and not in a good way. i don't really get it. what steps do you plan to take if any to offer more comprehensive health care than the minimed plans? do you have anything in mind? >> we have a comprehensive option. >> but they can't afford it. are you thinking about paying perhaps more of a premium? for your hourly workers? >> a couple years ago we move from the $10 subsidy to $20 subsidy so we have increased that over the past couple years. >> could i just suggest to you it might be a wonderful thing that might make you feel really good if you pay the same percentage of those people's costs as you do the higher end people. i think it would be really important. ..

>> when he said to mr. melville looking at his policy, it covers hospital but only the room, not any of the treatment. so do you see a problem now? because by 2014 we have taken steps to cure a lot of these problems, and we face -- i hope we'll be able to hold it off because stories like this help us make our case.

but do you see those hospital only plans presenting similar hazards for consumers as mini med plans, and he recommend a way we can address them in the interim before 2014 when we solve some of these problems? >> i think there are a number of kinds of plants out there. there are also disease only plans that offer very limited coverage. there are catastrophic benefit plans with her high deductible that offer very little coverage. and there are quite a few plans out there, of various sorts that really do not cover what people get in 2014, which is a sensual -- which is essential benefit coverage. the problem now is how to play for those plans. because if you have very low income, but not low enough to qualify for medicaid, if you're still alive and you have enough

income cannot qualify for medicaid if you're an adult, how do you pay for that? that's why it's so important that we get a tax -- >> let me just say this and i will stop. i think what chairman rockefeller was getting too, and mr. melville addressed in terms of the risk, we all know the terms of insurance you get a huge bowl of people together, the bigger the better. and you knows you hope and you look at the different tables, actuarial tables, who is going to get sick, who is a. how do you rights these plans, et cetera, et cetera. so that when someone does get sick, they are not shoved to the side or told, guess what? we don't cover this. to me, what's going on out there, there are these sham policies that they are shams. and as -- if people don't get sick they never know it. they say i love my insurance. they never get sick.

maybe to get a scratch. maybe they go once a year. but these stories as we heard from mr. melville, barely tell it. you know, a running rampant through the countryside. so my point is that if you're saying the hospital only might be a problem, the disease only might be a problem, what i think when you do in the interim, mr. chairman, is make sure that secretary of hhs is shining a bright light on these shams and scams that are out there. because they are just figuring most people won't get sick and they will never know. and the fact that mr. melville would now get a letter saying we thank you had a preexisting condition and didn't tell us, it just adds another dimension to the tragedy he is facing. a man who is a hard-working man, losing his dignity, thinking he has a policy that's capped at

$20,000, finding out it isn't, and then getting a letter in essence saying the gdc the the? jim may said this preexisting condition. we know that this is going on. so i want to just thank the chairman, because you know we passed a very important bill. we are going to revisit and revise it and make it better. but this is very important, because we have to keep shining a light on what's happening to the american people, to a lot of us. in this interim period. and i want to thank you. it's been a terrific panel. thank you. >> thank you, senator. i return to senator hutchinson's. >> no further questions. >> senator nelson? >> you can ask a question, you can make a statement, you can talk about nasa. you can do whatever you want. >> no, we did that in this room this morning all morning.

i can't -- and so did senator hutchinson. this is out a -- this is our day for the commerce commission, russlynn, beautiful hearing room. i would like to make a statement, that i thank you for having this hearing. and i think what it is exposing, since i had the privilege and sitting with you in the finance committee as we crafted this legislation of trying to have reform of health care in america, and health insurance. and i think what we're seeing today is another reason why, why should there be a country as advanced as ours, that of the 300 million people, 45 million people do not have health insurance? but still get health care when they get sick, and everybody

else pays for them, because when they get sick, they get health care, they just go to the most expensive place, which is the emergency room at the most expensive time, since they didn't have any preventive health care, then when the sniffles turn into pneumonia then you have to treat the emergency. now, i think what we're talking about here today is a lot of these mini med plans are like that with these high deductibles. so in effect, if you are a mom and a dad, maybe you can get your -- and you have a modest income -- maybe you can get your children insured by virtue of the fact that senator rockefeller up to the levels of the children's health insurance

plan. but for the mom and dad, the only thing you can afford is this high deductible medical plan. and so what does the mom and dad to? if everything -- let's say $5000 deductible, or $10,000 deductible. what they do is they don't go to the doctor. because they don't want to afford the out of pocket cost, or they can't afford. and so a system that is operative that we have exposed here today is one of the very reasons of why we need comprehensive health insurance overhaul to make insurance companies give 85 cents of every premium dollar that will actually go into health care. and for small group policies, a lower percentage, but

nevertheless, an increase over what it is now. and make health insurance available and affordable to people otherwise. otherwise, we have this bifurcated system where the has have health insurance, and get healthier and that has not -- have-nots do not. unless you really have not and you qualify under medicaid. now, that's just, in a country that values the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. in a country that is a moral country, we just have an obligation to try to help people. and here's another example of what we needed a health reform.

now, a lot of these things don't take effect until 2014, and there's a part that will affect these folks that don't take effect, and that's imposing the annual limits on essential health benefits. that doesn't take effect until 2014. but it's good that you get out there in the system for discussion, mr. chairman, and i thank you. >> thank you, senator nelson. i would just like to ask a question, i might ask this to mr. smith. again, we have the principle of health insurance that some people are going to be sick, insane people aren't going to be sick. and nobody knows what the measurement is going to be. but the american health insurance, folks, the american

health plans, they published a consumers guide to health insurance. and the very first question -- they were the ones who fought the hardest to defeat the health reform bill. they have spent more money, more time, more advertising than anybody else to try to defeat. they represent health insurance industry. on this committee that is no surprise because we've had many hearings on health insurance industries, and the way they get away with things. and they use fine print, and smiling faces, so that, knowing a lot of people don't have the time, they are afraid, they will not look into it very carefully. however, these folks who tried to do everything to defeat the health bill, the reform bill, the very first question answered in the guide is, why do you need

health insurance? this is not me talking. this is them talking. and here's what they said. the purpose of health insurance is to help you pay for care, that protects you and your family financially in the event of an unexpectedly serious illness or injury that could be very expensive. to it, mr. melville. now, this just reeks with a hypocrisy based upon what they tried to do during the year and a half of debate. and that we uncovered here in this committee in previous hearings about the bride of health insurance companies, practices. i am wondering if mr. forsch doesn't have the comfort of knowing that when a 10% have their problems, like mr. melville, and he has to scribble to any place can get,

that mr. forsch knows that the american taxpayer is going to pay for what he is a. because they'll be going into emergency rooms, they would be going any place they can. and that takes him off the hook, which is why we passed health reform. so people wouldn't have to do that, so they wouldn't have to go to the emergency room, because they might have to go, but they have health insurance. so the taxpayers, other taxpayers who aren't mr. melville, who aren't any of you sitting up there, or anybody in this room, don't have to pay for his health insurance. because the health reform bill will do that. so i'm actually wondering if the 10% actor, 10% of the time the brakes don't work, doesn't weigh heavily on mcdonald's or other

corporations to do similar type things as this with mini meds. because they know the taxpayers will make up for what they refuse to do because they don't want to spend a lot of money. on temporary employees. >> i think you're right, senator, that there's a powerful and i think it's probably unintentional consequences, the sort of mini med plans, that there is a burden transferred from the company to the public system and to taxpayers. i think from my vantage point, the fundamental question is, do we actually think that mini meds are adequate insurance? or do we think that it's the best we can do for an $8 an hour low-wage worker? and i think if we all around this table, and, you know, any american ask themselves, i think most of us would say that $2000 annual benefit caps will not be adequate, it will not cover you

when you actually need it. so if we don't really think it is adequate, then the question is, is this really the best we can do? i don't, i don't think we should accept that. and i think that they affordable care act sets up a system, the system that is going to fix that problem with the status quo. it's going to provide a more affordable, more comprehensive option for young adults. but there is a transition period. and one thing i would like to hear from the employers, particularly the employers have mini med plans is, what are you going to do, as senator boxer said, to improve the quality of your plans before 2014? how can we work together to either make a bigger contribution, or to figure out ways to make those plans more comprehensive and actually meet the needs of your workers. >> so you could be working at mcdonald's yourself, right? >> absolutely. >> i mean, not all of their

employees are cofounders. but you could be doing that. so i've got to look at you as the 10%. number one, young people tend to think they are not going to get sick. they don't know, as i said, that they are far and away the largest users of emergency rooms, of any age group in the country, and have been for years. they don't know that 10% of them have depression, mental illness problems, as is the case across america. but they don't know that because young people aren't meant to be that way, except when we read dramatically in newspapers things they have to do. they don't know that the they have chronic illnesses. and that those aren't

debilitating and expensive. or they don't want to be bothered with the health care system. i started out my life, so to speak, public life, my reasonable life, as a vista volunteer in southern west virginia, where nobody had health insurance. where nobody had heard of health insurance. would have never been a doctor. with a school bus to the incumbent because they said you were too far away. so nobody went to school. you get the picture. but the county board of health was going to send a than -- send a van for pap smears to that's all they were willing to send. but they did do that, and i worked very hard in the community to get people to show up. very sensitive, you know, somebody my age, very sensitive subject for me. i wasn't very good at it. the first time the band came

nobody showed a. i worked another month or so. they can begin, nobody showed up. and then the third time, the people showed up. but wouldn't the wind. what was the lesson learned? there's so much bad news in people's lives as they were then and are now, young people, all people, that they don't want to go in and take a test which might show them that they have what mr. melville has. they don't want to know that. so it's to keep the possibility away from me factor. well, that can be a human reaction, but that cannot be a public policy answer. public policy has to come aggressively to the rescue. to encourage people, that's what all of the prevention and health care reform bill is all free, for seniors, for anybody else. it is for you. wellness, all kinds of things.

that's why people of your age when you go into the exchange, you'll have hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of financial help. because maybe you see something you want but you can't quite afford that everything will be out there in print, the cost of everything. mr. floersch said it's all in the brochure. that wasn't my opinion that i read it but that which would be the case. transparency, full knowledge. so i just think that you can't say that 10% of the people don't count. i don't think you can. i don't think that's right. i sort of want to in a hearing on that, but i would like your some people will have opinions, or have things they haven't said that they wanted to see. start with you, sir. >> yes. i would like to add an important point that has been touched on a couple times but not really emphasized, and that is another

group we don't have a table here today are health care providers. because mr. melville's story illustrates that, when the insurance runs out, it's to provide who continues to care for you. and someone pays the cost. who pays that cost? some of it is passed onto the taxpayers. much of it is passed on to other employers who are providing coverage of health insurance and to bear the costs of paying for uncompensated care. so in this country of very cheap hamburgers that are provided by very low-wage workers with very little health insurance. but we pay a lot more for other goods and services because the employers who provide those goods and services are providing comprehensive health insurance that is paying providers for $43 billion of uncompensated care. and one of the things that the affordable care act does is into this very inefficient system, or i think will end is very inefficient system of cross subsidization so that employers

will hopefully provide health insurance, if they don't provide health insurance there will be tax credits of able to middle-class and lower income people who need health insurance, and that will be paid for more directly rather than just passing all these subsidies around underneath the table. and as senator nelson said, people will get health care when they needed and it's going to be less expensive in the long run. so i think is a very positive step that we're taking. it's very unfortunate we have to wait another three years before it is fully in place. thank you. >> that's correct, but remember that i think it was teddy roosevelt that started trying to reform the health care system. so we are almost there. i'm not scared of 2014. to me, it's just three years away. to others it may be a long time. but it will take that kind of time to get the state exchange is working. and they will be the folks and all of us.

