vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 47, the nays are 52, two-thirds of the senators voting, a quorum being present not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order the question occurs on the demint motion to suspend on amendment 4804, the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wish to go vote or to change your vote? on this vote, the yeas are 37, the nays are 63. two-thirds of the senators voting, a quorum being present not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the question occurs on the sanders motion to suspend with respect

to amendment number 4809. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 57.

two-thirds of the senators voting, a quorum being present, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, amendment number 4754 is withdrawn. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate is equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: may we please have order. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. as we proceed to this important final vote -- the presiding officer: senators, we do not have order. please take your conversations out of the chamber. ms. stabenow: madam president, as we plod to this important final vote, there are two provisions that i strongly believe ought to be in this bill. they are bipartisan provisions. i came to the floor yesterday to offer unanimous consent on both of those. unfortunately, the republican colleagues were not on the floor and so out of courtesy i did not proceed.

but i will now at this point -- the advanced energy -- the advanced energy manufacturing tax credit 48(c) to make sure we're making things in america. something that has created over 17,000 jobs in 43 states across the country, leveraging $7.7 billion in private investment should be included in this bill, so that with we talk about energy and new innovation we're making it in america. and, therefore, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the second-degree amendment to the reid-mcconnell substitute to offer amendment number 4775, an amendment to extend the 48(c) advanced energy manufacturing tax credit. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. stabenow: madam president, second, i have a second unanimous consent request. i also spoke last night about the urgent need to fix an i.r.s. reporting provision for small businesses -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. stabenow: madam president

-- i would ask for another so 10 seconds to offer a unanimous consent request in order to set aside the second-degree amendment to the reid-mcconnell substitute to offer an amendment number 4773, that would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement for small business. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there a sufficient second? so moved. under the previous order, the question is on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 4853, with amendment number 4753. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change your vote? the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment with amendment number 4753 to h.r. 4853, the yeas are 81, the nays are 19. the motion is agreed to. a senator: madam president? move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. a senator: madam president -- mr. leahy: i thank my distinguished colleagues, senators udall for letting me step in for a few minutes. madam president, it is with deep sadness that i speak today in memory of a dear friend, ambassador richard holbrooke, who died on monday at the far too early age of 69. i wonder if we might have order,

madam president. the presiding officer: order in the chamber, thank you. mr. leahy: madam president, i met dick years and years ago. actually long before he held his most recent post of special envoy for afganistan and pakistan. we had so many conversations, so many meetings, so many trips over the years as his career progressed, particularly during the war in the former iew yugoslavia. what he did is legendary. nobody else could have done what he did. he was motivated, above all, by compassion and intent on stopping the suffering of innocent people who were being terrorized for no other reason than their ethnicity. he combined the force of his convictions with the force of his personality, and that was an

enormous force. along with his boundless energy to do what others have been unable to do. ambassador holbrooke did not accept no for an answer. i remember meeting dick -- we had planned a meeting. i was in mass massadonia. we could not go by helicopters. we had plans. we met on a slippery -- on a narrow, slippery road, several hundred foot dropoff on one side. we stood there with nervous security guards around. we sat on the hood of our car and he described what he had observed and he told me what he believed needed to be done. it was fascinating because he put everything into perspective. i was -- it was fair to say that we took advantage of the

unlikely meeting to reminisce about other times and other places, some of which were just as unlikely. it is one of those rare conversations in an unlikely place that makes an unforgettable impression on you most of because it was dick holbrooke. he was so passionate, animated, and determination and sense of humor that made the challenge of solving the thorniest problems hard to resist. it is in his latest position i heard most often from him when he'd call me to keep me apprized of his efforts to get the most out of our aid to afganistan an pakistan. -- and pakistan. it was not an easy tack, but he would call me at my home on weekends in vermont. he loved the reshaping of u.s. policy in afganistan and pakistan during a difficult transition period. he charged head first into the maelstrom of afganistan and pakistan several years after the

conflict began raising key and sometimes unpopular questions about our efforts there. the press will talk about his combative style and heated exchange with some foreign leader, but in his final hours, his wife katie martin, received calls of sympathy from afghan president hamid karzai and pakistani president, which is a lot about dick. so my thoughts and prayers are can katie and dick's sons and with his staff and department of state at this time. i and others here have lost a dear friend. the american people have lost one of the greatest diplomats of our time. an extraordinary man who loved this country, devoted his life to it as much as any person could. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: under the

previous order there will be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the senator from new mexico. a senator: madam president, i -- mr. udall: i request to speak in morning business for approximately 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: madam president, i also want to address on a matter of consent with regard to speaking after me, i would ask that our distinguished whip, senator durbin, be given permission to speak after i finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: madam president, i also want to, before i start talking about the issue of the review in afganistan -- the presidential review, echo the comments of senator leahy on ambassador holbrooke. my sense was that ambassador holbrooke was a remarkable diplomat and public servant. i got to see him both when he was in his public position and private position and he was always dedicated to peace in the

world. and i remember reading his book "to end the war," way was about the balkans and sharing it with my father and my father having discussions with him on the phone. and he said, you know, this -- this diplomat, richard holbrooke, is just a remarkable guy. and if you read that book, it's a classic of bringing peace to a very, very difficult situation. so my heartfelt condolences to his wife, katie, martin, and his two children, david and anthony holbrooke. and i tell the family we will miss him very much on the international scene. madam president, i -- i rise today to discuss the presidential review that's taking place in the war in afganistan. we are approaching another side post in a conflict that has kept our military men and women in harm's way longer than any other

in our history. 109 months and counting. that's longer than the wars in vietnam or iraq. it's even longer than the soviet occupation of afganistan in the 1980's. the signpost i want to speak of today is one that president obama posted when he ordered the troop increase in afganistan last december. in his orders, he also called for a review of our war strategy to be conducted one year later. that review was to include, and i quote -- "the security situation and other conditions including improvement in afghan governance, development of afghan national security forces, pakistani actions, and international support." end quote. that review is due this month. i commend our president for his forsight in calling for this review. but in recent months, i've read

troubling statements from administration and military leaders. these statements lead me to believe that this review is seen as nothing more than a check in the box. in a "washington post" article and under -- an under secretary of defense said as much when he stated that the review won't go into much more detail than what is already provided to the president during his monthly status updates. general petraeus was also quoted in the same article as saying -- quote -- "i would not want to overplay the significance of this review." i think this approach to this review would be another tragic mistake in what i fear is an ongoing series of them. after nine years and 455 - 455 -- $455 billion, the unfortunate reality is that we're still not any place near where we want to be or should be in afganistan.

and anything less than a thorough and unflinching review is unacceptable. it's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the american people. the famed military author, carl von clauswitz, wrote a book called "on war," which is required reading for any military professional. he wrote the first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesmen and commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking. neither mistaking it for nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature. this is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive. end quote. today our struggles in afganistan necessitate that we again follow von clausvitz

advice. we must ask the find of questions on the kind of war we set out to fight and the kind of war we are fighting. everyone knows the big question when it comes to afganistan, that's why it's the big question. is our prolonged involvement in afganistan worth the cost we, as a nation, are paying for it? is it worth the human cost? thousands of americans have been mameed and killed in this war so far. and thousands more stand in harm's way as we speak. is it worth the fiscal cost our wars in the last decade have left us with huge deficits. and for the last decade wars in both afganistan and iraq went unpaid for. instead of rallying the nation during a time of war, asking for

sacrifices from everyone, congress and two presidents chose to pass this massive debt on to future generations, the first time we have done so in modern times. but the real issue is not what we are spending to protect our nation but whether that spending is making us safer, which leads to the question, is our continued involvement in afghanistan worth the cost to our larger national security priorities? our commitment in afghanistan is pulling time, energy and funds from other equally important national security priorities, priorities like energy independence, counter proliferation -- counterproliferation, and countering terrorist activities in yemen, somalia and many other places around the world. that's why this review is so critical. we have to decide as a nation if

our prolong the involvement in afghanistan is worth it, and we must decide on an exit strategy. we have a responsibility to answer that big question with the thoroughness and honesty that honors the sacrifices of our military men and women. i believe we answer that question by using this sign post, by using this review to address four key issues that will ultimately mean the difference between our success and our failure in afghanistan. to me, those four issues are: our time line for an exit strategy, an accelerated transition to an afghan-led security operation, corruption in the karzai government, and safe havens in pakistan. let me take them one at a time. first, our time line for an exit strategy. this review should provide an honest assessment of where we

are on the -- where we are in the time line that president obama laid out last year. in his speech at west point last december, president obama rightly dropped the open-ended guarantee of u.s. and nato involvement. here's what he said -- and i quote -- "the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the afghan government. it must be clear that afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that america has no interest in fighting an endless war in afghanistan." his order last year for the military commission was clear and including a time line-based on a -- quote -- "accelerated transition." in that order, he focused on -- and i quote from the order -- "increasing the size of the ansf

and leveraging the potential for local security forces so we can transition responsibly for security to the afghan government on a time line that will permit us to begin to decrease our troop presence by july 2011." july 2011. that's little more than six months from now. mr. president, the american people deserve to know, is july 2011 still a realistic time frame to begin our exit from afghanistan? if not, what has happened to cause a delay, and how long will that delay be? what will be the additional costs, both human and budgetary? the bottom line is this -- without an aggressive time line for reducing u.s. military support in the region, a time

line that the afghans believe is rock solid, there is no incentive for them to defend their villages and cities. with the u.s. and nato as guarantors of security, the people of afghanistan could rely on our forces to provide security indefinitely. chairman levin, our armed services chairman here in the senate, has given careful thought to the issue of a time line. in a recent speech to the council on foreign relations, he said -- and i quote -- "open-ended commitments encourage drift and permit inaction. firm time lines demand attention and force action." without an aggressive time line, there is no exit strategy. issue number two, and directly related to one, the accelerated transition to the afghan people.

this must be an afghan-led security effort. this month's report should update the american people on our progress or lack thereof in turning over security duties to the afghan national army, after the began national security forces, and the afghan national -- the afghan national security forces, and the afghan national police. the famed british officer, t.e. lawrence, known to many also as lawrence of arabia, once said with regard to arab insurgency against the ottoman empire -- quote -- "do not try to do too much with your own hands. better the arabs do it tolerablely than they do it perfectly. it's their way and you are there to help them." this quote is also mentioned in the army field manual on counterinsurgency. in afghanistan, i believe the same approach can be applied. the afghan security forces are

not doing their job perfectly nor should we expect the afghan forces to match the might of the u.s. military. but to echo t.e. lawrence, they are beginning to do it tolerablely and i believe it's better that the afghans continue to build on their new success. combined, an aggressive time line and an accelerated transition to the afghans, will help us achieve two equally important goals. first, the timel handover of security helps prove to the international community that the american people do not have imperial ambitions in afghanistan. as president obama said at west point, we have no interest in occupying your country. and, second, a timely handover allows the united states and its allies to bring our heroes home and it allows us to begin the important work of reducing our

deficits, investing in our nation and our people so that we can remain strong and build a more prosperous nation. which brings me to issue number three, corruption in the karzai government. madam president, there's no doubt our armed forces have the ability to conduct the difficult counterinsurgency work of clearing and holding. the question is whether the afghan government has the ability to build their nation and be ready for a timely transition. that's is why in his order to the military, president obama was clear. given the profound problems -- and i'm quoting the president in his order -- "given the profound problems of legitimacy and effectiveness with the karzai government, we must focus on what is realistic. our plan for the way forward in dealing with the karzai government has four elements:

working with the karzai government when we can, working around him when we must, enhancing sub-national governance, strengthening corruption reduction efforts, and implementing a post-election compact." there's no doubt that corruption is rampant throughout afghanistan and, in particular, within the karzai administrati administration. for years, independent daily press reports from afghanistan, as well as official u.s. government reports, confirm corruption at all levels of afghan society. a recent leak of diplomatic cables reveals the severity of the problem. first let me stress that i do not condone these recent leaks. they have needlessly put our military and diplomatic corps at risk. but these documents really pulled back the curtain on the scale of the corruption in afghanistan.

