Group consisted of twelve senators, with four senators, two from each party, serving as co-chairs1 and created an official role for senators to join U.S. delegations as they negotiated arms control treaties. As observers, its members had two duties: to consult with and advise U.S. arms control negotiating teams, and “to monitor and report to the Senate on the progress and development of negotiations.”2 During meetings with U.S. State Department negotiators, senators were able to present their views, ask questions, and even engage in candid and confidential exchanges of ideas and information. 1 The first members of the Group were Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Sam Nunn (D-Georgia), Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), Claiborne Pell (D-Rhode Island), Al Gore (D-Tennessee), Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), Pat Moynihan (D-New York), Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma), John Warner (R-Virginia), and Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyoming). 2 Foreword, Report of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group Delegation to the Opening of the Arms Control, Negotiations with the Soviet Union in Geneva, Switzerland, March 9-12, (III) 1985. Public Interest Report | Spring 2014– Volume 67 Number 2 The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group Senators were also allowed to meet with members of the Soviet delegations on an “informal” basis.3 The Observer Group believed that the “interplay of ideas” would assist negotiators and, if negotiations failed, the members would help their fellow senators explain the reasons why to the American public.4 The Observer Group served a number of purposes. First, it was intended to supplement the activities of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Byrd argued that the process that existed up until that point—where the Foreign Relations Committee became experts on treaties and the full Senate only began to understand the issues after the negotiation—was not functioning properly. Its creators argued, “the full Senate has focused its attention in the past only sporadically on the vital aspects of arms control negotiations, usually developing a knowledge and understanding of the issues being negotiated after the fact…the result of this fitful process has been generally unsatisfactory in recent years.”5 During the previous decade, the Executive Branch had failed to garner enough Senate support for several arms control initiatives: the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty of 1974, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) of 1979, none of which were ratified by the United States. Although there had been previous attempts to involve senators in arms control negotiations, the Observer group provided “more regular and systematic involvement” from the full Senate long before a vote took place. 6 The formation of the Observer Group publicly demonstrated the important role of arms control in national security matters. The resolution that created the group states that senators have the “obligation to become as knowledgeable as possible concerning the salient issues, which are being addressed in the context of the negotiating process. Any accord with the Soviet Union to control or reduce our strategic weapons carries considerable weight for our nation.”7 According to Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), a founding member of the Observer Group, “the goal [was] to have the Senate fulfill both halves of its constitutional responsibilities, not only the consent half—that’s what we’ve been looking to primarily in the past—but also the advice half.”8 Additionally, the Observer Group helped develop institutional knowledge and expertise on arms control within the Senate. The Group’s founding members stated that they believed it was necessary to become “completely conversant” in issues related to treaty negotiations and that such knowledge was “critical” to the Senate’s understanding of the issues involved.9 To achieve that goal, they held regular behind closed-door briefings on negotiations for senators and their staff and some staffers 3 Origin and Summary of Activities, Report of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group Delegation to the Opening of the Arms Control, Negotiations with the Soviet Union in Geneva, Switzerland, March 9-12, 1985. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid 7 Transcript of Press Conference of Observer Group in Geneva, March 12, 1985, Report of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group Delegation to the Opening of the Arms Control, Negotiations with the Soviet Union in Geneva, Switzerland, March 9-12, 1985. 8 Ibid. 9 Origin and Summary of Activities, Report of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group Delegation to the Opening of the Arms Control, Negotiations with the Soviet Union in Geneva, Switzerland, March 9-12, 1985. Public Interest Report | Spring 2014– Volume 67 Number 2 The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group were able to review related classified materials. Observer Group members were conversant in issues related to previous arms control treaties, missile defense, the connection between strategic offense and defense, and treaty compliance. Above all, the Observer Group was intended to help build bipartisan support for President Reagan’s arms control initiatives. The group was seen as a mediating body.10 When it was formed, Senators Dole and Byrd co-authored a resolution stating that the Observer Group was part of “an ongoing process to reestablish a bipartisan spirit in this body’s consideration of vital national security and foreign policy issues.” Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), who was one of the original members of the Observer Group, agreed by affirming, “The observer group is tremendously important to forming a consensus on which ratification might occur.” The Group’s 1985 report to Congress endorsed “the broad bipartisan support of the Senate for the Administration’s arms control efforts…determination to be as patient as necessary to achieve a sound agreement…the seriousness with which the Senate, including the Observer group intends to fulfill its constitutionally-mandated role in the treaty-making process.” This opinion was also shared by the Reagan administration. In a letter to Senators Dole and Byrd, Secretary of State George Shultz stated that he thought the Observer Group would help facilitate unity on arms control. It is difficult to demonstrate the extent of its influence as the years the Observer Group was most active were also the years in which arms control was seen by both parties as a vital part of U.S. policy. The success of these initiatives was clearly not solely due to the Observer Group, but it did play a role. Every one of the original Group’s members voted in favor of the INF Treaty in 1988, which passed 93- 5. Similarly, all of the senators within the Group voted in favor of ratifying the 1992 START Treaty, which passed 93-6. The National Security Working Group Towards the end of the 1990s, the Senate’s attitude towards arms control changed. Negotiations between the United States and Russia on a legally binding nuclear reduction treaty had stalled. The Senate had voted down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Reflecting this changing point of view, in 1999, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), wanted to further diminish the Senate’s focus and expertise on arms control issues. He proposed an amendment that expanded the Observer Group’s purview to include observing talks related to missile defense and export controls and renamed it the National Security Working Group. For nearly a decade during the George W. Bush administration, which pursued relatively little in terms of legally binding arms control agreements, the NSWG was relatively dormant. 10 Janne E. Nolan, “Preparing for the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review,” Arms Control Today, November 2000, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_11/nolan. Public Interest Report | Spring 2014– Volume 67 Number 2 The Evolution of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group This changed in 2009 under the Obama administration when the Executive Branch started briefing senators about the ongoing New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) negotiations. From July 6, 2009, when President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed an agreement to reduce American and Russian nuclear arsenals, to April 10, 2010, when they signed the negotiated treaty, the NSWG was revived in order to give senators a role in observing the negotiation process. During this ten-month period, the NSWG began meeting again.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Republican Conference John Thune
    HISTORY, RULES & PRECEDENTS of the SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE JOHN THUNE 115th Congress Revised January 2017 HISTORY, RULES & PRECEDENTS of the SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE Table of Contents Preface ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 Rules of the Senate Republican Conference ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....2 A Service as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 B Standing Committee Chair/Ranking Member Term Limits ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 C Limitations on Number of Chairmanships/ Ranking Memberships ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 4 D Indictment or Conviction of Committee Chair/Ranking Member ....... ....... ....... .......5 ....... E Seniority ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5....... ....... ....... ...... F Bumping Rights ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 5 G Limitation on Committee Service ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...5 H Assignments of Newly Elected Senators ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 5 Supplement to the Republican Conference Rules ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 6 Waiver of seniority rights .....
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S148
    S148 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 SENATE RESOLUTION 4—EXPRESS- is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the alty for child rape should not be viewed by ING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be’’; Federal or State courts as binding precedent, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF Whereas, in the United States, the people, because the Supreme Court was operating THE UNITED STATES ERRO- not the Government, are sovereign; under a mistaken view of Federal law; and Whereas the Constitution of the United (7) the Supreme Court should reverse its NEOUSLY DECIDED KENNEDY V. States is supreme and deserving of the peo- decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, on rehear- LOUISIANA, NO. 07–343 (2008), AND ple’s allegiance; ing or in a future case, because the decision THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT Whereas the framers of the eighth amend- was supported by neither commonly held be- TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ment did not intend to prohibit the death liefs about ‘‘cruel and unusual punishment’’, UNITED STATES ALLOWS THE penalty for child rape; nor by the text, structure, or history of the IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PEN- Whereas the imposition of the death pen- Constitution of the United States. alty for child rape has never been within the ALTY FOR THE RAPE OF A f CHILD plain and ordinary meaning of ‘‘cruel and un- usual punishment’’, neither now nor at the SENATE RESOLUTION 5—EXPRESS- Mr. VITTER submitted the following adoption of the eighth amendment; ING THE SUPPORT FOR PRAYER resolution; which was referred to the Whereas instead of construing the eighth AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS Committee on the Judiciary: amendment’s prohibition of ‘‘cruel and un- S.