mr. finan, i think you must have something to say. >> i do come and thank you very much, mr. chairman. just a couple of comments. i really appreciate the dialogue you had about, and i want to point out along the 10%, there's probably a very high percentage of cancer patients. as you have said, the real purpose of insurance, any kind of insurance, not just health insurance, is to protect people against a catastrophic loss. and mini meds clearly don't do that. we had a lot of discussion today about transparency, and that's critical. the insurance system we have come and we've had up until now, it is a largely dysfunctional, and one the main reasons is the total lack of transparency. consumers don't have information. they don't know what they are buying. mayor only by by price. all too often we have seen many, many stories like mr. melville's, of cancer patients who get into treatment, only then to discover what the real illness of the plans are. that's one of the many reasons why we are supportive of the

affordable care act. we need to move away from that system. we need much more trans -- transpac and accountability we also need a special benefit packets because we need to provide adequate health care, wonderfully provides all the necessary assistance to treat a series of medical treatment like cancer. mini meds cannot do that and won't be able to do that. we have to recognize the economic competitive pressures that exist today that results in consumers and employers and insurers providing mini meds. we have to move away from the. the a portable care act does take a huge step in doing that, and begins to provide a mechanism for providing insurance. we need health exchange. it is defined health care for the first time ever in this country and we are providing subsidies that are necessary to help people like mr. melville and others to work at mcdonald's who don't have the means to pay the full cost of what is fully affordable. clearly health insurance is first and foremost important to us as individuals, but it is

also very important to us as a society. we want to continue to grow and be productive. we need good health that and we need, the united states, have some of the finest medical facilities, finest providers, finest scientists in the world. but we do a terrible job of providing that care, translate that care to real service to people like mr. melville. it's got to stop. and, unfortunately, it takes a lot of huge steps to restructure the system so that people like mr. melville in the future won't have a problem that he faces. thank you very much, mr. chairman,. >> aaron smith, i just want to add one thing. i do a lot of talking in west virginia to youth groups. universities, colleges, et cetera. and i always come right at them, at what the least like about health care reform. and that is that we say that

it's mandatory that people have health insurance that and if you don't do it, we're going to fine you. that goes against the spirit of everything. but having said that, there's an enormously powerful reason for that. because if young people and people who don't have health insurance, just as people who buy automobiles they automobile insurance and never complained, health insurance, therefore they complain about. but why do we do that? we do that so we can enlarge the risk pool so that more people are paying into the health insurance market, and, therefore, premiums for individuals who do have health insurance won't go up to the extent, forget medical loss ratio for a moment, but they won't go up to the extent they

are now because so many, few people aren't paying for so many who don't have health insurance and go to the emergency room and, therefore, they do that. and it's interesting. young people, more so than others, tend to understand that. because they tend to understand that their tennis with sickness and viability really isn't there. and that their chances, that doesn't mean they get in trouble. they're not going to get into real trouble. >> you're right, senator. in fact, most of the polls show that young people support health care reform, even support the mandate more than almost any other age group. and one thing i would just add to your statement is that the problem that young people have and health care system are pervasive. i was uninsured after i graduate from college. so many young people are.

it's incredible. and so when you talk about the challenges that we face in an economy where it's hard to find a job and where it's hard to get certified job with benefits, i think it's very easy for young people to understand that moving to a system where i might have to bite insurance, but i'm also going to have more options. i'm going to have subsidies to bite insurance, i'm going to have an expanded medicaid program and an exchange that makes things more competitive, i think it's a good sell. and young people get it. >> thank you. anybody else? final thoughts? yes, sir. >> you know, i think part of what, you know, we also see is a couple decades of inflation, health care inflation, you know, very high levels, you know, six, 10%. we have seen it at mcdonald's as well. our hope is that with the health care reform that there will be

as much attention on trying to bring down some of the costs, because i do believe when the costs start to come down or flat now, i think some of these affordability issues and access will actually work hand-in-hand. mr. chairman. >> i thank you all for coming. i haven't looked at the clock because to me, this has been very interesting, very compelling and this is a very american kind of hearing where you have of view. mr. melville, get well. >> thank you, senator. i greatly appreciate you holding this hearing, and i really like washington, d.c.. [laughter] >> don't stay on the hill long. [laughter] >> you will change -- >> i'm going back to bunker hill. >> you're right, you're right. this hearing is adjourned. i thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the pentagon has released its report on the impact of pending don't ask, don't tell a policy that bans gays who openly serving in the military. look at the history of don't ask, don't tell online at the c-span video library. search and watch programs outlined the debate and the arguments for and against. it's washington, your way.

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. they will begin with the general speeches, and no legislative business expected during the day. lawmakers will break between 12:30 and 3:30. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain : let us pray. eternal lord god, you inhabit all ages and all worlds, dwell among our senators today. tune their hearts to your purposes and open their lips to speak your wisdom. lord, infuse them with your spirit so that their work will make a positive impact on our nation and world. banish their anxieties, as you provide them with a faith strong enough to face whatever challenges they must confront.

lord, give them openness of mind in order that they might perceive your will more clearly, openness of heart that they might love you more profoundly, and openness of hand that they might serve you more devotedly. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate.

the clerk: washington d.c., december 2, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten r. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be a period of morning business for senators. they'll be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the majority will control the first 30 minutes. republicans will control the next 30 minutes. we'll be in recess again today from 12:30 until 3:30 to allow for a democratic caucus. yesterday the house sent awes two-week continuation resolution. we need to act on that funding bill before the current continuing resolution expires on tomorrow. i'll continue to work with the republican leader on a time for its consideration. we have other matters. i have touched with my caucus,

the republican leader and the white house to try to move toward completing business here before business. would the chair announce morning business? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. mr. reid: madam president, it's my understanding that the order before the senate is each side will have a full 30 minutes. is that right? the presiding officer: correct. mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i think a number of colleagues have lined up to speak, but they're not here yet, so i'm going to take a moment if i may -- mr. reid: and ao*ul take off

the -- and you'll take off the democratic side? mr. kerry: take it off the democratic side. just speak for a few minutes. madam president, i know a number of my colleagues are wanting to talk a little bit about the start treaty, and i look forward to their doing so. but i did want to bring colleagues up to speed on sort of where we are and hopefully give an accurate, up-to-the-moment assessment of what the progress is. let me say to my colleagues that i want to express my gratitude to a group of senators on the other side of the aisle -- senator kyl, senator mccain, senator lindsey graham, senator isakson, senator corker, particularly, all of whom have been working in good faith and consistently. i think senator kyl and i are talking almost every single day.

it has been a constructive process. obviously there are points of disagreement here and there on substance, and we're trying to work through those. i want to say to my colleagues that senator kyl has worked with us, i think, calmly, quietly and in good faith in an effort to try to resolve some very legitimate questions for members on his side of the aisle. and he's been consistent and persistent in hammering home those differences and the needs that need to be met as we go through this process. vice president biden has been particularly engaged in this and particularly helpful in helping us to move the process forward so that the administration has a voice that is directly engaged in these discussions and is working very, very hard to meet

the concerns that have been raised by senator kyl and by others. but i'm encouraged by the process is -- the process that e are engaged in. i think senators need to know it has not been a process of sidestepping a best effort to try to get to a place where we can take up the start treaty in the next days. so we still have some issues to try to complete. some senators have expressed the desire to hear from the administration with respect to the lisbon conference and what modality was arrived at there with respect to deployment, and we will make that happen. in addition, the president was sent an additional set of questions just the other day, and those answers will be worked on and they will be forth coming. i think as long as everybody keeps working in this kind of

positive and constructive way, i'm really hopeful that we can live up to our responsibility here. my final comment would be simply to call the attention of senators to "the washington post" today to an editorial op-ed written by the former republican secretaries of state: henry kissinger, george shultz, james baker, laurence eagleburger, and colin powell. and they very clearly say in this, we urge the senate to ratify the new start treaty signed by president obama and russian president dmitry medvedev. they go on and express the reasons why they think it is important for us to do that. it's my hope that these conversations that we're having and the process that is in place is going to produce, hopefully, a positive outcome, and we're certainly going to work in good

faith to try to make that happen in the next days, hours. i yield the floor. i think -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, in october a dear friend of mine and of the commonwealth of kentucky passed away peacefully and today i'd like to pay tribute to mayor bill gorman of hazard, kentucky, for his warm and generous spirit and above all to his faithfulness to the mission of devoting and defending and serve the people of hazard. mayor gorman was born about a decade after the railroad came when hazard was first opening up to the world. he saw the floods and the cleanup, the coal carnivals and the stores on main street come and go. he saw senators and congressmen and presidential candidates. he saw it all. and he could have followed it all too right out of hazard, but he didn't, because hazard was the only place he ever wanted to

be. the story goes that bill was vacationing down in florida in 1977 when somebody threw his name in the race for mayor. from that point on, being mayor was all bill ever wanted. he never drew a pay checkers and he was never -- paycheck, and he was never off the clock. as anyone who used to get his late-night phone calls can attest. he was always thinking of how to move hazard forward, how to make life better for the people of hazard and the surrounding region. whether it was extending the water lines or building a pool where the kids in town could learn to swim or expanding the hospital or improving and expanding educational opportunities, he always had a vision and a plan to make it happen, and he usually did. he attended every ribbon cutting, no matter how sphaurblgs and he took -- how small and he took everybody's calls even at home. and there were a lot of them because his number was always

listed in the phone book. he treated everyone with dignity and respect, and he wanted to talk to everybody, whether you were the president of the united states -- and bill knew a lot of them -- or somebody just simply down on their luck. one of bill's lunch buddies remembers being with him once when he got a phone call from an elderly widow who lived in one of the public housing units in town. her health was deteriorating, she said, and she wondered if he could help her move from the fourth floor to the first floor. mayor gorman got the building manager on the phone immediately and asked if anything was opening up on the first floor. there was, and that woman got her wish. moving floors was important to that lady, so it was important to mayor gorman. another time a group of city work men dropped into a local restaurant for a bite to eat after working around the clock after a snowstorm. when the bill came, they were

told it had already been paid. it was mayor gorman, but they didn't know it. he made sure of it. he did that kind of thing all the time, never flaunting it, just lifting folks up, from high schoolkids going to college to an elderly woman who needed a helping hand, he was always there. for mayor gorman no problem was too little or too big. he was as concerned about the little things as he was determined to accomplish the big things and was a master at both. he never boasted. he just did good. it's a rare breed these days but bill gorman was a rare man and gentle soul who devoted himself to his mission in life and enjoyed every moment of it. not that he wasn't feisty. if you wanted to pick a fight with mayor gorman, say something about the people of eastern

kentucky. he'd take you on. he was proud of his people and his heritage, and he was proud of the coal industry that built this region. as it happens, madam president, i got to know bill before he was a mountain legend, long before either of us had set out on our political careers. i was working as a youth chairman for marlow cook, running for the senate that year. when they sent me out on the road, they told me to look up a guy named bill gorman when i got to hazard. he was the guy, they said, and they were right. and when the two of us got together for the last time in his home this last august, 42 years later, he was still the tkpwaoeufplt -- the guy. washington may not be a very popular place these days, but hazard is a pretty popular place in washington. walk into any office and you're liable to see a duke or duchess of hazard citation.