one example in particular illustrated the tremendous difficulty we face in our search for an honest, reliable partner. that was the account in "the new york times" of former afghanistan vice president, ahmed zia massoud. massoud was detained after he brought $52 million in unexplained cash into the united arab emirates. he was allowed to keep the $52 million. let me say that again. $52 million. that's a lot of money, especially when you consider that his government salary was a few hundred dollars a month. not only is corruption rampant in afghanistan, with the reports of karzai's own brother involved in double-dealing and unscrupulous actions, but basic government functions are suffering because of karzai's inability to manage his own government. in kandahar, our military has

made this former taliban stronghold a much more secure city, but despite the progress, "the washington post" has reported multiple vacancies in key government positions. as an unnamed u.s. official stated, we're acting as a donor and government. that is not sustainable, end quote. we cannot be expected to indefinitely shoulder the security or governmental burdens in afghanistan. having a firm time line will put president karzai on notice that he must step up his efforts to make this an afghan-led effort. our goal must be to transition responsibly -- our goal must be to transition responsibility and authority for the future afghanistan to the afghan people, and this month's review should include a report to the american people on our progress -- progress and how he's making that happen. which brings me to the fourth

and final issue: safe havens in pakistan. for years, safe havens have been permitted to exist in pakistan for insurgent and terrorist forces, enabling them to operate freely. this has been one of the worst-kept secrets in the region, which is why president obama stated during his west point speech, we will act with the full recognition that our success in afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with pakistan. we're in afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country, but this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of pakistan. that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border." since 2001, the united states has sent more than $10.4 billion to pakistan to support humanitarian and security operations. despite these expenditures, radical militant groups, such as

the quetta shura taliban and the kani network have continued to leverage their freedom of movement to cicialtion mai killd disrupt our efforts and those of our nato allies. these insurgent activities are nearly textbook, something that the army field manual on counterinsurgency describes in detail as having occurred throughout history -- throughout the history of insurgent warfare. the issue of sanctuaries, thus, cannot be ignored during planning. effective coin operations work to eliminate all sanctuaries. with such military advice in mind, i must ask: how do we expect to defeat an insurgency that is being supported by elements of the pakistani military and intelligence service on the other side of the keiber pass? after nine years, why are we tolerating these safe havens? mulmullmullah omah, the leader e

insurgents in pakistan, his followers regroup and rest in pakistan, only to cross the border and fight our troops once again. insurgent fighters have increased their attacks by 53% over the last quarter, and when both isaf and u.s. forces are unable to infiltrate their base of operation, how can we expect to maintain an adequate level of security for the future? president obama's order specifically spelled out assessment criteria for pakistan. the assessment was intended to include the following quote -- and i quote -- "are there indicators" -- the following question -- "are there indicators that we have begun to shift pakistan's strategic calculus and eventually end their active and passive support for extremists?" thus far, pakistan's strategic calculus has been overly focused on india and towards turning a

blind eye to radical groups in waziristan and other regions near the afghan border. furthermore, the current position of the pakistani government has only led to a host of crazed conspiracy theories about the united states and its involvement in the region, giving fuel to the recruitment efforts of our enemies. because of double-dealing by some in pakistan and a pakistani government that has not fully supported our efforts, we are sending our men and our women to fight in afghanistan without a true partner. we're asking them to fight with one hand tied behind their back. madam president, these challenges i discuss, they're not a secret. each and every one of them has been debated, discussed, dissected, and yet the answers remain elusive. we invaded afghanistan as a justifiable military response to the tragic attacks of

september 11, 2001. this response was overwhelmingly supported by congress, including myself, the public, the international community, but i believe today that after 109 months of fighting, after more than 1,400 american military deaths in operation enduring freedom, almost 10,000 american military men and women injured, after $455 billion and counting expended, a good, hard, realistic assess many of our mission is needed. if our plan to succeed in afghanistan is not yielding the results we seek, then we must also re-evaluate our plan and mission. make no mistake, i am proud of our brave men and women in uniform and what they are doing there. i'm equally proud of our diplomatic workers, civilians

who are working hard to improve the lives of afghan people. hi an opportunity to meet many of them earlier this year on a codel led by my colleague, senator carper, of delaware. these are some of the finest men and women our nation has to offer to the afghan people, but it is not their job that is the question. it is ours -- the congress, his president, the administration, the military leadership. it is up to us to find the answers, to ensure we have a clear, achievable mission for our soldiers to carry out. today i am not sure that is the case. i'm looking forward to hearing the conclusions of the review the president called for one year ago. i also look forward to hearing the president reaffirm his july, 2011, deadline for an accelerated transition to the

afghans. we all must be prepared to ask the hard questions and demand honest answers, regardless of the political consequences. our military men and women deserve no less. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, first let me commend my colleague, thomas udall from new mexico, for his thoughtful presentation on the challenge we face as americans, regardless of political affiliation. thoughtful in that he reflected not only on our mission and our responsibility, but thoughtful in that he reflected on the cost, cost in human lives and the cost in dollars and the challenge we face in congress to make sure those dollars are well spent and no american life is wasted. i thank my colleague for that thoughtful presentation. madam president, last night, i was on a conference call. it was an unusual one. there were 8,000 people on this

conference call. i have never been on a conference call like that. they were from all across the united states of america. we spoke for a few minutes and then took questions, and a young woman came on -- she didn't give her name, but she said i just want to tell you who i am. i am a person who is about to graduate from a major university in california with a degree in pharmacy, and i have nowhere to go. you see, she is hispanic who came to the united states at an early age, brought here by her parents. she defied the odds by finishing high school. half of the hispanic students do not. she did. and then she defied the odds even more by going to college. only one in 20 in her status actually attend college in america. and then she stuck around for five years-plus to get her degree in pharmacy science. and we know for a fact we need pharmacieses desperately --

pharmacists desperately across america. in new mexico and illinois, we need pharmacists. so why aren't we using the talents of this ambitious, energetic, successful young woman? because she has no country. she is in america but she is not an american. she has no status. the "dream" act which i introduced ten years ago addresses this challenge across america. children brought to america without a vote in the process, children who came here and made their lives here, grew up in america. as senator menendez has said on the floor, standing up and proudly pledging allegiance to that flag, standing up and singing the star-spangled banner at baseball and football games, but they know and we know that they are not americans. they feel like americans. many of them have never seen and don't really know the country that they came from. this is their country. but because they were brought

here, not in legal status, undocumented, they have nowhere to turn. the first time i heard about this issue was when a korean woman called me in chicago. she was a single mom with three kids. she ran a dry cleaner's. her older daughter was a musical prodigy. in fact, so good she had been accepted at the juilliard school of music in new york. before she went to school, she filled out the application form and came to the box which said nationality, citizenship, she turned to her mom and said u.s.a., right? mom said no. we brought you here at the age of 2, and we never filed any papers. the daughter said what are we going to do? her mom said we're going to call durbin. so they called my office, and we called the immigration service. when the conversation ended, it was very clear. our government said to that young girl you have one choice -- leave, go back to korea. after 16 years of living successfully in the united states and making a great young life, our laws told her to leave

because she was illegal. that is a basic injustice. it makes no sense to hold children responsible for any wrongdoing by their parents. children at the age of 2 who are now going to be penalized the rest of their natural life because her mother didn't file a paper? penalized because we had no process for her to have an opportunity to be part of the united states. and so i introduced the "dream" act. the "dream" act says if you have been here for at least five years and came below the age of 15 and completed high school, no serious criminal record, a person in good moral standing, ready to be interviewed, speaking english, paying all the taxes and fines and fees that are thrown your way, then if you are willing to do one of two things, we will give you a chance to be legal in the united states. one, enlist in the military. if you're willing to risk your

life and die for america, i think you're deserving of an opportunity for citizenship. secondly, if you complete two years of college, which, as i say, defies the odds, it's a small percentage that would be able to do this. if you're able to complete two years of college, then here's what the bill says. we will put you in a ten-year conditional immigrant status. let me translate. for ten years, you have no legal rights to any government programs in america. not medicaid if you get sick, not pell grants if you go further in college, no student loans, nothing. you can stay here legally, but you cannot draw one penny from this government during ten years after you have finished high school and qualified under this act. ten years. along the way, we are going to keep an eye on you. if you stumble and fall, a criminal record, you're gone, you're gone. no exceptions for felons.

they're gone. and basically, we will continue to ask hard questions of you, as to how you're doing. in the version of the bill we're going to vote on, you're going to pay a fee, $500 at the outset and more later, and under that house provision, those students struggling to get by with no right to government assistance by our bill will have to spend ten years in this country. if they make it, two years in the military or two years of college and they finish their ten years, then they get in line and wait three to five years more before they can ever have a chance to be citizens. it is a long, hard process that not many americans today could survive. some of these kids will because they have made it this far. they are determined, they are idealistic, they are energetic, they are just what america needs. you know what michael bloomberg,

the mayor of new york, said about the "dream" act? he said it so well." they are just the kind of immigrants we need to help solve our unemployment problems. some of them will go on to create small businesses and hire people. it is senseless "-- in the words of mayor bloomberg --" it is senseless for us to chase out the home-grown talents that can contribute so significantly to our society." well, will these "dream" act students be a drag then once they are part of america? not according to the congressional budget office. they concluded that the "dream" act would produce, produce produce $2.2 billion in net revenues over ten years. how can that be? well, because these "dream" act students would contribute to our which i by working and paying taxes. and these are students who are destined to be successful. who believes they will be successful? start at the pentagon. secretary of defense gates has asked for us to pass the "dream" act. he has said that these bright, young, dedicated people will be great in service to america.

he knows that many of them come from cultural traditions of service to their country, and he wants that talent in the united states military and he wants that diversity in our military. 15% of america today is hispanic. the number is growing. almost 10% of the people who vote in america are hispanic. and we want to make certain that our military is as strong as it can be and reflects america as it is and what we want it to be. now, we'll have a chance to vote. senator harry reid, the majority leader, has said that we are going to vote on the "dream" act this year, and we must. we absolutely must. we owe it to these young people, we owe it to their families and we owe it to this country to rectify this terrible injustice. there comes a time occasionally in the history of this country where we have a chance to right a wrong. we fought for decades over righting the wrong of slavery, the mistreatment of african-americans. we fought for decades over righting the wrong of

discrimination against women, denied the right to vote under our original constitution. we fought for decades for the rights of the disabled in america. each generation gets its chance to expand the definition of freedom and liberty and to expand the reach of citizenship and the protection of our laws. this is our chance. this is a simple matter of justice. i've listened to some of my colleagues on the other side who do not support it, and they have said, you know, if we would just spend more money on border security, then maybe, just maybe i would be willing to give these young people a chance. well, first, if there were no border security, it wouldn't enlarge the number of people protected here. you have to have been in the united states for five years in order to qualify here, so any newcomers to the united states are not going to be eligible anyway. but let's get to the point. i support border security. we need a strong border.

we need to make sure those who are illegal and documented do not come across that border. i have voted for the fences, i have voted for the walls, i have voted for everything they have called for, and we have dramatically under this president increased the border security in america. and i will vote for more. i will vote for more. i give my word to my colleagues i will. i've said to senators from those border states, count on me to be with you, but don't hold these children hostage to that demand. don't hold them hostage to that demand because border security in and of itself has nothing to do with justice for them. others have argued in here, well, we want to make sure at the end of the day they can never become legal citizens of the united states. never? after living their lives in this country, never? i would say go to the back of the line, and they should, wait in line patiently, even if it takes 15 years, that is only fair, but never? others have said, you know, we should just give them the

military option. if they join the military, then we'll let them become citizens. i don't think that is right and i don't believe that the military would support that either because many would be applying for the military who really are not inspired to serve in the military but only doing it for the purpose of this law. let those who are not going in the military have their own avenue, their own path to legalization by education and achievement in this society, not in the military. and i would also say to my friends and colleagues, some have argued it's a little too close to christmas for us to worry about an issue like this. we ought to go home. well, these young people are home and they are asking for us to pass the "dream" act so that home will welcome them. america is the only home they have ever known, and i'm willing to stay a day or two or more, whatever it takes, so that we can pass this bill, right this injustice, and give these young people a chance. the house has done their part, they passed the bill last week. congressman luis gutierrez and

so many others did a wonderful job in passing that legislation. it's good legislation. we have had 57 votes for this on the floor of the senate, but because of our rules, you need 60. all i'm asking is some of the republicans who have told me that in their heart of hearts they support this and worry about it politically, to put themselves in the shoes of our predecessors in the senate who, when given a chance to expand the rights, the civil rights of african-americans, of women, of the disabled, said that justice trumps politics. we will we will stand on the side of justice and let history be the judge. that is the challenge we have with the "dream" act. i urge my colleagues support the "dream" act. let's give these young people a chance to make america an even greater nation. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, i rise today to briefly discuss

the so-called omnibus spending package that is apparently headed this way. this budget-busting trillion-dollar spending behemoth is nearly 2,000 pages in length and it is laden with over 6,000 earmarks for various special interests. this is a debacle that could have been avoided. today, madam president, is the 349th day of this year. there are only 16 days until the end of the year. there's only 10 days until one of the most sacred christian holidays, and that is christmas. yet, the majority waited until just now to unveil our first real appropriations bill that will be considered on the senate floor in the entire year. the fiscal year began on october 1 of this year, yet we've waited

over two months to even consider a fiscal year 2011 spending bill. how can anybody claim that this is responsible management of our citizens' tax dollars? madam president, there is no way to sugar coat it. congress has been derelict in its duty to produce any of the 12 annual appropriations bill for the fiscal year. we didn't even bother to debate or pass a budget resolution this year to at least create the notion that congress wanted to constrain spending. while americans across this country are taking a hard look at their finances, prioritizing their spending, their government continues to max the taxpayer credit card. and, madam president, this one is a doozy.

