UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON, THE U.S. AND RUSSIA NEGOTIATED A NEW ARMS REDUCTION TREATY WHICH WAS PRAISED FOR ITS IMPORTANCE AND SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION AND APPROVED BY THE SENATE IN 2010 The Senate Voted To Allow Ratification Of The New START Treaty In December 2010 In A 71-26 Vote With 13 Republicans Voting In Favor. [Treaty Doc. 111-5, Vote 298, 111th Congress, 12/22/10] Washington Post: The New START Treaty Aimed To Reduce The Stockpile Of Deployed, Strategic Nuclear Weapons In Both Countries” And Establish “New Procedures To Verify Which Weapons Each Country Possesses.” “President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a sweeping new arms reduction pact Thursday that pledges to reduce the stockpile of deployed, strategic nuclear weapons in both countries and commits the old Cold War adversaries to new procedures to verify which weapons each country possesses.” [Washington Post, 4/8/10] Washington Post: “Experts From The Right And The Left Agree The [New START] Treaty Extends A Verification Plan That Has Allowed The World's Two Nuclear Giants To Maintain Stability That Has Existed For The Past 20 Years.” [Washington Post, 4/8/10] USA Today: The New START Treaty Limited The U.S. And Russia Each To “1,550 Strategic Warheads, Down From 2,200.” “A U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty that limits the number of atomic warheads the former Cold War foes can possess and allows them to inspect each other's arsenals — securing a key foreign policy goal of President Barack Obama— went into effect Saturday…New START, negotiated last year, limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers to 700.” [USA Today, 2/5/11] Washington Post: Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Nonproliferation Scholar Said NATO Allies Strongly Supported New START And Thought “We Would Really Lose Credibility” If The U.S. Failed To Pass It. “The stakes were high: Defeat of the pact would have severely damaged Obama's global standing, hampering his ability to negotiate other treaties, and would have dealt a major setback to the president's ‘reset’ of relations with Russia. ‘It's one of those things in life where failing to get it would be more important than actually what you get with it,’ said George Perkovich, a scholar on nuclear nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Perkovich noted that Washington's NATO allies had strongly supported the pact. ‘We would really lose credibility’ if it failed, he said Tuesday.” [Washington Post, 12/22/10] Washington Post: New START Required The Votes Of Two-Thirds Of Senators Present To Allow President Obama To Proceed With Ratification. “The Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, by a vote of 71 to 26, easily clearing the threshold of two-thirds of senators present as required by the Constitution for treaty ratification.” [Washington Post, 12/22/10] Steven Pifer Of The Brookings Institute Said Of The New START: “Implementation Appears To Be Going Smoothly…Russia Has Already Met These Limits” And “The Two Sides Have Carried Out More Than One Hundred Inspections And Exchanged Almost 6,000 Treaty Notifications.” “New START requires both countries to reduce arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads on 700 deployed strategic missiles and bombers by February 2018. Implementation appears to be going smoothly. Russia has already met these limits, while U.S. strategic forces are moving towards them. The two sides have carried out more than one hundred inspections and exchanged almost 6,000 treaty notifications.” [Steven Pifer, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 2/4/14] UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON, THE U.S. SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED TRANSPORT OF LETHAL MATERIEL THROUGH RUSSIA TO SUPPORT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN Congressional Research Service: “In February 2009, Russia Allowed A Resumption Of Shipment Of Non-Lethal Equipment Into Afghanistan Through Russia.” And This Path “Played A Significant