i'm told the pope was named a duke of hazard. bill said he was born a baptist, adopted by the catholics and would die a presbyterian. like a lot of politicians, he was covering all of his bases. he said that government is only as good as the people who run it. if that's true, it's likely that hazard will never be as good as it was when gorman was with us. we owe him to live our lives with the same dedication and spirit of service he did. i'm blessed to have known him. he is dearly missed. now, madam president, on another -- another subject. yesterday we watched a number of democratic senators come to the floor and express their exasperation at not being able

to do what they want to do around here. it's really quite astonishing. let's face it, most americans aren't particularly interested in the things that democratic leaders have put at the top of their to-do list. they thought they put a restraining order on democratic partisan priorities early last month. it's time democrats put their priorities -- put the priorities of the voters first. in a couple of weeks the lights go out around here unless we do something to stop it. at the end of the month every taxpayer suffers a pay cut unless we stop it. but democrats would rather spend the senate's limited time on don't ask, don't tell and immigration. they'd rather come down to the floor to talk about filibuster rules. so they still don't get it. and that's why republicans are insisting we put these things aside, finish the most important and urgent legislation before time runs out. 15 million americans are out of work. more than three million of those

jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. so with all due respect for the democrats' economic theories, a trillion dollar stimulus, endless government spending and bailouts doesn't appear to have worked. we've tried that way and now it's time to try what businesses an families are asking us to do. ask any business owner in america what we could do to help them start hiring again, and they'll tell you the best thing we can do is give them certainty about their taxes. the dream act doesn't create jobs, filibuster rules don't reate jobs, wasting time on votes to raise taxes won't create jobs. right now house democrats are getting ready to send us a bill on tacks they know won't pass the senate. this is a purely political exercise. just consider what a number of senate democrats have said about this issue. here's what one of their newest members said just a few weeks

ago. i would extend -- i would extend them, referring to tax cuts for everyone. here's another one from september. "i don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we're struggling through." the first comment was senator coons. another said i -- until the nation's economy is in better shape and perhaps longer because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery. continuing the tax cuts could provide certainty for families and businesses. that was senator ben nelson. i don't think they should draw a distinction at $250,000. the economy is very weak right now. raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time we want more people putting money into the economy. that was senator bye. would be counterproductive.

that was senator kent conrad. so what's the problem, madam president? it seems to me like we have solid bipartisan agreement on white thing to do for the economy is and for job creation. who's holding it up and what do they have against helping businesses and creating jobs? it's time to focus. we've tried the tax and spend route. it hasn't worked. why don't we listen to the voters? let's fund the government while reducing spending and prevent a massive tax hike on every american taxpayer. look, we've got bipartisan support for this in the senate and bipartisan opposition to raising taxes on anyone. as the president said earlier this week after our meeting at the white house, i think everybody understands that the american people want us to focus on their jobs, not ours. they want us to come together around the strategies to accelerate the recovery and get americans back to work. i agree with the president.

why don't we get this done? madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. a number of my colleagues and i are coming to the floor today to discuss critical national security interests that senator kerry has already referenced in his remarks on the floor. it's an issue that requires strong bipartisan action by the u.s. senate. that is the ratification of the

new start treaty. as we enter the last weeks of the 111th congress, there's no doubt that we have some significant work remaining on a number of important priorities. but we have come to the floor today to say that national security and the threat posed by nuclear weapons also requires our urgent consideration this year. after more than 20 senate hearings, more than 31 witness, 900 questions an answers. -- and answers. nearly eight months of thorough consideration, including additional time during the august recess for the senate foreign relations committee to consider the treaty, it is now time to vote on new start. the treaty is squarely in the national security interests of the united states. it reduces the number of nuclear weapons aimed at american cities and allows for the return of critical onsite inspections lost when the previous start treaty expired.

ratifying the treaty would reestablish american leadership on nuclear security and give the united states increased leverage to curb nuclear proliferation around the globe. this treaty in no way interferes with our ability to have a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal. and, in fact, in response to senate concerns, the obama administration has committed unprecedented amounts of money to ensure this modernization piece. just yesterday the three directors of america's nuclear labs wrote in a letter that they were -- quote -- "very pleased with the administration's commitment and believe -- believe this provides -- this commitment provides -- quote -- "adequate support to sustain the safety, security, reliability and effectiveness of america's nuclear deterrent." another concern that has been raised is the effect the news start treaty may have on some of our closest nato allies.

as chair of the senate foreign relations committee, subcommittee on europe, i am intensely focused on meeting our nato security commitments and defending and protecting our allies in nato and beyond. i agree that we need to remain vigilant in support of our allies. especially those in central and eastern europe that border russia and have strong, legitimate security concerns. but a failure to ratify this treaty could result in deteriorating u.s.-russian bilateral relations and adversely affect security of our partners in europe. i was pleased to see just last week at the nato summit in lisbon that all 28 nato allies expressed their unanimous support for senate ratification of the new start treaty. new start is in america's interest and as our allies in europe have stated clearly, new

start is also in their interest. finally, a failure to ratify this treaty could have serious negative effects on our ability to meet the nuclear challenge posed by iran. the failure to rat fight start treat -- ratify the start treaty would -- support an exert increasing pressure on iran. and as we heard senator kerry reference earlier this morning, just today in "the washington post" five former secretaries of state of the past five republican administrations made a compelling case linking this treaty and the threats posed by iran and north korea. the consensus is clear, new start is in our national security interests and we should not wait any longer to ratify this treaty. our military and our intelligence communities do not want us to wait. our allies abroad and countless foreign policy experts,

republican and democrat across the political spectrum, do not want the senate to wait. the american people do not want us to wait. we should follow in the footsteps of the senate's strong bipartisan arms control history and ratify the new start treaty this year. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and to my colleague from pennsylvania, senator casey. mr. casey: thank you. i want to commend my colleague from new hampshire, senator shaheen. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i'm proud to join my colleagues this morning in support of the new start accord. next sunday will mark one year since american inspectors were on the ground in russia. we need to vote on the resolution of ratification for this important treaty because it will, indeed, make america safer. without this atfication of this -- ratification of this treaty, we are less safe and less secure.

we have to maintain what we've always maintained in this country as it relates to our arsenal, a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal. this treaty is consistent with that goal. the agreement provides for predictability, transparency and stability in the u.s.-russian nuclear relationship. former national nuclear security administration administrator linton brooks put it best when he said and i quote -- "transparency leads to predictability. predictability leads to transparency." i'm sorry. "transparency leads to predictability, predictability leads to stability." unquote. it's that stability that we seek. the opportunity to ex inn russian -- that could result

from a lack of information. bill building trust with regard to our respective nuclear arsenal, progress on other important issues like the war in afganistan and our policy as it relates to iran becomes more likely. some have asked whether we lost any valuable elements of the original start treaty's inspection regime. in june of this year i chaired a hearing of the foreign relations committee that addresses this very issue. we examine the implementation of the treaty with result to both inspection and verification and how the treaty would be executed in russia and the united states. critics point out under the original start treaty the united states provided 20 upstart data vehicles. while under new start the united states can inspect 18 facilities annually, not 25. however, in a previous hearing on the new start treaty admiral mullen noted that when start

entered into force, there were 55 russian facilities subject to inspection. but that now there is only 35 russian facilities subject to inspection. i'd also assert that the inspection regime has also changed to reflect the current security environment and enhance relationship with the russian federation and more than a decade of experience in conducting start inspections. the inspection regime is simpler an cheaper than -- and cheaper than what was conducted under the first start treaty. we conduct fewer inspections under this treaty because there are fewer sites to inspect. yet, proportionately, the number of inspections concluded under this treaty has increased, not decreased. during that same hearing dr. james miller, principal

deputy under policy said, that it will verify that russia is reporting the status of strategic forces adequately and complying with the provisions of the new start treaty. inspections will not be shots in the dark. using information provided by requiring data exchanges, notifications, past inspections, and national technical means, we can choose to inspect those facilities of greatest interest to us. and then through short notice on-site inspections, our inspectors can verify that what the russians are reporting accurately reflects reality. unquote. so said the under secretary of defense, mr. miller. madam president, after more than 20 hearings by the senate committees on foreign relations, armed services and intelligence and comprehensive deliberation,

it's time to vote on a new start. we've examined all sides of the issue. we heard from republican and democrats -- republican experts and democrats alike. we've heard from former secretaries of state and experts in international relations. the united states military leadership uniformly supports this treaty. more than 900 questions were submitted from the senate to the administration on a new start, and the administration answered every single question. madam president, i would like to close on an historical note. on october 1, 1992, the first start treaty was ratified by the senate by a vote of 93-6. as the debate on the treaty wrapped up in this room, senate majority leader at the time george mitchell commended president bush for his role in negotiating the agreement. he read a letter from acting

secretary of state laurence eagleburger which encouraged ratification. this expression of bipartisanship at that time was made remarkable by the fact that the senators assembled would soon return home to campaign in the 1992 election. that election was one month away, and democrats and republicans came together and supported ratification. madam president, we all remember the contentious nature of that election just like the period we're living through now. even within that environment, both parties came together to do the right thing for national security. we have to do this again. it's critically important that this treaty be ratified. and with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, it's my privilege to rise today to join with my colleagues from

new hampshire and pennsylvania and colorado in support of the new start treaty, strategic arms reduction treaty. i bring a bit of a personal perspective, a bit of an affection for this issue for this reason. when i was in graduate school, i was studying to take on issues of world economic development, issues of international poverty. i had worked in latin america. i had worked in india. i traveled through central america. i spent some time in west africa, and i thought that global policy was a very important issue that could be worth investing my career in. but as i came out of graduate school, i had an opportunity to switch tracks and work on nuclear issues as a presidential fellow for caspar wineberger in

the reagan administration. this was a complete change of direction and one i didn't anticipate. but i went through that door and worked on strategic issues because the greatest threat to our planet was a successful management of nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, an enormous threat that needed to be smartly managed. and i felt that engaging in that discussion, being part of that effort was a very, very valuable thing in which to put my energy. and so i spent two years in the pentagon working on strategic nuclear issues and then worked for congress in the congressional budget office as a strategic nuclear policy analyst during the 1980's.