1,924 pages. $1.27 trillion in spending. $9 billion more than even last year's unacceptable spending levels. over 6,000 -- let me repeat that. over 6,000 earmarks that were funded more on geography and political influence than on anything to do with merit. that's $8 billion worth of earmarks when the american people are crying out for transparency and thought that they had sent a strong message in november. while we should have been considering how to constrain spending, the authors of this legislation were busy behind closed doors seeing how much pork they could return to their states.

this "you get yours and i'll get mine" mentality is one of the reasons that we have the budgetary hole that we dug. yet, we see 6,000 earmarks tucked away in this legislation. let me just give three of the priorities, according to these earmarks. $200,000 of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for beaver management. $1.5 million of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for mosquito trapping. $300,000 of somebody's hard-earned tax dollars for polynesian voyaging society. and, madam president, the list goes on and on. i could be here for the next 24 hours going through the list. when i was secretary of

agriculture we proposed a budget and wouldn't have an earmark in it. after the logrolling occurred on capitol hill, we'd get our funding back and it would be stuffed with earmarks spending somebody's hard-earned tax dollars. it's a sad commentary, madam president that, a few million dollars in home state pork can often convince someone to swallow $1 trillion of government spending. yet, that's where we end up too often, and it looks to me like this is greased and it's going to happen again. the authors of this legislation simply missed the message of november 2. we should be passing appropriations bills that actually rein in spending instead of doubling down, spending more and adding to the era of big government. yet, this massive bill is laden with end-of-the-year gifts.

one supporter of the spending bill actually admitted it was the christmas tree of all time, adorned by spending somebody else's hard-earned tax dollars. the spending jug naught is simply not what americans want or deserve while we're faced with numerous challenges, none is greater than tackling this growing spending in our national debt. in fact, a bipartisan group of almost 20 senators came to the floor yesterday, and i was a part of that group to pledge our commitment to address the national debt. how ironic that this massive spending bill is being discussed the very next day. maybe actions speak louder than words. it is time for us to back up the rhetoric on controlling spending. a look at the last appropriations bill just since i arrived a couple years ago, spending growing by 17%.

the sad truth of that number, madam president, is there is no economy, no economy that can grow the revenues fast enough to keep up with the spending appetite of washington, d.c. in fact, in just a few years, we'll be spending more on finance charges than the entire defense budget. it is like a family running up the credit card and then looking for more credit cards. but, unfortunately, it's now commonplace to pass bills that spend $1 trillion when our citizens are saying please stop. unfortunately, the spending hasn't stopped. i will oppose this bill, and i will do all i can to advocate that my colleagues do the same. the government spends too much. we need to keep more at home with the people. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: correct. mr. reid: i ask consent it be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, as a christian, no one has to remind me of the importance of christmas for all of the christmas faith, all their families all across america. i don't think any of us, i don't need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of senators kyl and demint to remind me of what christmas means. my question, madam president, is where were their concerns about christmas as we've had filibuster after filibuster on major pieces of legislation during this entire congress.

not once, but 87 times, taking days and days of the people's time here in the senate on wasteful delay. senate republicans need to look no farther than themselves in casting blame for the predicament we're in right now. in this congress, i repeat, republicans have waged 87 filibusters. they've used every procedural trick in the book to delay legislation that's important to the american people. we have been able to work through most of that and have what in the name of -- in the mind of norm ornstein, the most successful congress watcher in decades said the most successful, productive congress in the history of the country. we've done that in spite of all the roadblocks thrown in our way. in just a few minutes we're going to proceed to the start treaty. i'm told the republicans are going to make us read the entire treaty in an effort to stall us from passing it. isn't that wonderful?

that piece of -- that treaty has been here since april or may of this year. plenty of time to read it. these are additional days of wasted time we could be using to pass legislation to get home for the holidays. yet some of my republican colleagues have the nerve to whine about having to stay and actually do the work of the american people. we make large salaries, madam president. we could work as most americans do during the holidays. perhaps senators kyl and demint have been in washington too long because in my state, nevadans employed in casinos and hotels and throughout the state of nevada and on ranches, basically every place have to work hard on holidays, including christmas, to support their

families. the mines don't shut down in nevada on christmas. people work. they get paid double time a lot of times when they have good contracts, but they work on christmas holidays. most people don't get two weeks off on any time, let alone christmas week. and these people who are lucky enough to have a job in these trying times need to work extra hours to make ends meet. so it's offensive to me and millions of working americans across this country for any senator to suggest that working through the christmas holidays is somehow sack religious 0 -- zachary liljebergs. -- sacrilegious. they decide to work with us, we can all have a happy holiday. if they don't, we're going to continue until we finish the people's business.

madam president, i move to proceed to executive session to calendar number 7, the start treaty. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 66, the nays are 32, and the motion is agreed to the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the treaty. under the previous order the senate will return to legislative session for the remarks by the senator from arkansas. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader's recognized. mr. reid: can we have the attention of everyone in the senate? i've had a number of conversations in recent minutes with the republican leader.

i think we would be well advised and we're going to proceed along this avenue unless someone has an objection that for the rest of the day and into the evening and however long people want to visit, we will be in a period of morning business as soon as senator lincoln finishes her remarks we'll be in a period of morning business much around senators will be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes. and i put that in the form of a consent agreement. we have a number of senators over here and on the republican side who want to speak on the start treaty. but people are not going to be restricted to that. they can speak on anything they want. and then tomorrow morning, we would be in a -- tomorrow morning we would return to the start treaty. so this afternoon i, again, ask unanimous consent that we be in a period of morning business, that senators be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes each during this period of morning business and with the understanding tomorrow morning at a reasonable hour we will

return to the start treaty and begin debate directly on that. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: part of that agreement is today will be for debate only. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object and i'm certainly not going to object. there was some suggestion that some on this side of the aisle wanted to read the treaty. our view is that is not essential. we encourage our members, i know that senator lugar is here, senator kyl who has been deeplile involved in this issue, we would encourage them to begin the debate on the treaty. mr. reid: mr. president, also, if i could respond to my friend, i know that senator lugar has spent lots of time on this treaty, as has senator kyl, as has senator kerry and others, and everyone will be very generous with time.

if senator lugar, who is one of the wiz regards of foreign -- wizards of foreign policy in the history of our country, he needs more time. no one will stand in the way of that. we did put a 15-minute limitation on it, but there will be consents granted for people to speak longer if, in fact, it's necessary. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized. mr. kerry: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of the leader with respect to that question. i wonder if the -- if the order might predicate at the outset that senator lugar, he's asked me for 40 minutes as an opening. i know that senator kyl will probably want to speak for an equal amount of time. i would obviously like to make an opening, preferably a little longer. if we could make the order 40 minutes to senator lugar, 40 minutes to senator kyl, i'd like a half-hour, and we have some other senators from there and we can vary it as we go would that be possible? the presiding officer: is there

objection? mr. reid: the consent agreement is that senator lugar recognized for 40 minutes, senator kyl for 40 minutes, senator kerry for 30 minutes? is that right? mr. kyl: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i'm not sure i will be speaking for 40 minutes or in a particular time frame here. i want to focus for a moment the omnibus and the continuing resolution, so my remarks will probably be relevant to that, therefore, i probably shouldn't join in a unanimous consent agreement at this time. mr. reid: okay. so, mr. president, i would -- i'm glad we clarified that. as i said, anyone can talk about anything they want. so why -- why don't we have the consent suggestion amended that senator lugar be recognized for 40 minutes, senator kerry for 30 minutes and then the rest of the time will be jump ball, people can speak up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: and i've conferred

with senator mcconnell, there will be no roll call votes for the rest of the day. mrs. lincoln: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from arkansas is recognized. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. president. well, i hope there's not too much order because it will make me feel a little bit out of place. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: will the senate please come to order. take conversations off the floor. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. president. as i said, i hope there's not too much order. i don't want this place to change too much, and i'm glad to be here with my colleagues. to express my gratitude for the

incredible blessed journey -- life's journey that i have experienced thus far and the wonderful contribution this place has made to that. i have been enormously blessed by the people of arkansas to have represented them and the united states congress first, as a member of the house of representatives, and finally now as a united states senator. today i rise as the daughter of two amazing parents, martha and joey lambert. a seventh generation farm family. dirt farmers, not to be confused, we didn't farm dirt. we were hardworking farmers who were not afraid to get dirty, to get our hands into the earth and to do what it was that we have done for generations in arkansas. i'm also the proud wife of dr. steve lincoln and the very proud mother of two incredible young men, reece

and -- inaudible] great boys. you all have watched them grow up. because it is the many, many unique life experiences that each of us brings to this place and to this job that really, really contributes to the mark that we leave on this institution. when i came to the senate, my boys were two and we were about to celebrate their third birthday. we didn't have any friends up here, so i looked around the senate to see who had children, who could bring their kids to our birthday party and there were a few. we kind of had to rent out a moon bounce and had a baby partd it was fun. and i realize how important that experience was for me to bring to this body to share with people. patty murray knows, she's been there. mary landriue, amy klobuchar, so many others who've had their

children here in the senate and what a difference that makes in your perspective on what you're doing here. it makes a big difference. birthdays were a big deal when we first got here. in my household, you're allowed to celebrate your birthday for an entire week and it's always a great time. my first birthday i celebrated in the senate was unusual. we had just moved. my husband had moved his practice, the boys were here, they had just turned three, it was hec hectic, it was a new congress, we had all just come through an impeachment trial, there were many things going on. and when my birthday came around, it kind of came and went and my husband noticed that. but we'd gone to a spouse dinner. it was shortly after my birthday, my first birthday here in the senate, and my good friend, joe biden, who was my seatmate before he left to become vice president, he and his wife jill had really reached out to us to make us feel

comfortable. we were young parents. we had small children. we were both working very, very hard. and the first spouse dinner we came to, we were sitting with joe and jill and jill produced a lovely birthday gift. it was a monda monogrammed box. something obviously she thought about. it wasn't something she picked up and regristed from your closet at home. and it meant so much to my husband and to me that we were a part of a family that was realizing what we were going through. not just what they were going through but what we were going through. and i looked at jill and told her, i said, you couldn't have done anything to make me more happy or my husband than to think of something that was important in our lives. and they did that. and i've been a part of this family, and it's been a great time. as i glance back on my time he here, i do so with great pride, knowing that each of my votes and actions were taken with the best interests of the people of

arkansas in mind. i've always, always attempted to conduct myself in a manner that would make arkansans proud, and tears today i hope are not going to affect that. living by my mother's rule, as we did growing up, if it was rude or dangerous, it was not allowed. and i hope that i have definitely met that rule, because mother sent us off with it. as a farmer's daughter, i'm honored to have helped craft three farm bills that were crucial to arkansas's economy. i was able to persuade my colleagues to understand the regional differences in production agriculture in our country. but mostly, most of all, i am proud that i was able to impress upon my colleagues and others, hopefully, across this great nation of ours the enormous glessing thablessing that our nn receives from farm and ranch families, what they bestow upon us, what they allow us and all of the rest of the world to do each and every day and that is

to eat, to sustain ourselves and to be able to grow. i'm particularly honored to have become the first woman and the first arkansan to serve as the chairman of the senate committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry. it's been a wonderful year that i've had. and i'll always be proud of what we have accomplished in that committee this year. and certainly in years past. we passed historic child nutrition legislation. as a result, each meal served in schools will meet nutritional standards that our children and future generations deserve. putting them on a path to wellness instead of obesity. as a result, we'll see an increase in the reimbursement rate for schools for the first time since 1973, since i was in junior high, younger than my own children today. and we did so by not adding one penny to the national debt, as well as doing it in a bipartisan way. we produced historic wall street

reform legislation. when i became chairman of the committee, our economy was on the brink of collapse, our legislation targeted the least transparent parts of the financial system and will bring them not only within the plain view of regulators but also in the view of hard-working americans who want to know what's going on in our economy and in the marketplace. throughout my time in the sena senate, i fought hard on behalf of rural communities and families. in the house, sitting next to ed markey on the energy and commerce committee, he always called me blanche royal lambert. he said, blanche, every time your mouth opens, it says rural. and i said that's where i grew up, that's who i represent, and you will always hear me speaking on behalf of the families of rural america. i wrote the legislation establishing the delta regional authority, the only federal agency designated to channel resources, aid and technical assistance to economic development in the rural and

impoverished mississippi delta region. i fought for tax relief for our hard-working low- and middle-income arkansas families. and i'm most proud of the refundable child tax credit that i worked with senator olympia snowe on. i've also fought for the certainty for arkansas's farmers and ranchers and small businesses with fair estate tax reforms with senator jon kyl. i'm proud of my work on behalf of arkansas and our nation's seniors, including my work on the prescription drug program for seniors, working with senator baucus and others on the finance committee, the elder justice act that's now law, the first federal law ever enacted to address elder abuse in a comprehensive manner. i was honored to be joined in that effort with senator orrin hatch and herb kohl and the hard work that we put towards that. growing up in a family of infantrymen, i am proud to have fought for arkansas's service members, ve veterans and their families, specifically finding

for -- fighting for funding increases for the v.a., as well as the office on rural health, as well as better access to quality mental health and better health care for all of our veterans. i came to congress to fight on behalf of our nation's children, families, veterans, small businesses and farmers, and i'm honored and humbled that in each of these areas, i was able to achieve legislative success on their behalf. but, as my mother would say, straighten up and pay attention to what this is really about. this speech is not about yesterday and it is not about today. what i'd like for people to remember about this speech is that it was about our nation's future and what we can achieve together. we have great work to do. great work. i may be leaving this body, but that doesn't mean i give up on my country. you all have much work to do. colleagues, we have approached a fork in the road and this is not