    [Show full text]
  • President Richard Nixon's Daily Diary, November 1-15, 1973
    RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Air Force One – Appendix “C” 11/1/1973 A 2 Manifest Air Force One – Appendix “B” 11/5/1973 A 3 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 11/1/1973 A Appendix “B” 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 11/5/1973 A Appendix “A” 5 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 11/9/1973 A Appendix “D” 6 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 11/11/1973 A Appendix “A” COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-13 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary November 1, 1973 – November 15, 1973 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON'S DAILY DIARY (Sce Travel Record for Travel Activity) ~t-p"'I.A~CE~DA':"'Y~BE"'G~AN~--------------------------D-A-TE-(M-o-.,-D-a-y,-Y-r.-)----- NOVEMBER 1, 1973 THE WHITE HOUSE TIME DAY WASHINGTON, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolisindianapolis Usedused Sportssports Toto Growgrow Itsits Economyeconomy Andand Buildbuild Betterbetter Neighborhoodsneighborhoods
    Winter 2011 SuperSuper City HowHow IndianapolisIndianapolis UsedUsed SportsSports toto GrowGrow ItsIts EconomyEconomy andand BuildBuild BetterBetter NeighborhoodsNeighborhoods AlsoAlso Inside:Inside: TheThe JerseyJersey EffectEffect HunterHunter SmithSmith HowHow TeddyTeddy RooseveltRoosevelt SavedSaved FootballFootball JohnJohn J.J. MillerMiller Winter 2011 AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 1 Rooting the Future in History Susan Stinn Please Visit Us at The Levey Mansion –Where Indianapolis’ Rich History Meets Today’s Most Important Conversations Perched at the corner of Meridian and 29th Streets in downtown Indianapolis, the historic Louis H. Levey Mansion serves as an ideal vantage point for Sagamore Institute to conduct its work as a think tank in America’s Heartland. Originally built in the early 20th century by Indianapolis businessman Louis H. Levey, the mansion remains an integral part of what is today known as Historic Square. The legacy began when Mr. Levey joined his illustrious neighbor, Charles W. Fairbanks, in hosting such luminaries as Fairbanks’ former boss, President Teddy Roosevelt. President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt Louis H. Levey Charles W. Fairbanks Table of Contents 8 28 32 Cover Features 8 A Lasting Legacy—Indianapolis Style By Mark D. Miles and James Taylor 11 Q&A: Indianapolis Sports Strategy 14 Indianapolis- A Championship City The Playbook 17 Visionary Community Development Plan Earns Legacy Project By Bill Taft 20 Indianapolis’ R for Building a Better Community: Volunteers By Wesley Cate 24 From L.A. to Indy: NFL Charities Leaves a Lasting Legacy By Zoe Sandvig Erler Sports & Character 28 The Jersey Effect: Beyond the World Championship Ring By Hunter Smith 31 Uncommon: Finding Your Path to Significance By Tony Dungy 32 Passing Tradition 34 Tim Tebow’s Role Model By MicheaI Flaherty and Nathan Whitaker 4 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK www.americanoutlook.org OAmericanutlook Winter 2011 Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Tributes to Hon. Don Nickles
    (Trim Line) (Trim Line) TRIBUTES TO HON. DON NICKLES [ 1 ] VerDate jan 13 2004 11:11 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 097212 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE05\97212.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE VerDate jan 13 2004 11:11 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 097212 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE05\97212.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Don Nickles U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA TRIBUTES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES E PL UR UM IB N U U S VerDate jan 13 2004 11:11 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 097212 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE05\97212.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE congress.#15 (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Don Nickles VerDate jan 13 2004 11:11 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 097212 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE05\97212.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE 97212.001 (Trim Line) (Trim Line) S. DOC. 108–28 Tributes Delivered in Congress Don Nickles United States Senator 1981–2005 ÷ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2005 VerDate jan 13 2004 11:11 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 097212 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE05\97212.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Compiled under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing Trent Lott, Chairman VerDate jan 13 2004 11:11 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 097212 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\BYEBYE\BYEBYE05\97212.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) CONTENTS Page Biography .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ed 368 610 Title Institution Pub Date Note Available From