and it gave me a bit of a closeup view and a view particularly of the reagan administration working with me cal -- mikhail gosh -- mikhail gorbachev and reagan on these issues. back then we worked on the zero-zero option, and it created intrusive inspection regimes to ensure that both nations were complying with the treaty. and that, of course, was the hallmark of reagan's philosophy that we -- quote -- "trust but verify." more than the specifics of that treaty, i want to note that it passed 93-5.

that treaty, like most strategic arms treaties, have passed with wide bipartisan support. because when it comes to the safety of our nation, when it comes to minimizing the threat of nuclear devastation, we have set aside red and blue. we have set aside republican and democrat and done what is right for our nation. and certainly the threat involving nuclear weapons is as serious today as it was in 1987, when president reagan signed the i.m.f. treaty or when it was ratified in 1988. now the senate must decide whether to ratify the new start treaty. new start limits the united states and russia to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, a significant reduction from the

2002 moscow treaty. it limits both parties to 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles. these reductions continue to reduce both nations' oversized nuclear arsenals, a dangerous legacy of the cold war. while allowing the u.s. military to preserve a flexible strategic deterrent. the new treaty reinforces the united states' global leadership in nonproliferation. verification is a key element in new start, consistent with president reagan's philosophy of trust but verify. with the expiration of start 1 a year ago, u.s. officials have been without their ability to conduct on-site inspections in russia for the first time in a

decade and a half, and that increases the nuclear threat. the new treaty allows both parties to verify compliance through data exchanges, through on-site inspections and through reconnaissance satellites. both countries must maintain a data base listing the types and locations of all accountable warheads and delivery vehicles. each delivery vehicle is assigned a unique identifier which is used to track it from the moment of production through its various deployments through dismantlement. u.s. inspectors can verify using short notice on-site inspections. this treaty is critical in safe tkpwaurgt nuclear -- safeguarding nuclear material and critical for our relationship with russia and our authority on nuclear issues. let me quote one expert. "the principal result of nonratification would be to throw the whole nuclear

negotiation into a state of chaos." that quote comes from general brent scowcroft. it was first president bush's national security advisor. or let's listen to this expert, "a rejection would indicate that a new period of american policy had started that might rely largely on unilateral reliance on nuclear weapons, therefore create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of adversaries and a hraoeufplts it would have -- allies. it would have an unsettling impact on the environment." that's dr. henry kissinger. today we have an article in "the washington post" "why new start deserves g.o.p. support." this is written by dr. kissinger, george shultz, james baker iii, laurence eagleburger and colin powell. these are secretaries of state for the last five republican

presidents. joining together in a detailed analysis of the new start and why the u.s. senate should ratify this treaty. now there are some who may say it's not an issue of the substance but rather we just need more time to consider the provisions. consider this: the treaty was signed on april 8 of this year. the treaty went through extensive and thorough hearings and briefings on the foreign relations committee. the committee favorably reported it out with bipartisan support september 16. in the 34 weeks since the treaty was signed and the 10 weeks since it was reported from the committee on foreign relations, every member of our body has had an opportunity to read the testimony, to explore the content, to consult with the

experts, to consult with the administration and to reach a conclusion. in fact, we have had more opportunity to review this treaty than the 100th congress did for the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty under ronald reagan. finally, i think it's useful to hear president reagan's thoughts on nuclear weapons. in 1985 he said this: "there is only one way safely legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. and this we are trying to do in negotiations with the soviet union. we're not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. we seek instead to reduce their number. we seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth." well, this treaty does not eliminate nuclear weapons, but it does reduce them and it does,

in the eyes of expert after expert after expert, democratic experts and republican experts, make our nation more secure so there can be no better reason to ratify it as soon as possible. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: madam president, i rise today to support timely ratification of the new strategic arms reduction treaty, often called new start. new start accomplishes critical goals for our national security. it reduces russia's deployed nuclear warhead stockpile by 30%. it reduces the number of deployed and nondeployed launchers to 800. and it limits the number of deployed missiles and bombers to 700, fewer than half of the number of the original start treaty. it also establishes a stronger system of on-site inspections, allowing us to physically count

individual warheads. this is the safest way to ensure that we have an accurate understanding of russia's nuclear weapons force. nevertheless, the senate has failed to take action on what should be noncontroversial, a treaty with bipartisan support that will make our country safer. today i'd like to talk about the consequences if we fail to ratify new start. right now with no treaty in place, our country has virtually no ability to monitor russia's nuclear weapons. the previous start treaty expired on december 5, 2009, almost a year ago today. since that time, our inspectors have been shut out of russia's facilities. we've been making national security decisions in the dark. by contrast, the comprehensive verification system proposed under new start allows our military to make better, safer decisions about our national security. without these verification measures in place, we'll lose track of russia's nuclear

arsenal. we will spend more money to obtain less reliable information. delaying ratification makes no sense for our national security or for this nation's wallet. failure to ratify new start does not just undermine our short-term national security interests. it weakens our long-term relationship with russia and countries all around the world. in a post-9/11 world, strong relationships and shared intelligence have never been more critical as we defend against emerging threats. we rely on russia's support to help us contain one of the biggest threats to our national security and to the world's security, iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon. in fact, earlier this year the united states brokered an agreement with russia and china that imposes new u.n. sanctions against iran to limit its weapons production. our failure to move forward on new start would make these efforts more difficult. the goal of preventing iran from

obtaining nuclear weapons requires a solid u.s.-russia relationship. and that relationship begins with new start. we have had ample time to study the treaty, 20 formal hearings, countless briefings, 900 questions submitted for the record. all senators have had time to register concerns. and the experts, the experts, both republicans and democrats, tell us that it's time to ratify the treaty. in fact, lieutenant general brent scowcroft, national security advisor for presidents ford and george h.w. bush has said the principal result of nonratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating system into a state of chaos. he is not alone in this considered view. the presiding officer: senator, the time for the majority has expired. a senator: may i ask unanimous consent to extend our time to 10:20 and to then allow for five minutes for the republicans at

the other side of their time? the presiding officer: is there an objection? the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i thank the senator from new hampshire and i will wrap-up in the next couple of mention. he's not alone in this considered view, madam president. listen to the bipartisan wisdom calling on the senate to ratify the treaty. george shuts, ken baker, madeliene albright, former defense sects, jim schlesinger, bill cohen, former national security advisers, brent scowcroft, stephen hadley and sandy berger, patriots all, committed public servants who take it as a public faith that partisanship ends at our water's edge as do most coloradans and americans. and when it comes to start, i believe the senate will as well. president reagan began to negotiate the first start treaty

in 1982 right in the middle of a cold war. even today all these years later, we remember reagan's brilliant phrase, trust but verify. many believed the cold war would never end. so much has changed since the equal -- fall of the soviet union, the integration of our global economy and the realization when one economy falls, all are in danger. mr. bennet: madam president, as you know, eye finish add long -- i finished a long and tough campaign. coloradans are patriots before they're partisans, they're parents before they're republicans and democrats, and their neighbors before they're foes. we need to respond and the senate should ratify new start now. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me join my colleagues who have taken the floor this morning and urge the timely ratification of the start

treaty. we have now been one year without a comprehensive verification regime to understand russia's strategic nuclear forces. since the end of the cold war, we've had a verification system in place because we need to know what russia is doing. we're at risk by not having a comprehensive verification regime in place. the ratification of new start will allow us to have that verification system in place and it's in our national security interest. we have had plenty of opportunity to understand exactly what's involved in the new start treaty. seven months the united states senate has been considering the ratification. we've had over 20 hearings. i'm honored to serve on the senate foreign relations committee and we've had numerous hearings and opportunities both

in closed sessions and in open sessions to understand exactly why this ratification is in the united states' security interest. i point out this is new start. we already had a strategic arms reduction treaty with russia that expired at the end of last year. that treaty was ratified by a prior vote of 93-6. so we have great interest. we know what's involved and we've had strong bipartisan support for the ratification of start. the u.s. needs transparency to know what russia is doing and to provide confidence and stability. we need that confidence and staishty to contribute to a -- stability to contribute to a safer world. the ratification of new start allows the united states to continue to be in the leadership internationally not only to deal with arms reductionings, but also to deal with nonproliferation issues. that's particularly important today as we get international support to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

rush has helped us in that -- russia has helped us in that regard, the ratification of this treaty is a movement toward limiting iran's nuclear ambitions. the bipartisan leadership supports this ratification. i urge my colleagues to ratify new start. it's in our national security interest. with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. vit i have thank you, madam president -- mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. i was truly disappointed to learn that senator reid would bring up a new proposal known as the dream act. the dream act will provide a powerful incentive for more illegal immigration by granting amnesty to millions of illegal ailens. the bill, which is unaffordable

to taxpayers in many different ways is a bad idea and comes at the worst possible time. now, as i've recently -- now there are plenty of different versions of the dream act on the legislative calendar wit with different parts and different provisions. they'll all have the same core which is amnesty for a significant number of illegal ailens. also with that amnesty would come a very significant taxpayer-funded benefits for these folks including in-state college tuition. in these difficult economic times it's an insult to legal tax paying citizens that president obama and his allies in the senate want to use their hard-earned money to pay for educational benefits for illegal ailens. the struggling economy has increased the demand for enrollment in public universities as a growing number of families are unable to afford

other education at a time when many americans can't afford to send their own children to college, this bill would clearly allow the government to provide federal student loans to illegal ailens who displace legal residents competing for taxpayer subsidies. i'm opposed to this proposal because it would unfairly place american citizens in direct competition for illegal ailens for scrace slots in -- in classes at state colleges. the number of those coveted seats is absolutely fixed. so every illegal alien who would be admitted as a result of the dream act would take the place of an american citizen or someone legally in our country. it makes no sense to authorize federal and state subsidies for the education of illegal ailens when our state schools are suffering as higher education budgets are being slashed,

admissions curtailed, divisions increased. enactment of the dream act would be bad policy under any circumstances, but in the current economic climate it would be a catastrophe for states facing already strained budgets. the dream act will grant amnesty to millions of illegal ailens who entered the u.s. as minors and meet loosely defined -- quote -- "educational requirements." specifically the bill grants immediate legal status to illegal ailens who have merely enrolled in ininstitutions of higher education or received a high school degree or diploma. the bill's sponsors say several things to try to mitigate this basic fact. but it doesn't. they describe the beneficiaries in this legislation as about kids and boys and girls. in reality the dream act allows illegal ailens up to the age of 30 to be eligible to receive amnesty and qualify for federal

student loans. second, harry reid and the proponents argue this version of the dream act has been narrowly tailored. i don't believe that americans would be convinced dropping the age of eligibility from 25 to -- 35 to 30 changes anything at its core. the new and improved dream act requires that illegal ailens seeking relief undergo a background check and submit biometric date taivment doesn't change the core of the bill which is about amnesty for millions of illegal ailens, thereby putting them in a position to compete for important taxpayer-funded benefits with american citizens. furthermore, the new version of the dream act expands the waiver authority of the secretary of homeland security thereby negating any additional requirements for eligibility.