the first nor do i suspect will it be the last. but we have within our ourselves the ability in this nation to choose a positive and uplifting path. harry reid teases me all the time: do you smile at everythi everything? you know what? there's a lot to smile about. we have great opportunities ahead of us in this country, but they are not going to happen by themselves. a path that respects differences of opinion. we have opportunity to choose a path that sets aside short-term political gain, a path that maintains this body's historic rules that protect the views of the minority but also puts results ahead of obstruction. again, i grew up in a family, four kids, the youngest. you'veall wonder why i'm so tough. i've been beat up on all my li life. but my dad always said, it is

results that count, it is what you finish and what you accomplish. it is not these little battles that we fight, it is the war that we are going to win. and it is not a war that we are going to win without the republicans or without the administration or without our constituents. it is a war on behalf of our nation and it has to be done. it has to be done together. yal. many of you all have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting my husband. my husband doesn't like crowds a lot. i love crowds because i love being together. i love being a part of things. i love being a part of a team. my team is here, my lincoln team. it's a great team. they've been a wonderful group to work with. you're a part of my team. you're my family here in the senate. being together and working together is an incredible

blessing and we have to make sure that we realize that. our country is certainly at its best when we are collectively working together for a goal. all you have to do is listen to your parents or your grandparents talk about victory gardens or rationing nylons or anything else that happened during the war when people were working collectively together. our country is facing many, many challenges. there is no doubt, the american people are frustrated. they are frustrated with our lack of productivity and they are anxious, so anxious, to be a part of the solution that needs to happen here, the coming together, the finding of the solutions to the problems that we face and the results that we need to have. i'm confident that together we can overcome them, all of these differences, continue to be the leader of the rest of the world

as we have been and should be. i leave this body with confidence that we can provide our citizens with the type of government that they deserve, a government that provides results and certainty about the future that they so longingly want to be a part of and that they want to protect for their children, rather than obstruction and sound bites and confusion. with teenaged children at home, it is a true blessing that we live in a day and an age where information is available at a moment's notice. i've watched my children, i had to go borrow the encyclopedia from my cousins next door. my kids click on the computer and immediately there's incredible volumes of information. they teach me, "mom, come look at this. did you ever know this?" you know, it's amazing what is available to us. it is equally as important, though, that we, the american people, take the time that is necessary to understand the

solutions to the challenges and not succumb to the veefn convene of modern technologies to take the place of our own good judgment. we just cannot do that. the minds of the people of this country, the minds of the body of this institution, insuring that we use the good -- ensuring that we use the good sense that god has given us to know what are the right solutions. to all of america, myself included, we must all discern carefully the information that's provided to us. it's all extremely convenient, but convenience is not what this is about. it's not about convenience. it is all about doing the right thing. so i call not only on our good judgment but our collective love for this country, so that we can meet the challenges that our nation faces. i know that i'm teaching my children that at home.

i'm also blocking some of the things they can get on their internet. but i'm also teaching them to use their own minds, their own thoughts. what is it would you have for your fellow man? how would you want people to behave? absolutely critical in this day and age. to my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, i implore each of you to set the example for our country by working together to move our nation forward. we must start practicing greater civility towards our -- towards one another, both privately and publicly. i can't forget when i first came to the house of representatives, i called my colleague and neighbor, bill emerson, from southern missouri. i told him, i said, bill, you know, when you move into a new place, where i come from, you bring somebody a cake or a pie or a batch of rolls or something. i said, i'm not a bad cook but i don't have a whole lot of time on my hands. i want to visit with you. you're a republican, i'm a democrat but you're my neighbor.

and i'll be willing to bet you that we agree on far more than we disagree on. and as we visited for 45 minutes in that very first introduction, we came to the conclusion that we agreed far more on the same things than we disagreed. we decided to start the civility caucus. it lasted three months. [laughter] the fact is, there is much work to be done there, and we can do it. taking advantage of political gusts of wind is not what our constituents expect of us, nor is it what they deserve. i urge you to have the courage to work across party lines. there is simply no other way to accomplish our nation's objectives, nor should there be. although you run the risk of being the center, the center of attention for both political extremes, it is a far greater consequence to put personal or political success ahead of our country, and i know firsthand.

we must have the courage to come out of our foxholes, the foxholes that we dig into, to the middle, to the middle where the rest of america is and discuss our collective path forward. i'm counting on each of you to do so in a way that respects the temporary position that we have all been granted here and respect this institution of ours that we have been blessed to inherit. it is an amazing place. each of you have seen it in your own right, and you know. to the young people of america, i think it's so important, i came here as the youngest woman in the history of our country to ever be elected to the united states senate, and i did so because i believe so strongly in the difference i could make. i still do. i still do. and that's what this country is about. it is about making a difference,

not for yourself but for others, and i continue that journey now as i leave this place, knowing there are still so many ways that i will make a difference. but to those young people out there in this country, do not think that this place is reserved just for age or experience. it is here, it is here that you can make a difference, whether you're elected, whether you youe an incredible member of the phenomenal staff that helps to run this place, or whether you just simply choose to be out there and engaged in what is going on. there are many contributions to be made to this nation by the young people of this country. i leave this body with no regrets and with many incredible friendships. the old adage if you want a friend in washington, get a dog,

you all know i have a very large dog, but i also have some wonderful friends, some wonderful friends, and i am very, very grateful, very, very grateful for those friendships. when i first arrived, my friend mary landrieu had been in the hospital, and i showed up at her house with a chicken spaghetti casserole, a bag of salad and a bottle of wine at her front door. rang the doorbell and she said what are you doing here? i said, you know, where we come from, when your neighbor or friend has been sick, you take them dinner. she said blanche, we don't do that up here. i said let me tell you, if we forget where we have come from, there is a big problem, and i'm grateful. i won't attempt to go one by one through each, but know that every one of you all have a special place in my heart. you taught me something. you have enriched my life in such a way, it's amazing.

now, you also know, many of you all personally, that i follow in some very large footsteps. between so many arkansans. you know, the most recent being maclellan and fulbright and pryor and dale bumpers who is my immediate predecessor. i want to thank dale for the incredible mentor he has been to me and for the wonderful things he has done for our state. but i leave you with an unbelievable senator, and that is my good friend mark pryor. he is a statesman. he follows in the footsteps of all of those giants from arkansas. i am enormously grateful to him, for his friendship and more importantly for his great service to the people of arkansas. so i leave you in good hands, without a doubt, with my good friend senator mark pryor. i have been surrounded both in

the past and currently by an unbelievably dedicated, loyal and hard-working staff, in both my personal senate office in the state of arkansas and our offices there in washington, and certainly in the agriculture committee. and to my staff, they know how much i love them. our state and this institution are better because of their hard work and their dedication and without a doubt their -- they are smart. they are a great group of people. i am so blessed to not only know them but to have worked with them. i am blessed by a loving and supportive family who have been my inspiration and without a doubt my bedrock all my life, and they continue to be and i am fortunate. finally, let me say once again thanks to the people of arkansas. my roots have been and always will be in arkansas. that will never change. when steve and the boys and i left after thanksgiving to come back for the lame-duck session, of course, as many of you all know, traveling with your

families or just getting back in time, we left at 5:00 in the morning, and we drove to memphis because it was faster, we were halfway between. we had been out at the cabin duck hunting and celebrating thanksgiving with our family, and we were headed to the memphis airport and the sun was coming up. it was a sunrise over the arkansas delta. well, i'm sure many of y'all have never seen that, but it is a magnificent view, and it reminded me of all the great things that i came here to do, and it made me feel blessed with all of those things that i was able to accomplish. but to know that i could go back to that same home and to see that sunrise, unbelievable. i'll always treasure the experiences of this chapter of my life and the thousands of arkansans that i have come to know and love. they are a great group of

people. and i thank you once again from the bottom of my heart. to the people of arkansas, to this body, and to my good friends. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, let me mention a very abbreviated list of blanche lincoln's accomplishments. first woman to chair the senate agriculture committee. first woman to chair the finance

subcommittee on social security, pensions and family policy. in fact, the first woman to ever chair a finance subcommittee. chairman of the rural outreach for the democratic -- for the senate democratic caucus. chairman of the senate hunger caucus. co-founder, cochair of the third way. creator of the delta regional authority. author of the 2010 child nutrition bill. a key writer of the 2008 farm bill. author of the refundable child tax credit. mr. president, i could go on and on, but most of her accomplishments, most of her contributions cannot be measured. as she worked on the agriculture committee, the finance committee, the aging committee and energy committee, she on a

countless number of occasions, on amendments and bills, became the senator who was the key to passage or defeat. a couple of years ago, i watched a bill that was making its way through the senate finance committee, and there were lots and lots of people outside this chamber who had a vital interest in the outcome of that legislation, and everywhere i would go, i would be stopped and i would be asked is this bill going to pass? will it come out of the committee? will it get through the floor? and when i told them all the folks who asked back then, what i told them turned out to be true. as blanche goes, so goes the finance committee because she was that way on all of her committees. she was the swing vote, the key vote to getting things done here in the united states senate. you know, blanche is a role model for many, many people, especially young women who are

interested in government. i remember sitting down with one of my good friends earlier this year and his teenaged daughter, and we talked about the senate and politics and history and arkansas, and as we were winding up the conversation, my friend asked his teenaged daughter, he said who is your favorite politician? and of course i sat there and kind of straightened my tie and sat up straight because i knew what the answer was going to be, and she said blanche lincoln. and i know why. because blanche really represents the best in arkansas -- excuse me. she represents the best in arkansas and the best in politics and in government. she is a workhorse, not a show horse. blanche gets things done. the other night with my teenaged daughter, i watched some of "the wizard of oz." as i was watching it, i was struck that the scarecrow, the

tin man and the lion were looking for three things that blanche has and every senator needs in large quantities -- a brain, a heart and courage. and one of senator lincoln's role models that she refers to often is hattie caraway. now, hattie caraway is not exactly a household name in american politics, but her portrait hangs just outside this chamber in the corner opposite the ohio clock. hattie caraway of arkansas was the first woman ever elected to the u.s. senate. there is much to admire about hattie caraway, the senator and the person, but the one thing that blanche inherited from hattie is the pioneer spirit. even in the first decade of the 21st century, blanche is the owner of many firsts, and even

though we don't like to admit it, we're reluctant to talk about it, there is a double standard in politics for women. there just is. now, i'm proud to serve with the largest number of women that the senate has ever seen, but -- and i'll say that goes double for my eight years with senator blanche lincoln. let me say just a brief word about her family. her husband steve is an old friend of mine. we trace our roots back to little rock central high school and the university of arkansas. the lord has blessed blanche and steve with two bright, energetic, athletic and even sometimes well-behaved sons -- they are, they're great -- that are currently freshmen at yorktown high school in arlington, and they bring their parents much joy, but they also

are extremely proud of their mother. i've seen firsthand what a wonderful mother she has been and is, and i stand in awe. in fact, blanche is not only a good senator and a good mother and a good wife, she is much more. she is a good daughter to her mother, who basically runs phillips county, arkansas. she is a good sister in her very large family. she is a good member of her community, helping friends, neighbors and those in need. blanche is very faithful in -- and her relationship with god has given her strength and kept her grounded in good times and in bad. she follows the golden rule and puts her faith in action every single day. simply put, she is a good person. lastly, she is a good boss. she has drawn to her a very talented and hard-working staff

in washington, d.c., and in arkansas. i know that they will always be proud to tell people that they worked for senator blanche lincoln. before i get carried away, there is one minor matter that i feel i need to address. on occasion, rarely, just every so often but it does happen, blanche runs a little late. i know many of you are shocked to hear this, but let me just tell you why that is. because people love blanche and blanche loves people, and she's never too busy to stop, to notice, to listen. she's never too busy to talk to the capitol police or to the janitor here or to that family from idaho who can't figure out the dirksen building. she takes time for people, and that's one of the things that makes her so special.