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 368 610 SO 023 632 TITLE Our Challenge: Making Education for BasicLearning a Priority in U.S. Foreign Aid Policy. INSTITUTION Creative Associates International, Inc., Washington, DC. PUB DATE May 93 NOTE 50p. AVAILABLE FROMCreative Associates International, Inc., 5301 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20015. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Reference Materials Directories/Catalogs (132) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Adult Basic Education; *Basic Skills; DailyLiving Skills; *Developing Nations; *Economic Development; Elementary Secondary Education; Females;*Foreign Policy; *Literacy Education; Minimum Competencies; Role of Education; Social Change; Vocational Education IDENTIFIERS *Foreign Aid ABSTRACT This document discusses the need to increase the amount of U.S. international funding that goes tobasic education. Because U.S. foreign aid programs are reviewedprior to a new fiscal year, this paper suggests that people canmake a difference by working to raise the profile of basic education and byencouraging U.S. policymakers to increase funding and use moreappropriate methods for implementing basic education programs.Basic education is defined as that which meets basic learning needs andincludes: (1) early childhood care and initial education on whichsubsequent learning can be based;(2) primary and secondary education; (3) education in literacy; and (4) education for general knowledge,life skills, and workforce skills for youths and adults. The document uses the broader term "education
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the US Senate Republican Policy
    03 39-400 Chro 7/8/97 2:34 PM Page ix Chronology TH CONGRESS 79 (1945–1947) Senate Republicans: 38; Democrats: 57 Republican Minority Leader: Wallace H. White, Jr. Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Legislative Reorganization Act proposes creating Policy Committees; House objects Senate Policy Committees established in Legislative Appropriations Act Republicans win majorities in both the Senate and House, 1946 Senate Policy Committee holds first meeting (December 31, 1946) TH CONGRESS Sen.White (R–ME). 80 (1947–1949) Senate Republicans: 51 (gain of 13); Democrats: 45 Republican Majority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Republican Policy Committee begins keeping a “Record Vote Analysis” of Senate votes Harry Truman reelected President, 1948 ST CONGRESS 81 (1949–1951) Senate Republicans: 42 (loss of 9, loss of majority); Democrats: 54 Republican Minority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Sen.Vandenberg (R–MI), President Truman, Sen. Connally (D–TX), and Secretary of State Byrnes. Sen.Taft (R–OH). Sen.Wherry (R–NE). ix 03 39-400 Chro 7/8/97 2:34 PM Page x ND CONGRESS 82 (1951–1953) Senate Republicans: 47 (gain of 5); Democrats: 49 Republican Minority Leader: Kenneth S. Wherry Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Robert Taft Kenneth Wherry dies (November 29, 1951); Styles Bridges elected Minority Leader Robert Taft loses the Republican presidential nomination to General Dwight Eisenhower Dwight Eisenhower elected President, Republicans win majorities in Senate and House, 1952 RD CONGRESS 83 (1953–1955) Senate Republicans: 48 (gain of 1); Democrats: 47; Independent: 1 Republican Majority Leader: Robert Taft Republican Policy Committee Chairman: William Knowland Robert Taft dies (July 31, 1953); William Knowland elected Majority Leader Homer Ferguson elected chairman of the Policy Committee TH CONGRESS 84 Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Fileprod-Prc-Dc\Peoplepress\Pew Projects
    FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1996 FORBES DRAWS EVEN WITH DOLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Kohut, Director Robert C. Toth, Senior Associate Kimberly Parker, Research Director Margaret Petrella, Survey Analyst Pew Research Center for The People & The Press 202/293-3126 http://www.people-press.org FORBES DRAWS EVEN WITH DOLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE Political newcomer Steve Forbes has moved into a statistical tie with Bob Dole for top honors in the New Hampshire primary. A Pew Research Center poll of 543 likely voters taken January 25-28 finds the millionaire publisher leading the Senator 29% to 24%, but the lead is within the poll's margin of sampling error. Well behind the two front runners are Lamar Alexander (11%), Pat Buchanan (11%), and Phil Gramm (10%), all in a statistical tie for third place. All other candidates register less than 5% support. Despite the big margin that separates Forbes and Dole from the second tier of candidates, voter attitudes in New Hampshire are highly volatile. Only a tiny minority of respondents describe themselves as strong supporters of any of the candidates (Dole 6%, Forbes 7%, Alexander 2%, Gramm 2%, and Buchanan 5%). There is also widespread discontent among New Hampshire voters with the Republican field, which is currently working to Forbes's advantage. A 64% majority of likely voters gave the Republican candidates as a group a negative rating of fair or poor. Forbes leads Dole by a 30% to 22% margin among these disaffected voters, while Dole leads 32% to 26% among voters who view the Republican field as good or excellent overall.
    [Show full text]