the bar for eligibility is already set extremely low, but even what little is required can be waived whenever that secretary decides to do so. madam president, the american people have made it very clear, crystal clear, that they want to see the government fulfill its responsibility to enforce the laws and to take steps to control illegal immigration. not to reward bad behavior with amnesty and taxpayer-funded benefits. amnesty and economic incentives only encourage more illegal immigration and lawlessness. this is certainly not the answer to our current ongoing immigration crisis and will only worsen our economic rice crisis -- crisis. i'm outraged any elected lawmaker would consider this proposal particularly now, particularly when our states and fellow citizens are struggling to deal with economic hardship

and budget cuts. the dream act also includes no cap on the number of those who will be eligible to receive this amnesty. the economic ramifications would be profound and are simply unacceptable. finally -- finally, there is absolutely no pay-for in this legislation while it is beyond argument that the act will increase costs on the federal taxpayer. so bottom line, this bill is absolutely increasing the federal deficit and the federal debt. we don't know by exactly how much. to help answer that question, i am writing the congressional budget office today and asking for an immediate score of the newest version of the dream act. whatever the number is -- and it's important that we get that number -- let me underscore that it is beyond debate that there is significant cost to this bill without any pay-fors.

that means the dream act will also increase the federal deficit and the federal debt. as chairman of the board of security caucus, i will be fighting this measure every step of the way, doing everything i can to stop what is clearly at its core an amnesty proposal and i invite all members of the senate, republicans and democrats, to listen to the american people who have been speaking about this loud and clear and to heed their call. say no to amnesty and turn to what should be our clear priority which is enforcing the laws on the books, enforcing the clear laws against illegal immigration. thank you, madam president. and, with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:# quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. a senator: thank you, madam president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: may i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i see my distinguished colleague from wyoming here on the floor. i would like to make a few remarks about the social security cola. the presiding officer: there's no time remaining with the majority at this moment. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. and at the end of my remarks, i will propound a unanimous consent request that the minority party sae wear is coming -- is aware is coming. and i wanted to -- let me find the language of the request. i want to make sure i get that

rhode island -- i get that right. thank you. i travel around, madam president, my state pretty often, and when i do i hear a lot in rhode island about the sacrifices that people have had to make during for our state, very difficult economic times. we're still over 11% unemployment. many of my constituents have adjusted to this difficult economic climate by cutting back on extras and finding savings in their personal lives wherever they can. but for our seniors -- and rhode island has a very big population of seniors -- who live on a limited budget, simply cutting back is a very, very harsh option for them. in 2008, rhode island seniors on

social security received an average monthly payment of about $1,100. $1,100 a month is not a lot to live on, particularly in the northeast. i've heard from seniors who worry about keeping the heat on in their homes because oil prices are so high. i've heard from seniors who have to split pills or skip doses because their prescription costs are so high. and i'm hearing this from people who have worked hard all their lives, who paid into the system throughout their careers and who believed that they would be able to grow old comfortably. and instead many of them are really just scraping by on their social security benefits and the benefits often no longer cover their daily living expenses. so for people in this situation, every penny counts. this past year, for the first

time since 1975, social security recipients in rhode island and in new york and elsewhere did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or cola. and it appears they will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or cola in 2011 either. these adjustments are dictated by a formula tide to inflation. i know inflation has been stagnant oert last two years. the formula that drives the cost of living adjustment does not presently provide for the cost of living adjustment that seniors need. this is a misfire in the cost-of-living calculation because it's based on a market basket that includes things seniors don't buy a lot of, and it doesn't put adequate weight on heat and oil and energy and

prescriptions and medical device and things that seniors do spend a lot of money on. it also overlooks people like chuck, who is a 67-year-old retiree from north providence, rhode island, who wrote to me recently to express his concern that his monthly social security income will be frozen at its current level for yet another year. he wrote that regardless of what the cola formula concludes, his cost of living continues to rise. chuck says prices have risen at the supermarkets. medications have also increased in co-payments. today i'm paying more and getting less for the dollar. madam president, i believe that chuck speaks for many american seniors when he expresses concern about the lack of an increase in social security payments. so today i rise in support of the emergency senior citizens relief act introduced by my

colleague, senator sanders of vermont. this bill would help ease the strain on the budgets of our seniors by providing a special onetime payment in 2011 of $250 to all social security recipients. in effect, it would be a cola replacement. although a $250 cola replacement may not sound like much money, for those on a limited budget, the extra financial assistance provides a little extra peace of mind amid skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs. and for seniors in new england, the payment can help keep the heat on through the approaching winter. and this assistance would not be unprecedented. while this was the first year in decades that seniors did not receive a cola, we have taken steps in recent years to provide special help to seniors and to disabled americans struggling through this recession. in 2008, i worked very hard with my colleagues to secure a $300

rebate for seniors and ssdi recipients in that year's economic stimulus act. and in 2009, we again worked to make sure that the american recovery and reinvestment act included a onetime $250 payment to seniors and ssdi recipients. we now have the chance to once again lend that helping hand to our seniors. passing this bill would be the right thing to do for seniors, obviously, but it's also a good thing to do for our struggling economy. in rhode island, for example, the payments would inject more than $51 million into our economy, money that would quickly be spent on essential items like food and medicine. madam president, as i said at the beginning, rhode island is hurting. unemployment stands at 11.4%. gas is now more than $3 per gallon. and our seniors face yet another year of frozen social security

payments. by passing the emergency senior citizens relief act, we can show our seniors that they are not forgotten and in turn provide a valuable boost to the local grocery stores, pharmacies and shopping centers that remain such an integral part of our local economy. i urge my colleagues to join me in standing by our nation's seniors and to support the emergency senior citizens relief act. and in that regard, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged of s. 3976, which is the emergency senior citizens relief act of 2010 that i have been discussing, that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that there be four hours of debate with respect to the bill divided and

controlled by senator sanders and the republican leader or his designee, and that no amendments or motions be in order during the pendency of this agreement. that upon use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill. the presiding officer: there an objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator -- the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, reserving the right to object. would the senator agree to include an amendment that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent federal funds, the text of which i have at the desk? mr. whitehouse: at the moment, the unanimous consent that i have propounded is the one that has been cleared with the floor managers on both sides and i would stick to what has been

cleared. i am happy to discuss with colleagues on the other side how this can be paid for, but i cannot help but note that colleagues on the other side do not share their concern for the payment and paygo side of the equation when it comes to the tax cuts for people making many, many millions of dollars a year that we are trying to get exempted as we try to get tax relief to the middle class. it would be hard for me to hold seniors getting a $250 one-time benefit in a time when the cola has misfired and they're getting no cola benefit despite their

costs going up and at the same time be asked to agree to hundreds of thousands of dollars per millionaire in some cases in tax relief that is not paid for and i think that we should hold, if -- if anything the seniors should be held to a lower standard than the multimillionaires where the tax benefit would amount to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. i appreciate my colleague's very legitimate concern about the cost that this would provide. i would submit that we are still, at least in my state in the stage in the recovery where we continue to need to revive the economy that this will be very beneficial to our country in terms of its economic recovery and that it would be unfair to hold seniors to a different standard for this $250 cola replacement at a -- at a

harsher standard than we would hold our multimillionaires to for hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax relief. so i stand by the request as propounded for unanimous consent. mr. barrasso: madam president -- the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. barrasso: madam president, reserving the right to object. i note on today's front page of "u.s.a. today", jobless data could break the 1980's record. not since the 1980's has the nation's unemployment rate been so grim for so long. a government report due friday is likely to show. it shows that the chronic level of high unemployment whose that many americans are still suffering even though the government, the into your bureau on economic research, has said that the recession has officially ended. the people of this country know what is happening in their own communities and their own states and doesn't need to be told different things by government when they know the reality in which they are living.

i heard from my distinguished colleague some concerns that we all share about the economy and what best way to stimulate economic growth. and i believe, members on my side of the aisle, is that one of the things you do is you don't raise taxes on anyone in this country during these economic times. we are unanimous on this side of the aisle in that position. but, madam president, listening to -- to my colleague, there are now actually a growing chorus of members from that side of the aisle that are agree with me including the two newest members of the senate from the other side of the aisle who have come here and -- the distinguished senator from west virginia, the one from delaware. the one from west virginia while running for the senate said, i wouldn't raise any taxes, referring to the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire come -- come the end of this year. the senator-elect and newly

sworn in from delaware in terms of tax cuts, he said, i would extend them for everyone. so there is a growing chorus on the twice give this economy and the job-creating segment of this economy some certainty. so they can then make the investments, make the decisions, hire the people to try to do that. so it -- we are unanimous in -- in our support for not raising taxes on anyone during economic times like these and a growing chorus and then as a result, madam president, i object. mr. whitehouse: i appreciate the senator's objection. i would respond by saying that even if we assume that the right answer at this point is to raise -- is to continue a massive tax cut for people who

make -- i think it was recently reported that the 400 biggest income earners in the country earned an average each o of $344 million. a third of a trillion -- a third of a billion dollars year. and so the tax cuts for people like that create a very, very significant cost to the country. and i understand that it is the senator's theory that this is to our economic benefit, but, clearly, there's a very high cost in our deficit to going down that path. and my motivation in offering this unanimous consent is that our seniors who will spend th

the $2,501-time -- $250 one-time payment who every economist who has studied the economic effect of these different type of expenditures agrees would be far more beneficial if it were th the $250 payment on behalf of seniors than it would be when the highest-end people get these massive tax refunds and benefi benefits. the -- and benefits. that it would be fair to treat seniors the same way. and so i regret that we face this objection and i think the objection is inconsistent in the sense that you are holding with this objection seniors to a

higher standard, a harsher standard than you are holding millionaires and billionaires to. everybody knows about the marg marginal utility of money, for a senior $250 at christmas whether it is for presents to their grandchildren, that is very important funding, not just from a humanitarian point of view, it gets plow right back into the economy, it goes into the local toy store, local grocery store, to the local pharmacy. it gets put right to work. i don't know what happens when somebody making $344 million a year gets a million dollar tax break. the presiding officer: senator, you've consumed your time. mr. whitehouse: in that case, i will yield the floor and i thank