because those people are as important to her as the most powerful members of the congress. and that's what makes blanche special. it is hard to find one word to describe senator lincoln. kind, smart, fearless, persistent, knowledgeable, no-nonsense. i could go on. but the one word i would like to focus on today is friend. there are 99 senators today who consider her a friend. they like her, they like working with her, and they respect her. i have had many, many republicans and democrats say how much they hate to see her leave, because she makes this place better. there's a passage in the bible that says "well done good and faithful servant." this applies to blanche, but not only to the job she's done here in the senate, it applies to her

as a person. there's a lot more to blanche than just being a united states senator. in january she starts a new chapter, and as much as she will be missed and here, we all have confidence that there are many more great things to come. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes each. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. lugar: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of the new start treaty. we undertake this debate at a time when almost 100,000 american military personnel are fighting a difficult war in afghanistan. more than 1,300 of our troops have been killed in afghanistan with almost 10,000 wounded. meanwhile, we're in our seventh year in iraq, a deployment that

cost more than 4,400 american lives and wounded roughly 32,000 persons. we still have more than 47,000 troops deployed in that country. tensions on the korean peninsula are extremely high with no resolution to the problems of north korea's nuclear program. we continue to pursue international support for steps that can prevent iran's nuclear program from producing a nuclear weapon. we remain concerned about the stability in pakistan and the security of that country's nuclear arsenal. we're attempting to counter terrorist threats emanating from afghanistan, pakistan, east africa, yemen and many other locations. we are concerned about terrorist cells in ally countries and even in the united states. we remain highly vulnerable to disruptions in oil supply due to national disasters, terrorist attacks, political instability

or manipulation by friendly oil-producing nations even as we attempt to respond to these and other national security imperatives, we're facing severe resource constraints. since september 11, 2001, we have spent almost $1.1 trillion in iraq and afghanistan. we are spending roughly twice as many dollars on defense today as we were before 9/11. these heavy defense burdens have occurred in the context of the financial and budgetary crisis that has raised the united states government's total debt to almost $14 trillion. the first year 2010 budget deficit registered about $1.3 trillion, or 9% of g.d.p. now, mr. president, all senators here are familiar with the

challenges that i've just enumerated. but as we begin this debate, we should keep this larger national security context firmly in mind. as we contend with the enormous security challenges of the 21st century, the last thing we need is to reject a process that has mitigated the threat posed by russia's nuclear arsenal. for 15 years the start treaty has helped us to keep a lid on the u.s.-russian nuclear rivalry. it established a working relationship on nuclear arms with a country that was our mortal enemy for four and a half decades. start's transparency features assured both countries about the nuclear capabilities of the other. for us, that meant having american experts on the ground in russia conducting inspections

of nuclear weaponry. because start expired on december 5, 2009, we have had no american inspectors in russia for more than a year. new start will enable american teams to return to russia to collect data on the russian arsenal and verify russian compliance. these inspections greatly reduce the possibility that we will be surprised by russian nuclear deployments or advancements. before we even get to the text of the new start treaty and the resolution of ratification, members should recognize what a senate rejection of new start would mean for our broader national security. failure of the united states senate to approve the treaty would result in an expansion of arms competition with russia. it would guarantee a reduction

in transparency and confidence-building procedures and it would diminish cooperation between the united states and russia defense establishments. it would complicate our military planning. a rejection of new start would be greeted with delight, and iran, north korea, syria, burma, these nations want to shield their weapons programs from outside scrutiny and they want to be able to acquire sensitive weapons technologies. they want to block international efforts to make them comply with their legal obligations. rogue nations fear any nuclear cooperation between the united states and russia because they know that it limits their options. they want to call into question our own nonproliferation credentials and they want russia

to resist tough economic measures against them. if we reject this treaty, it will be harder to get russia's cooperation in stopping nuclear proliferation. it could create obstacles on some issues in the united nations security council where russia has a veto. it might also reduce incentives for russia to cooperate in providing supplier routes for our troops in afghanistan. it would give more weight to the argument of russian nationalists who seek to undermine cooperation with the united states and its allies. it would require additional satellite coverage of russia at the expense of their use against terrorists. with all that we need to achieve, why would we add to our problems by separating ourselves from russia over a treaty that our own military once ratified?

mr. president, our pheuplt commanders are aeupbg -- our military commanders are anxious to avoid the added burden and uncertainties of an intensified arms competition with russia. they know such competition would detract from other national security priorities and missions. that is one reason that they are telling us unequivocally to ratify this agreement. they also have asserted that the modest reductionness warheads and delivery systems embodying the treaty in no way threaten our nuclear deterrent. when defense secretary of state robert gates and admiral mike mullen have testified that they have no doubts the new historic treaty should be ratified. general kevin shelton, who is in charge of our strategic nuclear forces, has said the treaty -- and i quote the general -- "will

enhance the security of the united states." end of quote. general patrick o'riley who is in charge of our missile defenses endorsed the treaty saying flatly that -- and i quote -- "does not constrain our plans to execute the united states missile defense program." moreover, seven former commanders of strategic command, the military command in charge of our strategic nuclear weapons, have backed the new start treaty. members of the senate, republicans and democrat alike, have taken pride in supporting the military and respecting military views about steps necessary to protect our nation. rejecting an unequivocal military opinion on a treaty involving nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary position for the senate to take.

the military is supported in this view by the top national security officials from past administrations. to date, every secretary of state and secretary of defense who has expressed a public opinion about the new start treaty has counseled in favor of ratification. this has included ten republicans and five democrats. all five living americans who served ronald reagan as defense secretary, secretary of state or white house chief of staff have endorsed the new start treaty. the list of endorsers includes president george h.w. bush, george shultz, jim baker, jim schlesinger, henry kissinger, brent scowcroft, colin powell, condoleezza rice, stephen hadley, howard baker, laurence

eagleburger and frank carlucci. many of these officials served at a time when the stakes related to russian nuclear arms were even higher than they are today. during the cold war uncertainty over russia's intentions and weapons advanced, and this cost us tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. an academic industry developed that was devoted to parsing soviet military capabilities. this was one of the biggest, if not the biggest expenses of our intelligence budget each year, and the fact that we could not accurately judge soviet military capabilities led us to elevate our spending on weaponry out of a sense of caution. these times were dominated by

contradictory risk assessments and rumors about dangerous new soviet weapons systems. we were constantly worried about missile gaps, destabilizing arms deployments or soviet technology breakthroughs. and all of this came at a tremendous cost to the american taxpayer and the psyche of the nation which lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction. i firmly believe that our staunch opposition to an aggressive soviet state was absolutely necessary and led directly to the achievement of freedom for tens of millions of people in eastern europe. it also set the stage for a dramatic breakthroughs in international cooperation. but that does not mean that the cold war was a benign experience or that we want to revive nuclear competition carried out in an environment without

verification or basic limits on weapons. now i am not suggesting that we are on the pwreufrpblg of returning to the cold war -- on the brink of returning to the cold war. reality is far more complicated than that. but we should not be cavalier about allowing our relationship with moscow to drift or about letting our knowledge of russian weaponry atrophy. few americans today give much thought to the nuclear arsenal of the former soviet union. americans have not had to be concerned in the same way as they were during the cold war years. but large elements of that arsenal still exist and still threaten the united states. whether through accident, miscalculation, proliferation or any number of other scenarios, russian nuclear weapons, materiels and technology still

have the capability to object lit rail american cities. that is a core national security problem that commands the attention of our government and this body. i relate these thoughts about where we have been in part because most senators entered national public service after the cold war ended. and even fewer were serving in this body when we were called upon to make decisions on arms treaties. only 21 current members of the senate were here in 1988 to debate the i.n.f. treat kwraoefplt -- treaty. only 15 current members were serving during the geneva summit between president ronald reagan and mick cave gorbachev. only 11 members were here in march 1983 when president reagan

delivered his show of called "evil empire" speech. and only seven of us were here when the soviets invaded afghanistan in 1979. in a few weeks these numbers will decline even further. the fundamental question remains as to how we manage our relationship with a former enemy and current rival that still possesses enormous capacity for nuclear destruction. but thwhat the start process hae since it was initiatived is manage an adde adversarial relationship that previously had been accompanied by enormous financial cost to our own society. one can take the view, i suppose, that unrestrained competition with russia is the best way to ensure our security in relation to that country. but that has not been the view of the american people, and

there is no indication this is what americans were voting for in november. it certainly was not ronald reagan's view. it was president reagan who began the start process. his team coined the term "start" standing for strategic arms reduction talks, to reflect president reagan's intent to shift the goal of nuclear arms control from limiting weapons buildups to making substantial, verifiable cuts in existing arsenals. on may 8, 1982, president reagan made the first start proposal during a speech at eureka college in illinois, calling for a one-third reduction in nuclear warheads. for the rest of his presidency, he engaged the russians on numerous arms control proposals that reduced weaponry and established tough verification

measures to prevent cheating. he personally conducted five summits with russian leaders which primarily focused on arms control. he produced the i.n.f. treaty signed in 1988 which greatly reduced nuclear weapons in europe. his efforts also led to the original start treaty, which was signed during the first presidenpresident bush's term i. the cornerstone of president reagan's arms control agenda was verification. his interest in verification is frequently summed up by his off the-quoted line "trust but verify." what the united states and russia have done through the start process is far more than just verification. start has provided the structure and transparency upon which unprecedented arms control and nonproliferation initiatives have been built. most notably, the nunn-lugar program. the stability came with a

long-term agreement and the trust implicit in both the russian and american legislatures has been indisexpensable to the success of nunn-lugar and other nonproliferation endeavors with the russians. over the course of almost two decades, the nunn-lugar program has joined americans and russians in a sustained effort to safeguard and ultimately destroy weapons and materials of mass destruction in the former soviet union and beyond. the destruction of thousands of weapons is a monumental achievement for our countries. but the process surrounding this joint effort senior senator as important as the numbers of weaponsempted. the u.s.-russia relationship has been through numerous highs and lows in the post-cold war era. throughout this period, start inspections and consultations and the corresponding threat-reduction activities of

the nunn-lugar program have been a constant that has reduced miscalculation and has built respect. thithis has not prevented highly contentious disagreements with moscow but it has meant that we have not had to wonder about the makeup and disposition of russian nuclear forces during periods of tension. it has also reduced, though not eliminated, the proliferation threat posed by the nuclear arsenal of the former soviet union. this process must continue if we are to answer the existential threat posed by the proliferation of mass destruction. every missile destroyed, every warhead deactivated, every inspection implemented makes us safer. russia and the united states have the choice whether or not to continue this effort, and that choice is embodied in the new start treaty before us. the senate foreign relations and

the armed services committees held 18 hearings on the treaty with national security leaders who have served in the nixon, ford, carter, reagan, george h.w. bush, clinton, george w. bush, and barac obama administr. these hearings were supplemented by dozens of staff meetings as well as 1,000 questions for the record. we know, however, that bilateral treaties are not neat instruments because they involve merging the will of two nations with distinct and often conflicting interests. treaties come with inherent imper fairfaxs and -- imperfections and questions. as secretary gates fefd in may, even successful agreements routinely are accompanied by differences of opinion by the parties. the ratification process, therefore, is intended to produce a resolution of ratification for consideration by the whole senate.

the resolutions will verify the meaning and effect of treaties for the united states and resolve areas of concern or ambiguity. on september 16, 2010, the foreign relations committee approved a resolution of ratification for the new start treaty by a vote of 14-4, with important contributions from both democratic and republican members. this resolution incorporates the concerns and criticisms expressed over the last several months by committee witnesses. members of the committee and other senators, and it will be further strengthened through our debate in the coming days. with this in mind, i would turn to specific concerns addressed in the resolution of ratification. first of all, missile defense. some critics of the new start treaty have argued that it impedes the united states' missile defense plans, but nothing in the treaty changes

the bottom line that we control our own missile defense destiny -- not russia. defense secretary gates, admiral mullen, general patrick o'reilly, who is in charge of our missile defense program, have all testified that the treaty does nothing to impede our missile defense plans. the resolution of ratification has explicitly reemphasized this in multiple ways. some commentators have expressed concern that the treaty's preamble notes the interrelationship between strategic defense and strategic defense. but preamble language does not permit rights nor impose obligations. and it cannot be used to create an obligation under the treaty. the text in question is stating a truism of strategic planning that an interrelationship exists between strategic offense and strategic defense.

critics have also worried the treaty's prohibition on converting icbm and slbm launches to defensive missile silos reduces our missile defense options. but general o'reilly has stated flatly that it would not be in our own interest to pursue such conversions because converting a silo costs an estimated $19 million more than building a modern tailor-made interceptor missile silo. the bush administration converted five icbm silos at vendorburg air force base and these have been grandfathered under the new start treaty. beyond this, every single program advocated during the bush and obama administrations has involved construction of new silos dedicated to defense on land, exactly what the new start treaty permits.

general o'reilly said in a u.s. embrace of silo conversion would be a major setback for our missile defense program. now, addressing whether there would be utility in converting any existing slbm-launched tubes to a launcher of defensive missiles, general kevin p. shelton stated "the missile tubes that we have are valuable in the sense that they provide the strategic deterrent. i would not want to trade an slbm and how powerful it is and its ability to deter for a single missile defense interceptointerceptor. essentially, our military commanders are saying that converting silos to for missile defense purposes would never make sense for our efforts to build the best missile defense possible.