the presiding officer for her sert cacourtesy. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. in response to my colleague from rhode island, despite over a $13 trillion in existing debts that we can't pay back, the democrats are back with another proposal to add anothe another $13 billion to the deficit. add to the growing deficit. and this one isn't even a new proposal. it's a proposal already rejected by 50 senators, including 11 members from across the aisle a number of months ago. if we are going to attempt to help those seniors, to help the seniors that have been mentioned by my colleague, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. so i support -- i absolutely support helping the seniors that are having a hard time. i just propose that we pay for it. and that's why i offered the --

the amendment to -- to the proposal from the senator from rhode island that would, in fact, just pay for it. simple as that. i propose that instead of piling money -- debt on top of our massive debt, what i offered was to cut an appropriate amount from other preparation to help them find money to pay for this one. mr. whitehouse: would the senator yield for a question? mr. barrasso: yes, madam president, i would. mr. whitehouse: would the senator, question through the chair, would the senator explain why it is that when it comes to the deficit it's more important to protect our national debt than it is to help our seniors, but it's less important to help our deficit and our debt than it

is to give tax breaks to multimultimillionaires. as i said the highest income earners the i.r.s. said made more than $1 million each on average. it seems that it is of national concern that should apply equally to millionaires and -- i mean multi, ultra millionaires than to seniors trying get by on social security. i don't see why the deficit matters so much when it comes to depriving our snor our seniors a benefit, but doesn't when it comes to people who have yachts, several homes that most billionaires have come forward

and said they don't want or need. that it is unpatriotic from their perspective to not be asked to contribute more. mr. barrasso: madam president, thank you. the way that i propose to pay for this, to help those that have those needs is a proposal that is very familiar to this body and it is because 21 of my democratic colleagues voted in favor of this way to pay for something earlier this week when this same pay for was attached to an amendment from my colleague, senator johanns, from nebraska that would have repealed an unfortunate paperwork mandate in the health care law. and i'd be happy to list all of the senators who voted for this. so i'm sorry that my friend across the aisle isn't joining me in supporting this fiscally responsible support for our seniors. but, as i say, on the issue of stimulating the economy and

giving some certainty in this nation to those job creators, the republicans are united, 42 of us, you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone during economic times like these. and the chorus of democrats who support that continues to grow. and it grew this past week from -- from five members of the democrat conference to seven with the swearing in of senator coons of delaware and senator manchin of west virginia. senator kent conrad said that the general rule of thumb is you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. he said that would be counterproductive. he says do not raise taxes during an economic downturn. seven evan bayh said that raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy.

senator jim webb, democrat from virginia, said, i don't think they ought to be drawing a distinction at a certain dollar number. senator ben nelson of nebraska said, i support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until nebraska's and the nation's economy is in better shape and perhaps longer. he said because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery. senator joe lieberman, connecticut, said, i don't think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through. and then, of course, senator coons, i would extend them, the tax cuts, for everyone. and senator manchin, then-governor of west virginia, said i wouldn't raise any taxes. so at a time with 9.6% unemployment, at a time when our nation continues to struggle economically, at a time people are looking for work, wanting to work, looking for jobs, the

job-creating sector of this country needs some certainty. and with the mandates of the health care law which are expensive, the environmental mandates coming from the environmental protection agency with their rules and regulations, impacting on the cost of energy, and then the uncertainty, the significant uncertainty that exists in this country as to what tax rates will be and how that is going to impact all taxpayers with their take-home pay come january 1, it is no surprise that people are concerned and reluctant to make commitments, long-term commitments and investments in businesses and in the future, and that is why i stand here to object to my colleague from rhode island when he makes a proposal which there is support for but is unpaid for. we just need to pay for it, and i bring to the senate floor a responsible way in which to pay for it and which he has

rejected. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, are we in a period of morning business? the presiding officer: we are still in morning business. however, the time remaining is still controlled by the -- there is ten minutes remaining, and it's controlled by the minority. would you like to ask unanimous consent? mr. dorgan: in that case, i would yield to the minority to use the ten minutes, and i will seek recognition following ten minutes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: it seems like every few weeks or so that there are a lot of misleading and misinformed accusations launched at our nation's renewable fuels producers. it's impossible to come to the senate floor and respond to all of them, but sometimes the claims are so outrageous that they require an informed

response, so i'm here to give that response with emphasis upon the words informed. earlier this week, a number of my colleagues here in the senate, including a few of my fellow republicans, sent a letter to the majority and minority leaders expressing their opposition to extending the tax incentives for home-grown ethanol. home grown means that we're less dependent upon people like dictator chavez and our oil sheiks. my colleagues argued that the tax incentive for the production of clean home-grown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. they express their support for allowing the 45-cent-per-gallon credit for ethanol use to expire. it's important to remember that

the incentive exists to help the producers of ethanol compete with the big oil industry, and remember the big oil industry has been well supported by the federal treasury for more than a whole century. many of the republican senators who signed on to that letter have also been leading the effort to ensure that no american sees their taxes go up on january 1, 2011, which will happen automatically if we don't do something this very month. the largest tax increase in the history of the country can happen without even a vote of the congress because of the sunsetting law. and, of course, in that regard, i support the position of my republican colleagues. but a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase that will surely be passed on to the

american consumer. i'd like to remind my colleagues of a debate that we had earlier this year on an amendment offered by senator sanders. the amendment that he offered would have, among other things, repealed the $35 billion in tax subsidies enjoyed by oil and gas. opponents of the sanders amendment argued that repealing the oil and gas subsidies would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence upon foreign oil. now, opponents to the sanders amendment argued that it would cost u.s. jobs and increase price at the purpose for consumers. now, i agreed with the arguments of the opponents. all of my republican colleagues and more than one-third of the democrats did as well. thus, senator sanders' amendment was defeated.

that majority against the sanders amendment knew that if you tax something, you get less of it. repealing incentives on ethanol would have the very same result. well, guess what? i know that removing incentives for oil and gas will have the same impact as removing incentives for ethanol. we'll get less domestically produced ethanol and be more dependent upon those oil sheiks. but it will also cost u.s. jobs. it will increase our dependence on foreign oil. it will increase prices at the purpose for american consumers. so whether it's jobs or increased dependence or increasing the price of gas, no american would like that to be the result.

madam president, we're already dependent on foreign sources for more than 60% of our oil needs. we spend $730 million a day on imported oil. that money is leaving america to the middle east nutty dictators like chavez. why do my colleagues want to increase our foreign energy dependence when we can produce that energy right here at home? so i'd like to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing oil and gas subsidies what support repealing incentives for renewable fuels, how do you reconcile such inconsistency? the fact is it's intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified but is irresponsible to do so on oil and gas

production. if tax incentives lead to more guess energy production and the resultant good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas important but not for domestically produced renewable fuels? it's even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old ethanol industry is mature and thus no longer needs the support that they get, while the century-old big oil industry still receives $35 billion in taxpayers' support. regardless, i don't believe we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly during a recession. allowing the ethanol tax incentive to expire will raise taxes on producers, blenders and

ultimately consumers of renewable fuel. a lapse in the ethanol tax incentive is a gas tax increase of over five cents a gallon at the purpose. i just don't see the logic in arguing for a gas tax increase when we have so many americans unemployed or underemployed and struggling just to get by. on tuesday this week, all of my republican colleagues and i signed a letter to majority leader reid stating that preventing a tax increase, meaning mostly income tax increases, and providing economic certainty should be our top priority in the remaining days of this congress. i know that we all agree that we cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during a recession. unfortunately, those members who have called for ending the ethanol incentive have directly contradicted this pledge because a lapse in the credit will raise taxes, costing over 100,000 u.s.

jobs at a time of near 10% unemployment. the taxpayer watchdog group, americans for tax reform, considers the lapse of an existing tax credit for ethanol to be a tax hike. now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the american people. now is not the time to send pink slips to more than 100,000 ethanol-related jobs. a year ago at this time, i came to the senate floor to imemployer the democratic -- implore the democratic leadership to take action to extend expiring tax incentives for the biodiesel industry. they failed in their responsibility to extend that incentive and provide support for an important renewable industry, so while 23,000 american jobs were supported on december 31 last year, nearly all those jobs have disappeared. an industry with a capacity to produce more than two billion gallons of renewable fuel a year is on track to produce less than

20% of that capacity this year. ethanol currently accounts for 10% of our transportation fuel. a study concluded that the ethanol industry contributed 8.4% to the federal treasury in 2009, 3.4% more than the ethanol incentive. today the industry supports 400,000 u.s. jobs. that's why i support a home-grown renewable fuels industry, as i know the obama administration does as well. i would encourage anyone who is unclear on the administration's position to contact agriculture secretary vilsack. i'd like to conclude by asking my colleagues if we allow the tax incentive to lapse from where we -- from where should we import an additional 10% petroleum? should we rely on middle east oil sheiks or hugo chavez? i would prefer to support a renewable futures based right here at home rather than send

them a pink slip. i would prefer to decrease our dependence on hugo chavez, not increase it, and i certainly don't want to support raising the tax on gasoline during recession. i would respectfully ask my colleagues to reconsider their support for this job-killing gas tax increase. i yield the floor. mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, i would support the comments from my colleague from iowa on the importance of ethanol and the tax incentives and the ability to try to make us less dependent on foreign oil and produce more renewable energy here in our country, so i appreciate the statement he has just made. i -- i want to talk about the start treaty and the importance of it, but i can't help but respond at least a bit to some of the discussion that occurred as i walked on the floor about the so-called tax cuts or the extension of the tax cuts. what is going to confound a lot

of people who look back in history, perhaps historians who in a review mirror look back 100 years or 50 years, what's going to confound them about this time, this place and these people, all of us, is what we did that seemed so irrational, because particularly economic models have done what economic historians, economic models are based on rational expectations. they create a model based on what would you do rationally? now, here's what they're going to see at this moment. they will see a country that is at war halfway around the world. they will see a country with a a $13 trillion debt, a $1.3 trillion annual deficit. and what is the debate? tax cuts that existed in 2001 through legislation that i voted against, tax cuts that extended and were set to expire this year would cost $4 trillion in the

coming ten years to extend. with a $13 trillion debt, we have people come to the floor of the senate and say we want to deal with this debt, and then on the other side of the ledger, they say and we want to extend all the tax cuts. that's another way of saying we want to take the $13 trillion federal debt to $17 trillion federal debt. and, you know, historians are going to say i thought there was some notion of rational expectations here. what's rational about a country up to its neck in debt deciding we're going to extend tax cuts even to the wealthiest americans? those that make a million dollars a year shall be given given $104,000 a year tax cut. why? because the minority is insisting upon it. even though just that piece of it above $250,000 a year in income, even though just that one piece will add $1 trillion. that's the cost plus the