a third argument concerning missile defense centers on russia's unilateral statement upon signature of the new start treaty, which expressed its right to withdraw from the treaty if there is an expansion of u.s. missile defense programs. unilateral statements are routine to arms control treaties and do not alter the legal rights and obligations of the parties in the treaty. indeed, moscow issued a similar statement concerning the start i treaty implying that its obligations were conditional upon united states compliance with the a.b.m. treaty. yet russia did not in fact withdraw from start i when the united states withdrew from the a.b.m. treaty in 2001. nor did it withdraw when we subsequently deployed missile defense interceptors in california and alaska, nor did it withdraw when we announced plans for missile defenses in

poland and the czech republic. russia's unilateral statement does nothing to contribute to its rights to withdraw from the treaty. that right, which we also possess, is standard in all recent arms control treaties and most treaties considered throughout united states history. the resolution of ratification approved by the senate foreign relations committee reaffirms that the new start treaty will in no way inhibit our missile defenses. it contains an understanding that the new start treaty imposes no limitation on the deployment of u.s. missile defenses, other than the requirement to refrain from converting offensive missile launchers. it also states that russia's april 2010 unilateral statement on missile defense does not impose any legal obligations on the united states and that any

further limitations would require treaty amendments subject to the senate's advice and consent. consistent with the missile defense act of 1999, it also declares it is u.s. policy to deploy an effective national missile defense system as soon as technologically possible, and that it is the paramount obligation of the united states to defend its people to the best of its ability. in a revealing moment during the senate foreign relations committee hearings on the treaty, secretary gates testified -- quote -- "the russians have hated missile defense ever since the strategic arms talks began in 1969 because we can afford it and they can't and we're going to be able to build a good one, and they probably aren't, and they don't

want to devote the resources to it, so they try and stop us from doing it. this treaty doesn't accomplish that for them. there are no limits on us." end of quote. i would paraphrase the secretary's blunt comments by saying simply that our negotiators won on missile defense. if indeed a russian objective in this treaty was to limit u.s. missile defense, they failed, as the defense secretary asserts. does anyone really believe that russian gshting ambitions were -- gshting ambitions were fulfilled by nonbinding language in the preamble or by a unilateral russian staple with no russian force or by a prohibition by converting silos which cost more than building new ones? these are toothless, fig leaf provisions that do nothing to constrain us.

moreover, as outlined, our resolution of ratification states explicitly in multiple ways that we have no intention of being constrained. our governance is investing heavily in missile defense p. strong bipartisan majorities in congress favor pursuing current missile defense plans. what the russians are left with on missile defense is unrealized ambitions. at the end of any treaty negotiation between any two countries, there are always unrealized ambitions left on the table by both sides. this has been true throughout diplomatic history. the russians might want all sorts of things from us, but that does not mean they are going to get them. and if we constrain ourselves from siepg a treaty, -- signing a treaty that is in our own interest of realized russian ambitions, we are showing no confidence in the ability of our

own democracy to make critical decisions. we would be saying that we have to lind with the enter of -- with the end of start inspections. another negative consequence of rejecting this treaty from bowing to russian pressure on missle defense. if one buys into this logic, it becomes almost impossible to seek cooperation with russia on anything. let us be absolutely clear, the president of the united states, the u.s. congress, and the executive branch agencies on behalf of the american people control our own destiny on missle defense. the russians can continue to argue all they want on this issue, but there's nothing in the treaty that says we have to pay any attention to them. let me turn to the item of verification. the new start treaty verification regime has been the

subject of considerable debate. the important point is that today we have zero on the ground verification capability given that start i expired on december 5, 2009, more than one year ago. under start, the united states conducted inspections of weapons, their facilities, their delivery vehicles and warheads in russia, ukraine and belaruse. this fulfilled a crucial security interest by greatly reducing the possibility that we would be surprised by future advancement in russian technology or deployment. only through ratification of new start will u.s. technicians return to russia to resume verification. under new start, the united states and russia each will deploy more than 1,550 warheads for strategic deterrents. seven years from its entry into

force, the russian federation is likely to have only about 350 deployed missles. this smaller number of strategic nuclear systems will be deployed at fewer bases. it is likely that russia will close down more bases over the life of the treaty. both sides agreed that each would be free to structure its forces as it sees fit. a view consistent with that of the bush administration. as a practical economic matter conditions in russia preclude a massive restructuring of its strategic forces. the treaty protocol and annexes contain a detailed set of rules and procedures for verification of new start treaty. many of them drawn from start i. the inspection regime contained in the new start is designed to provide each party's confidence that the other is upholding the obligations while also being simpler and safer for the

inspectors to implement. less operationally disruptive for our strategic forces and less costly than the start regime. secretary gates recently wrote to congress that -- quote -- "the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the joint chiefs, the commander, the u.s. strategic command and i assess that russia will not be able to achieve militarily significant cheating or breakout under new start due to both the new start verification regime and the inherent survive ability and flexibility of the planned u.s. strategic force structure." end of quote. we should not expect that new start will eliminate friction, but the treaty will provide for a means to deal with such differences constructively as under start i. the resolution of ratification approve by the foreign relations committee requires further assurances by conditioning ratification on presidential

certification prior to the treaty's entry into force of our ability to monitor russia's compliance and on immediate consultation should a russian breakout from the treaty be detected. for the first time in any strategic arms control treaty, a condition requires a plan for new start monitoring. some have asserted that there are too few inspections in new start. the treaty does provide for few arer inspections compared to start i. but this is because fewer facilities will require inspections under new start. start i covered 70 facilities in four soviet successor states whereas new start only applies to russia and its 35 remaining facilities. therefore we need fewer inspections to achieve a comparable level of oversight. new start also maintains the same number of -- quote -- "reentry vehicle on site

inspections," end of quote, as start i, namely 10 per year. baseline inspections that were phased out in new start are no longer needed because we have 15 years of start i treaty implementation and data on which to rely. of course if new start is not raratified for a lengthy period, the efficacy for the baseline would detear rate. unique identifiers, u.i.d.'s, will be affixed to all russian missles an nuclear capable heavy bombers. u.i.d.'s were applied only to russian road missles in start i. regular exchanges of u.i.d. data will provide confidence and transparency regarding the existence and location of 700 deployed missles even when they are on nondeployed status. something that start i did not

do. the new start treaty also codifies and continues important verification enhancements related to warhead loading on russian slbm and icbm this is agreed to in the original start implementation allow for greater transparency in confirming the number of warheads on each missle. under start i and the treaty, the united states had a continuous on site premise of up to 30 technicians to conduct monitoring a final assembly using solid rocket motors. while this portle monting is not -- monitoring is not under new start, it was made by the bush administration in anticipation of start i's expiration with vastly lower rates the russian missle production, continuous

monitoring is not crucial as it was during the cold war. for the united states the new start treaty will allow for flexible modernization and operation of u.s. strategic forces while facilitating transparency regarding the development and deployment of russian strategic forces. let me comment now on counting rules. with regard to warhead counting, new start improves on the rules used in both start i and the moscow treaty. under start i each deployed missle or bomber was attributed a maximum number of weapons for which it was always counted. each launcher of a missle or weapon also counted regardless of whether it still performed nuclear missles or contained missles. this resulted in inaccurate counts of warheads, missles and launchers. under the moscow treaty there was never an agreement on what constituted an operationally

deployed nuclear warhead. the parties used their own methodology for counting which warheads fell under the treaty's limit. under the new start one common set of counting rules will be used by both parties regarding deployed and nonemployed icbm slbm and bombers and deployed warheads on missles and bomber weapons. so the data exchanged under this treaty will more accurately reflect the modern deployment of the party's strategic forces. now new start's bomber accounting rules are also different from start i. under new start each heavy bomber is attributed one nuclear weapon despite the aircraft's ability to carry more, which reflects the modern fact that neither party maintains bombers loaded with nuclear weapons on a continuous basis. this rule is not an invention of

new start. it's consistent with president reagan's negotiating position. he proposed that bombers not be counted at all because they are not first strike weapons. and thus not destabilizing. it was a concession to moscow to include heavy bombers as strategic offensive arms in start i. but president reagan's never agreed -- president reagan never agreed to count their maximum capacity as the soviets sought. those who have inexplicably criticized new start's bomber counting rules are advocating the historic position of the soviet union, not our own. the department of defense plans to maintain up to 60 nuclear capable bombers under the new start treaty including a large number of b-52's, each capable of carrying up to 20alcm's.

maintaining this standoff delivery capability will enable the united states to field a substantial number of penetrating weapons in the bomber leg of our triad. flexible counting of one weapon per each b-52 gives us immediate and powerful deployment flexibility. something president reagan protected as does the new start treaty. let me turn to tactical and nuclear weapons. some opponents of new start also contend the treaty should not be ratified because tactical nuclear weapons are not covered. the rejection of this treaty would make further limitations on russian tactical nuclear arms far less likely. some critics have overvalued utility of russia's tactical nuclear weapons and undervalued our deterrent to them. only a fraction of these weapons could be delivered significantly beyond russia's borders.

pursuant to the i.n.f. treaty, long aago -- ballistic michaelss and ground launch cruise missiles. in fact, most of russia's tactical nuclear weapons have very short ranges, are used for homeland air defenses are devoted to the chinese border or are in storage. a russian nuclear attack on nato countries is effectively deterred by nato conventional superiority. our own tactical nuclear forces, french and british nuclear arsenals and u.s. strategic forces. in short russia tactical nuclear weapons do not threaten our strategic deterrent. our nato allies that flank northern europe understand this and endorse the new start treaty. it is important to recognize that the size differential

between russian and american tactical nuclear arsenals did not come to pass because of america's inattention to this point. during the first bush administration our national command authority with full participation by the military deliberately made a decision to reduce the number of tactical nuclear weapons we deploy. they did this irrespective of russian actions because the threat of massive ground invasion in europe had largely evaporated due to the breakup of the former soviet union. in addition our conventional capabilities had improved to the extent that battlefield nuclear weapons were no longer needed to defend western europe. and this atmosphere, maintaining large arsenals of nuclear artillery shells, land nines and -- land mines was a bad bargain for us in terms of cost, safety, alliance cohesion and

proliferation risk. in my judgment, russia should make a similar decision. the risk to russia maintaining their tactical nuclear arsenal in its current form are greater than the potential security benefits that those weapons might provide. they have not done this in part because of their threat perceptions about the borders, particularly their border with china. an agreement with russia that reduced accounted for and improved security around tactical nuclear arsenals is in the interest of both nations. rejection of new start makes it unlikely that a subsequent agreement concerning tactical nuclear weapons will ever be reached. the resolution of ratification encourages the president to engage the russian federation on establishing measures to improve mutual confidence regarding the counting and security of

russian's nonstrategic nuclear weapons. finally let me touch upon modernization. i would like to turn to the nuclear modernization issue. the new start treaty will not directly affect the modernization or the missions of our nuclear weapons laboratories. the treaty explicitly states -- quote -- "modernization and replacement of strategic offensive arms may be carried out." end of quote. yet senate consideration of new start has intensified the debate on modernization and the stockpile stewardship program. near the end of the bush administration, a consensus developed that our nuclear weapon complex was at risk due to years of underfunding. in 2010, the senate approved an amendment to the defense authorization bill requiring a report to congress known as the

1251 report or a plan to modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile. the 1251 report submitted by the administration committed to an investment of approximately $80 billion over a ten-year period to sustain and modernize the united states nuclear weapons complex, which, according to secretary gates, was a credible program for stockpile modernization. pursuant to this report, the administration submitted a fiscal year 2011 request for $7 billion, a nearly 10% increase over fiscal year 2010 levels. the 1251 plan was recently augmented by an additional $5 billion in funding. the directors of our national laboratories wrote on december 1 that they were very pleased with the updated plan which provides adequate support to sustain the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of america's

nuclear deterrent under start's central limits. the resolution of ratification passed by the foreign relations committee declared a commitment to ensure the safety, reliability and performance of our nuclear forces through a robust stockpile stewardship program. the resolution includes a requirement for the president to submit to congress a plan for overcoming any future resource shortfall associated with his ten-year 1251 modernization plan. resolution also declared a commitment to modernizing and replacing nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. in conclusion, it's imperative we vote to provide our advice and consent to the new start treaty. most of the basic strategic concerns that motivated republicans and democratic administration to pursue nuclear arms control with russia during

the last several decades still exists today. we are seeking mutual reductions in nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles that contribute to stability and reduce the costs of maintaining the weapons. we are pursuing transparency of our nuclear arsenals, backed by strong verification measures and formal consultation methods. we're attempting to maximize the safety of our nuclear arsenals and encourage global cooperation toward nonproliferation goals. now, we are hoping to solidify the united states-russian cooperation on nuclear security matters while sustaining our knowledge of russian nuclear capabilities and intentions. rejecting new start would permanently inhibit our understanding of russian nuclear forces, would weaken our nonproliferation diplomacy worldwide, would potentially reignite expensive arms

competitions that would further strain our national budget. bipartisan support for arms control treaties has been reflected in overwhelming votes in favor of the i.n.f. treaty, start i, start ii, and the moscow treaty. i believe the merits of new start should commend similar bipartisan support. i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. and, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

s

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask that further

proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i ask further that i be proceeded -- i be permitted to proceed in morning business for such time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: and i ask further that after i speak, the senator from california, senator feinstein, be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: hold on. mr. president, let me, on that request, i ask to rescind that request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: and that at such time as the other side has had an opportunity to speak, senator feinstein be recognized for one hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. mr. president, this afternoon, the united states senate takes up an issue that is critical to our nation's security and we have an opportunity in doing so

to reduce the danger from nuclear weapons in very real and very measurable terms. we have an opportunity here to fulfill our constitutional obligation that requires the united states senate to provide a two-thirds vote of the members present who must vote in favor of a treaty. the constitution by doing that insists on bipartisanship. it insists on a breadth of support that is critical to our foreign policy and to the security definitions of our country. that, obviously, requires that we put politics aside and act in the best interests of our country, and i'm confident that in the next days, the senate will embrace this debate in the substantive way that it deserves to be embraced, and we look forward to welcoming constructive amendments from our colleagues on the other side of

the aisle. we'll obviously give them time to be able to make those suggestions, and we certainly look forward to having an important discussion about the security of our nation. we have been working together for a lot of months now to get us to this point in time, and i think it's indisputable that we have worked in good faith on our side of the aisle to try to provide enormous latitude to colleagues who have had questions about this treaty, some of whom have opposed this or other treaties from the beginning but who really wanted to engage in the process, and i think the administration to their credit -- secretary gottmuller and others who have negotiated the treaty have been available throughout the process. there have been an enormous number of briefings, discussions, dialogues, phone calls. it has been a very open effort, as open, incidentally, as any

that i could remember in 25 years here in the senate, and i have been through this treaty process with president reagan, with president bush, president clinton and others, and i think this has been as open and as accessible and as in depth and, frankly, as accommodating as any of those, if not significantly more. i want to begin by thanking my colleague in this effort, my friend and a long-time knowledgeable advocate on behalf of nuclear common sense, senator lugar. we all know he is one of the world's foremost experts on the subject of threat reduction and proliferation reduction. there are very few senators here who can look out and see a program that has been as constructive in reducing the threat to our nation that bears their name, the nunn-lugar threat reduction program, and it's been an honor for me to

work with senator lugar and to have his wise counsel in this process and equally importantly to have his courage in being willing to stand up for what he believes in so deeply and what he knows will advance the cause of our nation. i might comment to my colleagues that what we are doing here in these next hours and days, providing advice and consent, is a responsibility that is obviously given only to the senate. the founding fathers intended that the senate be able to rise above the pettiness of partisan politics. as my friend chris dodd said -- our friend chris dodd said in his valedictory speech, "the senate was designed to be different, not simply for the sake of variety, but because the framers believed that the senate could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift

america up to meet its unique challenges -- challenges. "statesmen. that's the word we need to focus on in these next days. too often in recent months, the american people signaled that in the last election the senate has been unable to lift america up to meet its challenges. too often, we became one of those challenges. and rather than cooperating or compromising, we saw blockade after blockade and an inability to be able to address a number of issues. as senator dodd said, what determines whether this institution works is whether the 100 of us can work together. so with the new start treaty, we have got the opportunity to do just that, and not only to demonstrate our leadership to the world -- and i would say to my colleagues that just two days ago, the foreign relations

committee had the privilege of welcoming the entire united nations security council which came here to washington with our ambassador, dr. susan rice, and much on their minds was this question of could the united states senate rise, would the united states senate accomplish this important goal which has meaning, not just to us but to them, because they have joined with us in resolution 1929 in order to put pressure on iran and not to mention the long-term efforts that we have made with respect to north korea. so what we do here is not -- is going to be an expression of our opportunity, of our ability to be able to provide leadership to the american people. let me clarify one thing at the outset of this discussion. we have enough time to do this treaty. to anybody who wants to come out

here and claim, oh, no, we don't have time, we can't do it, it's right before christmas and so forth, let me just make it -- let me just remind people, the original start agreement which was passed back in 1992 was a far more dramatic treaty than the new start. the original start treaty was formulated in the -- in the aftermath of the demise of the soviet union. there was huge uncertainty in russia at that point in time. the soviet union had just collapsed, and yet despite all of the uncertainty, despite the complexity of going from some 10,000 nuclear warheads down to 6,000, the full senate needed only five days of floor time in order to approve the treaty by a vote of 93-6. the start ii treaty which followed it about four years

later took only two days on the floor of the united states senate. it was approved 87-4. and the moscow treaty, which actually resulted in the next further big reducks, because the start treaty -- start ii was ratified by the senate but not approved by russia because of what had happened with the a.b.m. treaty, the unilateral pullout of the united states, so in their pique at that, it wasn't ratified, but we managed to go to the moscow treaty and resulted in further reductions of some 1,700 to 2,200 represents, a very dramatic reduction. that treaty, which didn't have any verification measures in it at all, no verification, that treaty took only two days on the floor of the senate, and it was approved by 95-0. so, mr. president, we have time

to do this treaty. if we approach it seriously, if we don't have delay amendments, delay amendments, i believe we have an opportunity to embrace the fact that this new start treaty is a commonsense agreement in the next step to reduce down 1,550 warheads and to enhance stability between two countries that together between them possess some 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. it will limit russia over the next ten years to those 1,550 deployed warheads, 700 deployed delivery vehicles and 800 launchers. it will give us flexibility in deploying our own arsenal. we have huge flexibility in deciding what we put on land, what we put in the air, what we put at sea.

at the same time, it will allow us to eliminate surplus weapons that have no place in today's strategic environment, and new start's verification provisions are going to deepen our understanding of russia's nuclear forces. for the past 40 years, the united states often at the instigation of republican presidents has used arms control with russia to increase the transparency and the preaddictability of both of our -- predictability of both of our nuclear arsenals and this has built trust between our two countries. it's reduced the chance of an accident. it's stabilized our relationship during times of crisis. it's provided for greater communication and greater understanding, and as everybody knows, in making military decisions and strategic decisions, one's understanding of the legitimacy of a particular threat and the immediacy of that threat and knowing what the intentions and

actions of a potential adversary might be is critical to being able to make wise judgments about what reaction might best be entertained. frankly, that trust is exactly why president george h.w. bush signed the start i and the start ii treaties, and that's why those treaties passed the united states senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. new start simply stands on the shoulders of those two start agreements. not new, a few new components of it, a few twists in terms of the verification of other things, but they are not fundamentally new, and they also stand on the trust and -- and the fact of the legitimate enforcement of that treaty over all of the years that start has been in effect.

so we're not beginning from scratch. we have got a 1992 until today record of cooperation and of knowledge and increased security that has come to us because of the prior agreements. that's, frankly, why i was so pleased that president bush, george herbert walker bush, last week issued a statement urging the united states senate to ratify this treaty. now, in addition to stabilizing the u.s.-russian nuclear relationship, new start has a profound impact on our ability to be able to work to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in states like iran. i might point out that in the seven months since president bush signed this agreement, russia has already exhibited a greater cooperative attitude in working with the united states on a number of things, not the least of which is in supporting

harsher sanctions against iran, and they have suspended the sale of the s-300 air defense system to tehran. that's critical. you know, we were struggling a couple of years ago to try to strengthen sanctions against iran. there isn't a member of this body who didn't articulate at one point or another the need to move to the iran sanctions act. we finally did that, but we didn't have a partnership. neither china nor russia who are permanent members of the security council were joining in that effort, so we couldn't get the united nations even to move. now we have, and there is nobody who has watched the evolution of this restart with russia who doesn't understand that that cooperation has been enhanced by our signing of this treaty. to not ratify it now would be a very serious blow to that cooperative effort, and, in fact, according to many experts,

could ignite an opposite reaction that would move us back into the kinds of arms race that we have struggled so long to get out from under. so the fact is that we need to understand that relationship. i might add, i think steve forbes in "forbes" magazine wrote an article just the other day urging the united states senate to ratify start because he said it doesn't just have an implication in terms of the security component of it, the nuclear side, it has a very strong economic component, and he is arguing for greater economic engagement between russia and the united states and russia and the west, and he said that the restart, the restart relationship is critical to that increased commerce, to that increased economic strengthening between our countries.

i hope my colleagues will look carefully at a strong, conservative voice like his that urges the ratification of this treaty. now, in addition to the russian component of the relationship, new start will help us keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. one of the greatest fears of our security community is that terrorists may not necessarily get what we strictly call a nuclear bomb, but they may be able to get nuclear material through back channels and through the black market because it hasn't been adequately guarded, because we haven't reduced the numbers of missiles and the amount of material, and so they could get a hold of some of that material and make what is called a dirty bomb, and that is a bomb that doesn't go off in nuclear -- nuclear reaction, but

which because of the nuclear material that explodes with it has a very broad toxic impact on a very large community, and that is a legitimate real concern and one of the reasons why we drive so hard to reduce the nuclear actors in the world. the original start agreement was, frankly, the foundation of the nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction program. that is, simply put the nonproliferation effort of the last 20 years. as james baker, former secretary of treasury, secretary of state, said, i really don't think nunn-lugar would have been as successful tass it was if the russians backed the assurance of parallel u.s. reductions through the start treaty. the new start is going to strengthen our ability to continue to secure loose nuclear materials. without new start, absolutely to

a certainty that ability to contain those materials will be weakened. in short, new start is going to help us address the lingering dangers of the old nuclear age while giving us important tools to be able to combat the threats of the new nuclear age. and the sooner we approve it, the safer we will become. that's why there's such an outpouring of support for this treaty, mr. president. every single living former secretary of state, republican and democrat, supports this treaty. so do five former secretaries of defense and the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commission. so do seven former commanders of our nuclear forces and the entirety of our uniformed military, including admiral mullen and the service chiefs and our current nuclear commander all support this

treaty as well. it's difficult to imagine an agreement with that kind of backing from so many individuals who have contributed so much to our nation's security, almost all of whom know a lot more about each of these arguments than any senator -- myself, everybody here. they have been in the middle of this, and over the last weeks every single one of them have spoken out in favor of this treaty. you know, some have suggested we shouldn't rush to do this, but i got to tell you, mr. president, only in the united states senate would a year and a half be a rush. we've started working on this treaty a year and a half ago. senators have had unbelievable opportunity to be able to do this. i think the question is really not why would we try to do it now, it's why would we not try to do it now? for what reason? within the four corners of the actual treaty. not talking about modernization,

that's not within the four corners of the treaty. not withstanding that, the administration has allowed delay after delay after delay in order to help work with senator kyl and provide adequate increases in modernization so much so that the modernization is way over what it was with president bush or any prior administration. but that's not within the four corners of the treaty. that's something you do because you want to maintain america's nuclear force, which is why we've worked hard to be able to provide that funding. but i believe that the importance here is to recognize that it's been more than a year since the original start treaty and its verification provisions expired. more than one year since we had inspectors on the ground in russia with access to their nuclear facilities. every day for the past year our knowledge of their arsenal or whatever they're doing begins to

diminish. one step, one small amount at a time, cumulatively over time which is why our entire national intelligence community has come out and said this treaty in fact will advance america's security and assist us to be able to know what russia is doing. let me point out two weeks ago james clapper, the director of national intelligence, urged us to ratify the new start, and he said, "i think the earlier, the sooner, the better." that's our national intelligence director. others have tried to suggest again that this is a squeeze in the last days here. but let me just say respectfully, i've already given you the time frame. start 1 took five tkaeurbgs start ii twaorbgs -- start ii, two days. we have to make it clear we're going to stay here. the president wants us to stay

here and harry reid said we will, until we get this done. the fact is starting in june of 2009, over a year ago, a year and a half ago, the foreign relations committee was briefed at least five times during the talks with the russians. we met downstairs in the secure facilities with the negotiators while they were negotiating. we met with them before they negotiated. we gave them parameters that we thought they needed to embrace in order to facilitate passage through the senate. we met with them while they were negotiations at least five times. senators from the armed services committee, senators from the intelligence committee, senators from the senate's national security working group which i cochair along with senator kyl. whenever senator kyl wanted to meet with that group, we called a meeting of that group. and we met and we sat and talked. the select committee on

intelligence did its work. in the end, if you counted up more than 60 united states senators were able to follow the negotiations in detail over a one-year period. senators also had additional opportunities to meet with the negotiating team and a delegation of senators even traveled to geneva which the administration helped make happen in order to meet with the negotiators while the negotiations were going on. so, mr. president, even though the new start was formally submitted to the senate in may, the fact is congress knew a lot about this treaty before it was even signed. the president made certain that we were continually being briefed and that the input of the united states senate was taken into account in the context of those negotiations. no other senate, not next year's senate, could come back here and replicate what this senate has gone through in preparing for

this treaty. we can't replicate those negotiations. they're over. they can't go back and give advice to negotiators at the beginning. that's done. we did that. it's our responsibility to stand up and complete the task on this because we've put a year and a half's work into it. we've done the preparation. we have the knowledge, and it's our responsibility. the fact is that over the last seven months this senate has even become more immersed in the treaty. we've had briefings, documents have been submitted, nearly 1,000 formal questions were submitted to the administration, and they have been answered. we've got volumes of these questions, all of which were asked by senators completely within their rights, totally appropriate in the ratification process. we welcome it. and i think it has produced a better record and a stronger product. the foreign relations committee