interest to the federal debt. it is unbelievable, you know. the so-called little guy, you know, the people out there that are working for a living and struggling, some of them lost their jobs, some lost their home, some lost hope, they're asking well, what about me? why is it there is such energy here to stand up for those that are making millions of dollars? a guy named barney smith asked the question from marion, ohio. barney smith lost his job, a job he says now is being performed by someone overseas. barney smith said when are you all going to treat barney smith like you treat smith barney? p pretty decent question. who's on the floods floor standing up for the interests of the barney smiths? i hope perhaps in the coming days there will be some rational expectations coming from this

deliberative body, and that rational expectation should not include cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans at a time when america is at war. this morning, early in the morning, perhaps at 6:00 a.m., our soldiers were called out of bed, halfway around the world, strapped on ceramic body armor, loaded their weapons and went out on patrol. they'll be shot at today halfway around the world, and we are told our responsibility is to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i just want to read one comment, if i might, from franklin delano roosevelt because i don't see a notion in this country of self-sacrifice in order to reach common goals and reach the common purpose of this country's destiny. here's what franklin delano roosevelt said when we were at war then. "not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our enemies in distant parts of the world. not all of us can have the

privilege of working in a munitions factory or a shipyard or on farms or oilfields to produce the weapons and raw materials that are needed by our armed forces. but there is one front and one battle where everyone in this country, every man, every woman and child in action: that front is here at home in our daily lives and daily tasks. here at home, everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men and women but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure." that isn't just for soldiers, that sacrifice for country. it's for all of us. and it is distressing to me to see -- and i've seen it too obvious, that the seriousness is treated too lightly and the light is treated -- we know this country is at war. we owe it to this country to do better and to try to steer this

country towards better times. now, madam president, in another section of the record i hope, i'd like to speak about the start treaty, which is what i came to speak about. i wanted to say first of all, this issue of a start treaty, while on the front pages in the last few day, is not front-page news generally but it is so unbelievably important. first i want to compliment senator kerry, senator lugar and others who have worked on thisment. i was part of the national security working group. we had briefings, many briefings during the negotiations with the russians. i want to tell you why i think this is so important. by the way, i chair the appropriations subcommittee that funds our nuclear weapons, and i've stood next to nuclear weapons, know a lot about nuclear weapons, know about the horror of these weapons, as do almost all americans. let me describe for a moment how many nuclear warheads we have in this world.

this is the union of concerned scientists that mated estimate in 2010. they said that russia has about 15,000 nuclear weapons, the united states, about 9,4 i 00 nuclear weapons, china 240, france 300, britain 200, and you can see is israel israel 80. these are expected nuclear weapons around the planet. that's somewhere around 25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. the loss or explosion of which in a city by a terrorist group will change life on this planet for every. and so the question is, what are we doing now to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent terrorists and rogue nations from acquiring nuclear weapons and then reducing the number of nuclear weapons on this planet? what are we doing? i've told the story, and i will again -- i know it is repetitive -- of the c.i.a. agent called dragon fire who one month to the

day, october 11, 2001, reported to his superiors that there was evidence that a russia 10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen and struggled into nenew york city by a terrorist group. and that was one month after 9/11 exactly when dragonfire provided that piece of evidence. to the intelligence community. and for a month or two months there was an apoplectic seizure in the intelligence community with the administration trying to figure out how do you deal with this. in one in new york was informed, not even the mayor. it was then later discovered that this was not a credible piece of intelligence, and everyone breathed easier. but but as they did the post-mortem, they understood that it would have been possible to perhaps believed a terrorist group would have stole an low-yield russian nuclear weapon t would have been possible for them to have stoleton to have

smuggled it into a major city, new york or washington, and possible for a terrorist group to have detonated it. that's one nuclear weapon. there are 25,000 on this planet. this morning on the way to work on the radio i heard a description about the nuclear weapons that are supposed by the country of pakistan, and the question by some people who know a lot about this, about whether there is an impossibility of someone from al qaeda or the taliban from intill traiting the structure by which -- infiltrating the structure impi which there is security for the nuclear weapons in pakistan. an open question. earlier this year i was in moscow about an hour and a half outside of moscow to a training facility that we have helped fund in russia to train for the security for russian nuclear weapons. it is in all of our interests, it is in the interest of the future of mankind for us to understand the urgency to

prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to stop rogue nations and terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons and finally at last to begin reducing substantially the number of nuclear weapons. that's what tbrois this issue called a start -- that's what brings us to this issue called a start treaty. let me say that i don't denigrate anyone or suggest that anyone who raises questions about this is uninformed. that is not the case. all of us, i think, want what is best for this country and for the world. we want to have arms reductions treaties and weapons reductions in a way that is verifiable and that will strengthen this world's security. there have been a lot of questions asked. a lot of them have been answered. it is my hope that all of us that have been interested in this -- that's republicans and democrats alike -- will find ways to come together and pass this start treaty. i -- if i might describe the unbelievable success that we know occurs from this kind of

activity. we don't have to test this. we know it works. the nunn-lugar program, which has been around for some while, we actually fund the activities to destroy weapons that previously were aimed at the united states. albania is now chemical-weapons free. the ukraine, kazakhstan, byelarus have no nuclear weapons any longer. 7,500 nuclear warheads have been deactivated. 32 ballistic missile submarines, 1400 long-range nuclear missiles, 15 nuclear bombers. i want to again say that i have in my desk a piece of wing from a backfirebomber, and we didn't shoot this down. this is a backfire bomber if -- i ask unanimous consent to show it. this is a backfirebomber that as a result of nunn-lugar we sawed

the wings off. how is it that i stand on the floor of the senate with the piece of a bomber that used to carry nuclear weapons threatening to destroy this country? well, i do that because we know these work. in the ukraine i say it is nuclear-freevment this is a hinge from a silo that contained a nuclear weapon -- tipped nuclear weapon aimed at the united states of america. well, this piece from a sigh slow containing an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead aimed at america, that silo doesn't exist. the nuclear weapon is gong. the missile is gone. and there are now sunflower seeds planted there. i tell you we understand what works. arms negotiations, arms treaties in which we've tried to reduce delivery vehicles and reduce nuclear weapons, we know it works. i've just described the nunn-lugar program. let me just show a couple photographs of the nunn-lugar

program. typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine that carried nuclear weapons. wified have it taken apart. i have the copper wiring from this submarine in my desk reminding all of us again that this works. we didn't have to destroy this submarine with a weapon under the sea in hostile action. geecialted a treaty. this describes an ss-18 missile silo in the ukraine. you can see they planted dynamite and blew the silo up because we agreed with the russians that we were going to reduce nuclear weapons, reduce delivery vehicles and that silo is now gone and sunflower seeds are planted where a missile pleefl had been planted. here is the photograph of a black -- this is a blackjack bomber that the old soviet union and russia had. and we destroyed it, sawed off the wings. we know these kinds of treaties work. the treaty that was negotiated,

supported by so many people, admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he said, "i, the vice-chairman, and the joint chiefs, as well as our combats tant commanders, stand solidly around this new treaty." this represents our best judgmeninterest, in my judgment. madam president, thr many things to say in support of concluding an arms control agreement with the russians. there are many questions that have been raised about the treaty and have been answered. when i described earlier the large number of people who say it is in this country's interest to support this treaty, i did not put up several of these. but let me just say, dr. henry kissinger. "i recommend ratification of the treaty," he says. "it should be noted i come from the hawkish side of this debate so i'm not advocating these

measures in the be a strct. i try to build them into the microcosm of the national interest." this morning george shuttle, colin powell, kissinger scries written an op-ed piece in the "washington post" make the case. let me say this: those who have raised questions about this are as concerned about our national security as anybody else. they believe, i'm sure, as i do, in the same goals: let's keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorist organizations and rogue nations. let's stop the spread of nuclear weapons. and ultimately let's try to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this planet. i think everybody here that's involved in this debate are people of good will. and my fervent hope is that in the coming couple of weeks, as we conclude this session of the united states congress, that we'll find way to have on the floor this treaty, which is so widely supported, and be able

to, all of us, of every persuasion, say we did something that will have a lasting impact on the future of this country, the security of this country and the security of the world. we did something that reduces nuclear weapons, the number of nuclear weapons, among the two nations that have by far the most nuclear weapons. we did something that substantially reduces the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. this i think, will provide for a much greater measure of security for us and the rest of the world. so i just wanted to come again to say that those who have spoken on this issue, giving different views, offering different views, i have great respect for them. many of them, and i, were part of the national security working group, and along the line when the treaty was being negotiated, we had meetings down in an area that is for top-secret presentations, and all along the way we understood what was happening and how it was

happening, and i just think finally that this -- this is a treaty that is mutually beneficial and represents not only the best interests of both countries who are parties to the treaty but especially the best interests of the world. i started by saying the loss of one nuclear weapon exploded in one city on this planet will change everything about our lives. we have about 25,000 nuclear weapons on the planet. the security of those weapons, the ability to keep them out of the wrong hands, the ability to keep others from acquiring weapons, the ability to reduce weapons, all of that is urgent and important. and it doesn't always rise to the top in the debate here in the united states senate. but now we have that discussion around this treaty, which is only a first step. and i hope by the end of this month perhaps all of us could celebrate having a significant achievement for the security of this country and for the world. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. bond: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: thank you very much, madam president. as america's energy needs continue to grow, so does our need for commonsense approaches to meeting these needs. unfortunately, the obama administration's announcement yesterday dealt a death blow to one of our most important ways to expand our domestic energy supplies. my message to the obama administration is that we need to drill it, not kill it. drill it, not kill it. yesterday, the administration announced the eastern gulf of mexico and the atlantic coast to be off-limits to any new offshore drilling for the next five years. in other words, the obama administration decided to deny americans new domestic energy supplies, deny americans new jobs and make america's energy

prices rise. in the wake of the b.p. oil spill, there's no question that we are reminded of the need to preserve our environment. as we seek to expand our energy growth by drilling for more oil, as we continue opening up new sources of traditional energy in an environmentally friendly manner, preventing spills must be a top priority. however, arbitrarily, arbitrarily closing off our own domestic supplies is not the answer. first, this death blow to offshore drilling will only make us more dependent on opec, middle eastern countries, hostile regimes that mean us harm. also, the moratorium will cost us jobs at a time when america needs job creation more than ever. the american petroleum institute estimates that we will not get 75,000 jobs as a result of the obama administration's offshore drilling moratorium. domestic production of energy

will be integral for our economic growth. production of domestic energy sources not only helps us meet growing demand and keeps us secure, but if the obama administration removes their moratorium, it will create jobs, and we need jobs. strict and arbitrary environmental regulation in place on coal mining, hydraulic fracturing and natural gas and of offshore oil drilling just create a de facto moratorium on more production and on more jobs. limiting production will make the sources we have available only more expensive. it's simply a matter of supply and demand. as i already mentioned, since energy demand will go up in the near future, these regulations by hampering production will serve as an indirect energy tax on consumers. guess what? remember the $4 a gallon gasoline that we had a couple years ago?