conducted 12 open and classified hearings. we heard from more than 20 witnesses. the armed services committee and the intelligence committees held more than eight hearings in classified briefings of their own. we heard from robert gates, secretary of defense; from admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; kevin chelton; patrick o'riley, director of the defense age circumstance who repeated what every person involved in this has said: this treaty does nothing to negatively impact america's ability in a way that prevents us from doing exactly what we want with respect to missile defense. we also heard from the directors of the nation's nuclear laboratories, the intelligence officials who are charged with monitoring the threats to the united states. and we heard, as i mentioned

previously several times, from the negotiators of the agreement. we heard from the officials who served in the nixon administration, ford, carter, reagan, bush, bush 41, clinton, bush 43. we heard from every single one of those administrations, and you know what? overwhelmingly they told us we should ratify the new start. as i said, some of the strongest support of this treaty comes from the military. on june 16 i chaired a hearing on the u.s. nuclear posture, modernization of our nuclear weapons complex and our missile defense plans. general which he chelton, respor overseeing our nuclear deterrent, explained why the military supports the new start. he said -- quote -- "if we don't get the treaty, a, the russians are not constrained in their development of force structure. and, b, we have no insight into

what they're doing. so it's the worst of both possible worlds." that is the head of our strategic command telling us, you don't ratify this treaty, it's the worst of both possible worlds. this treaty may have been negotiated by a democratic president. some of the strongest support of this treaty comes from republicans. two weeks ago five former republican secretaries of state -- five -- henry kissinger, george shultz, james baker, laurence eagleburger and colin powell -- wrote an article saying they support ratification of new start because it embraces republican principles like strong verification. and last week condoleezza rice published an op-ed which said the new start treaty deserves bipartisan support when the senate decides to vote on it. secretary rice wrote "approving

this treaty is part of our effort to stop the world's most dangerous weapons from going to the world's most dangerous regimes." so if some think we haven't somehow considered this treaty carefully, i'd just encourage them to revisit the voluminous record that has been produced over the last year and a half. and i look forward to reviewing it here as we debate new start in the coming days. in the end i'm confident we're going to approve this treaty, mr. president, just as the senate approved the original start treaty in 1992. and at that time there were also senators who insisted on delay. there were senators who suggested that serious questions remain unanswered. that's their privilege. and there were senators who drafted dozens and dozens of amendments. but in the end, within five days, the senate came together to approve the treaty 93-6.

so what is important that we pay attention to as we look at the big picture here, to the national imperative, the security imperative behind this treaty and what our military leaders and civilian leaders are urging us to think about, both past and present? well, if you pay attention to the facts, you can really come to only one conclusion, and that is that we have to ratify this treaty. some of our -- some of our colleagues have said that they could support the treaty if we address certain issues in the resolution of ratification. well, again, i hope they are listening. we have addressed the issues that they raised in the resolution of ratification. i think many people may not even be aware of how much we have put into the resolution of ratification and how much we've done over the last seven months to respond to the concerns that were raised during the

consideration of the treaty. the draft resolution, mr. president, is 28 pages long. it contains 13 conditions, 3 understapbgz, 10 declarations. and the conditions will require actions by the executive branch. the understandings are formally communicated to the russians. and the declarations express clear language of what we in the senate expect to happen in the next year. that's the distinction between each of those categories. this resolution currently addresses every serious topic that we have addressed over the course of the last seven months. for example, on the issue of missile defense, our military has repeatedly and unequivocally assured us that the new start does nothing to constrain our missile defense plans. the secretary of defense says it does nothing to constrain our missile defense plans. the chairman of the joint chiefs

of staff says it does nothing to constrain our missile defense plans. the commander of our nuclear forces says it does nothing to constrain our defense plans. indeed, the man who probably knows more about these plans in the greatest detail, much more than any senator, lieutenant general o'riley, the head of the missile defense agency, testified that in many ways the treaty reduces constraints on our missile defense testing. get that. the head of missile defense says this treaty reduces the constraints on our missile defense testing. he also testified that the russians signed the treaty full knowing that we are committed to the phased adaptive approach in europe. he said -- and let me quote him -- "i have briefed the russians personally in moscow on every aspect of our missile defense development.

i believe they understand what it is and that those plans for development are not limited by this treaty." if the head of our missile defense sees no problem with this treaty, i really don't understand the concerns being expressed. but if a senator is still worried about the new start missile defense treaty, not withstanding his comments, then they ought to read condition 5, understanding, one, declarations 1 and 2, all of which speak directly to that issue. we've also addressed the issue of what resources are needed in order to sustain our nuclear deterrent and modernize our nuclear weapons infrastructure. this is not an issue that falls within the four corners of the treaty, as i mentioned, but as a matter of good faith, inen an effort to sort of accelerate the ability of people to start this treaty, every effort is made too provide senator killed and other

senators with a full knowledge of how that program is going to go forward from their point of view. the administration doesn't control what a republican house is going to do next year. i don't know. but senator inouye has given his assurances, senator feinstein has given her assurances, and we have shown a good-faith effort to guarantee that there is knowledge of the funding going forward, the 1251 program which lays out the spending going forward has been made available way ahead of schedule in a good-faith effort to try to make certain that every base is covered. the obama administration proposed spending, $80 billion over the next ten years. that's a 15% increase over the baseline budget, even after accounting for inflation. and it would have been much, much, much more that amount than was spent during the bush administration, notwithstanding that commitment, still last month some senators expressed

further concerns. so guess what? the administration responded even further and put up an additional $5 billion over the next ten years, and in response the directors of our three nuclear weapons laboratories sent me a letter saying -- and i quote -- "they were very pleased with the new plan and they said -- quote -- "we were that the proposed budgets provide adequate support to sustain the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of america's nuclear deterrent within the limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warhood heads with -- warheads with adequate -- >> last week the person responsibility for running our nuclear weapons complex, a man apoinltsd by george w. bush, told "the wall street journal," "i can say with certainty that our nuclear infrastructure has

never received the level of support we have today." that's a ringing endorsement, mr. president, one that's completely persuasive or ought to be it to any reasonable mind with respect to this issue. but if senators are still concerned, then i suggest they go see condition 9 of the resolution of ratification. it says that it any of this funding doesn't materialize in the coming years, the president is required to report to congress as to how he or she will respond to that shortfall. every other issue that has been raised is also addressed in the resolution as well, mr. president. if you're worried about modernizing our strategic delivery vehicles, declaration 13 gets at that concern. conventional prompt global strike capabilities -- go look at condition 6 and 7. understanding, 3, and declaration 3, tactical nuclear

weapons, likewise quoferredz in the resolution. verifying russian compliance, also covered. even the concern raised about rail mobile missiles has been addressed in the resolution of ratification. now obviously there's room for someone else to come in and say, well, you need to do this, you need to do that. not everything has been covered and we completely remain open to any reasonable and legitimate efforts to improve on or guarantee some safeguard that somehow is not included in a way that it can be without obviously trying to scuttle the treaty itself. i've reached out to colleagues. we've had terrific conversations. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have sat with us in a lot of efforts and inquired and helped us to sort of navigate this process, but make no mistake, we're not going to amend the treaty itself.

we're willing to accept resolutions that don't kill the treaty, but we're not going to get into some process after all that has been said and done by all of the different bipartisan voices that have inspected this treaty and found that -- it as one that we should ratify. mr. president, i've been through all the folks who have signed and endorsed it, et cetera, et cetera. so i would simply say that i hope in the next hours we will have a healthy debate on this. i hope we can also work out, given that everybody knows the holiday is on us -- i hope we can work out reasonable time periods on amendments. we're certainly not going to prolong a debate. i think most senators have a of where they feel on most of these issues. so we look forward to working with our colleagues in a very constructive way to try to expedite the process for our colleagues. we have other business before the senate as well.

we're cognizant of that. but this is truly a moment where we can increase america's hand in several of the greatest challenges that we face on the planet. first and foremost, obviously, if we are truly committed to a nonnuclear aaron. the russian -- a nonnuclear ir iran. a message that sends a message about our bonafide and clean hands in this effort, it would be a tragedy if we didn't take this opportunity to strengthen the president's and the nation's and the west's hands in trying to deal with this increasingly threatening issue. so i hope our colleagues will warmly rise to that challenge here in the senate, and i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i rise to discuss an issue very

important to louisianans and folks along the gulf coast but very important to the entire country, which is the continuing de facto moratorium, the permatorium, many folks have called it in terms of drilling, energy production in the gulf of mexico. there's one particular headline that i want to point out in this context, mr. president, that's very frustrating and baffling, if it weren't so serious, it would be comical. mr. president, over the last several months louisianans have grown increasingly frustrated with the interior department in particular, and in particular what used to be called m.m.s., now the bureau of ocean energy management regulation and enforcement. louisianans have come to call that newly named agency for its acronym pronunsed "bummer." that's because that agency

hasn't been doing its work issuing permits get americans back to work to produce american energy. related to that earlier this week i publicly announced a hold on dr. scott donney, to be chief scientist at noaa until interior and "bummer" showed that it was capable of responding to a letter i had sent it about this permatorium, the sad state of afairks and until they were willing to explain to congress findings in an ig report i had -- an i.g. report i had requested back in june. since june of this year, not a single new exploration plan or deepwater permit to drill has been approved by these bureaucracies. not a singles one. idling billions of dollars of assets and forcing companies to cut their 2011 investment in the gulf to one-third of what it was a year ago.

time and again we've heard from bmr and interior secretary salazar they don't have enough people to issue the permits. they need more staff, they need to dedicate resources, they need nor money, they need to focus on this permanent program. we've also been told that interior needs more money; specifically $100 million additional dollars. now, in light of all this, in light of all these claims, all of these requests, more people, more money, in light of the enormous frustration we feel in louisiana in the gulf, i want to get to this little newspaper headline that i referenced a few minutes ago. it came out yesterday, and it reads, "b.m.r. team returns from popular new guinea visit after sharing technical expertise with officials." and the story starts, "spertds from the bureau of ocean energy

management regulation and enforcement recently completed a technical assistance workshop on offshore oil and gas regulatory programs for the government of papeneau, new guinea." this is the same interior department that can't get a single exploration plan, not a single deepwater permit to drill out the door. the same interior department and b.m.r. that claims it needs more money, more staff to get this job done but parntsly they have plenty of latitude and staff and money for a three-day workshop in papua, new begi new guinea, s offshore permitting which they can't get done here in the united states. i think we need to take a little time to explain to the government of pa puvment a, new

guinea, that the last thing want to do, assuming they're interested in creating jobs at home through a workable permitting process is to talk to these folks. these are the same folks that can't get a single deepwater permit oar single exploration plan out the door. as i said, mr. president, this would be comical, except that it's not, because it's deed serious, because it's losing american jobs, it's exporting activity, economic activity, from our country overseas. the interior department is crushing domestic energy production, destroying good-paying jobs, losing revenue for the treasury, making america more energy-insecure. so if i can give one simple recommendation to b.m.r. this holiday season in regard to expediting the permitting

process, maybe -- maybe they should keep their staff planted in their seats here at home. maybe they should pass on the next trip to papua, new begin neerks the next workshop with our partners around the globe. maybe they should focus on getting the first exploration plant, the first new deepwater permit out the door. maybe they should get that job done, put americans back to work producing american energy before more of these outrageous trips and expenses. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i thank -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i know that the start treaty is going to be before us soon, and i realize that we had a motion to proceed to that today, and it's my hope -- i think i've indicated a willingness to

support the treaty, if all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted on modernization. i know there are a number of commitments that are forthcoming from the white house and other places regarding modernization, and my hope is the same on missile defense. i am very concerned that we're doing this in the middle of an omnibus, a 1,924-page om any bussments i'm very concerned about a treaty of this substance, of this serious in one dealing with nuclear arms being taken up in such a disconcerted way. and so i voted against the motion to proceed. i do hope that, as the leader has indicated, all of those who wish to offer amendments -- and i know there's going to be a number of very serious and thoughtful amendments that matter -- will be heard. i'm skill skeptical that that -- i'm still skeptical that that request be done in an appropriate way. but again, i think this treaty

with the t's crossed and i's doted, with the appropriate time allotted, whether it is now or ends up being in february, and if the resolution is not weakened in any way, is still something that i would plan to support. but i'm very skeptical that we can do that appropriately during this lame-duck session with this omnibus before us. so let me turn to the omnibus, because that's really what the american people, i think, rightly so are most focused on today. i cannot tell you how disappointed i am that an appropriations bill of this size, one that has an increase in spending, has over 6,000 earmarks -- as a matter of fact, mr. president, i know you are aware of this. you and i had a great conversation this morning about spending, and i know that we had a large number of people out here on the floor yesterday talking about our concern for physical caicials. but, you know, the bill is 1,924 pages long and these are just the earmarks.

these are just the eernlings not the bill itself. -- these are just the earmarks, not the bill itself. i'm just stunned that after the message that was sent during this last plex that congress would basically say -- or many members of congress would say, you know, american people, we understand you're very upset, we need that you have concerns that are true concerns about the nation's fiscal conditions and yet we don't really care. and, mr. president, it is my hope that what will happen is that saner heads will prevail and that what we'll do is pass a short-term c.r., for those listening who doesn't know what that is, that we would operate government through february or march so people like the presiding officer who was just elected and myself and others who care so deeply about the fiscal issues of our country 0