well, we may see that and even more as a result of shutting off our domestic supply. we should not be jumping to constrain domestic energy production without first giving any new regulations a very strict look to make sure we don't punish consumers just trying to power their households, fuel their vehicles and get jobs, live their lives. we all know that we need a new energy policy, one that enables us to find, create and use domestically produced clean energy. this is not the first time we have sought to do this, but the difference now is that we have a recession to contend with at the same time. people are struggling with high unemployment. in the midwest, our manufacturing sector has lost thousands of jobs. in an economy with a stubborn nearly 10% unemployment rate, the million dollar question, the big one we all have these days, is how can we create jobs?

so as we approach changing our energy policy, while we all want to protect the environment, and we must, we have to ensure that the policies we choose will not have adverse consequences to economic growth. unfortunately, too many of my colleagues and some of the administration are focusing on jamming through energy bills that would impose job-killing tax increases on farmers, small businesses and families. their ideas have changed from a cap-and-trade tax bill to others that pick winners by awarding massive taxpayer-funded incentives to some and in the process harming others. i think there is a better way to move our nation to energy independence. the commonsense approach we have to take would make use of the clean reliable sources we have here without picking sources and technology winners. we need to develop affordable, home-grown and clean energy solutions to help push our nation towards an independent

and more environmentally friendly future. i'm by no means an expert on this, but i have been around the block a time or two, so i support many strategies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and cut pollution. i have to stress that, in fact, we will continue to rely on fossil fuels to meet a large portion of our energy demand. coal accounts, for example, for 50% of our nation's electricity generation, and in missouri, it's over 80% of our energy and electricity. so we have to harness our abundant supply of coal in a clean way, by helping to advance carbon capture and sequestration or c.c.s. city utilities of springfield, missouri, and others are conducting a project to assess the feasibility of carbon sequestration and smaller, shallower saline aquifers at individual power plants. much of the c.c.s. research to

date has focused on deep saline aquifers in large geological basins, often far removed from most power plant sites. when complete, however, this project demonstration conducted in springfield may yet yield new lessons about c.c.s. technologies that can be applied to power plant sites on specific locations across the nation. nuclear power, like coal, is also an important source of load power for base load, and it must also play a role in our energy future. nuclear energy generates more than seven times as much as zero carbon electricity as all renewable sources combined. in 2007, for example, nuclear energy prevented the emission of 693 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the equivalent of taking all u.s. passenger cars off the road. of course, generating nuclear power results in waste that must

be stored or otherwise dealt with, and we have spent billions of dollars on an improved site to store that waste at yucca mountain in nevada. unfortunately, political opposition has stalled perhaps permanently the operation of that site. a real solution can be found in nuclear reprocessing which reuses spent nuclear fuel and can produce the same amount of energy and leaves only 5% of the waste. france does it. why should not we? we must have policies in place and spur the development of more zero emission nuclear power so we can harness all of its promise. we must eliminate the layers and layers of bureaucracy and regulation which do not add to the safety of that power produced. i agree we need to develop other zero carbon sources like renewable energy. zero producer providers are

currently expanding their wind generation. they have a number of wind turbines. also a few families and businesses receive a portion of their power from wind farms in kansas. every day, we're making advances in solar power. but this and wind power currently require huge taxpayer subsidies just to set up the operations, and it is followed by a $20 per megawatt taxpayer subsidy when and if they produce power. our state of missouri, however, is blessed with hydropower sources which could be expanded by installing hydropower generation on existing mississippi river lox -- locks and dams. it is unlikely these sources would provide even a fraction of the energy we use, even in missouri. we must have renewable energy standards that arbitrarily set requirements without ensuring that families and workers continue to receive the affordable power they need. intermittent wind and sunlight

mean we must also ensure a reliable base and source of power remains in place to back them up. another way to make these sources more viable is battery technology that will help restabilize the source's power flow. missouri is also leading the way in advanced lithium ion polymer battery development and energy storage. an example, cocom in kansas city is using lithium power technology to make batteries lighter, longer lasting, smaller and quicker to charge. not only would batteries make renewable sources viable, it would help with peak shaving by storing large amounts of energy produced at off-peak times. in talking about batteries, of course, we can't help but think about the promise that electric cars have to transform our transportation system and get us off our dependence on foreign oil. i'm a strong supporter of the increased use of hybrid and electric vehicle technology. smith electric vehicles in kansas city is building delivery

trucks which are the world's largest electric vehicles with a top speed of 50 miles an hour and a range in excess of 100 miles on a single overnight charge of the truck's battery at a time when there is available electricity on the grid between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. not otherwise being used. but even with a promise of electric vehicles, american families, drivers and workers still will need a plentiful supply of transportation fuels to power their cars. now, i do agree that we eventually need to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and that's why i have been a long-time supporter of using renewable biomass for fuel and for energy. the biofuels industry has created good, often high-paying jobs critical to the midwest when we have lost so many manufacturing jobs to the recession. i have been a long time supporter of keeping tax incentives in place for both ethanol and bioindustry. these tax incentives plus

increased support for infrastructure to deliver these fuels will be imperative as the industry becomes more competitive with traditional fuels, and we must extend the excise tax credit, the volumetric excise tax credit, which we promised in the congress to the farmers who set up the cooperatives to develop ethanol and biodiesel sources. in my opinion, one of the most exciting things about this industry is that it drives the develop of low carbon feed stocks. so i'll close talking about the potential my home state of missouri has to be a leader in a large part of the clean energy future by providing some of this home-grown energy or biomass. we made great progress in missouri in the use of algae, carbon dioxide for fuel. missouri also has abundant farm lands and forests that can provide diverse biomass. to generate electricity or to produce renewable fuels.

for example, a university of missouri study found that missouri's 2.5 million acres of corn and five million acres of soybeans produce a combined 13 million tons of dry crop residue each year, which can be converted into electric energy or through celluloseic operation into fuels. they can potentially provide 150 tons of wood fit residue from scrub timber annually, on a renewable basis. together, that is a lot of biomass feed stock that's home grown and that is carbon neutral because it takes in energy as it grows, releases that energy when it's burned and takes it in again as -- as replacements are grown. if we don't harness it, that energy is released when the wood

or the biomass degrades. missouri entrepreneurs are developing new technology to convert municipal solid waste into clean-burning biochar which can compliment our biomass producers. in addition, missouri is home to some of the foremost researchers in clean-burning biomass at the university of missouri-columbia. and last but not least, the state of missouri's department of agriculture is on the cutting edge in supporting burgeoning biomass technology. by creating a thriving biomass industry, we would not only be helping create our clean energy future, but we would also create much-needed new jobs in missouri and in midwestern states by providing income to struggling farmers and agroforesters. madam president, we must promote these clean energy strategies in a market-friendly way. taxing our suffering families and workers' use of energy is not the way.

produce more. don't tax more. taxing it does not increase the production of it. promoting these clean energy strategies is a bipartisan win, win, win, and i hope all of my colleagues will join me in helping this become a reality. madam president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, we had a hearing in the commerce committee yesterday about the future of nasa. we had the president's science advisor, the head of the office of science and technology policy, the chief financial officer of nasa, dr. robinson,

and point-blank asked both of them if they intended to follow the new law, the nasa authorization bill, that sets out a visionary course for the future of our manned and unmanned space program. they both indicated that absolutely -- that in the direction of policy within the administration they would follow the law. clearly, this is the -- has the president's stamp of approval, for once we passed the bill unanimously here in the senate and by a three-quarters vote in the house of representatives, the president then signed the bill into law enforcement it is the president's policy, and it

is a policy that balances a number of things. we continue the international space station, at least until the year 2020, a space station, by the way, that is just now being completed after over a decade of construction. it is designated as a national laboratory, but a host of nations are all participants in the international space station, and cutting-edge research will be done utilizing the unique property of zero draft o gravitf orbit as the space station orbits the ench at 17,500 miles an hour. we will start to develop new

rockets that, as we speak, are being developed to carry cargo to and from the international space station, and those rockets will be in a competition -- commerce companies -- a competition conducted by nasa for making those rockets safe enough in order to take crew to and from the international space station. and, at the same time, realizing that nasa's real vision is to go out and explore the heavens, the nasa authorization bill starts the development of a heavily het rocket that will be able to take proponents up into low-earth orbit to fulfill the president's

goal that he has set, which is to go to mars. the path by which we go to mars is yet to be determined. a lot of that will depend upon the development of technology%, and there is within this nasa bill, a robust technology development program for just such missions as going to mars or to an asteroid or whether or not we go back to the moon. we were on the moon 40 years ago. now it's time to venture on out into the cosmos. under conventional technology, it would take 10 months for us to get to mars. and by the time you got there, the real realignments of the planets as they orbit the sun

would cause us to have to stay on the surface of mars a year, until the planets were realigned where earth was going to be close enough to mars for the ten-month journey returning. so, naturally, there's development going on by a number of entities, but one in particular headed by the astronaut that has flown more than any other astronaut -- seven times -- dr. franklin chang dai diaz. he's been developing over the years, even from the time that he got his ph.d. at m.i.t., a plasma rocket, and that rocket is being now sufficiently developed that they're ready to do the testing stage and carry a

small version of the rocket to the international space station, where it would be attached -- a plasma rocket giving a constant stream of plasma energy that would keep the space station boosted to its height instead of constantly having to boost it every year or so because the orbit degrades. that plasma rocket would take us to mars, if perfected. would take us to mars in two months instead of ten months. and if you go to mars, that fast -- and by the way, that's going at 400,000 miles per hour to mars. if you go that fast, then you don't have to stay on the surface of mars a year because

you can stay there for a first trip for a few days, and the planets are still aligned so that they're close enough so that in a two-month journey back, you'd be able to get on back. these are exciting things for the future of both the human space program and the nonhuman space program. the development of technologies in earth science, the unmanned portion -- we have a fairly significant increase in the nasa budget with regard to the science portion. there is a huge increase in the budget of nasa for aeronautics. remember the first "a" in nails is a, its it's the -- in nasa,

it's the n.a.s. aeronautics and space administration. the first "a" is aeronautics. there's a huge increase in the research angdz for aeronautics. a lot of the airplanes that we take for granted today or the cutting-edge advances in our military aircraft, where do you think that originally came from? it came from the research and development through nasa. so naturally, the commerce committee wanted to make sure that the administration, given some of the uncertainties of the actual funding levels, is on point to follow the nasa authorization law. we received those's ainsurances yesterday -- assurances yesterday. now, it is our hope that, as we

now come into deciding how we're going to fund the rest of the governmentegovernmenter for thee fiscal year, and we're already into the fiscal year october and november and going into the third month of the fiscal year, a fiscal year that started october the 1st -- we're hoping that at the very least we can take the existing appropriations from last year, the fiscal year 2010, and carry that forward -- at the very least. for nasa, what that would mean, instead of having funding at $19 billion for 2011, the funding would be at last year's level of $18.724 billion. that would