spending restraints. i think everyone knows that our country faces -- these are not rhetorical issues. our country faces a crisis as it relates to these issues and the world markets are watching us. i think we've seen our interest rates on our bonds rise pretty dramatically even since the tax bill came out. i've -- i've had serious -- that was a tough vote for me. because, again, in order to create certainty and to ensure that the economic prosperity of this country resummed, and we continued on -- resumed and we continued on the pace we are today, i felt it was important to go ahead and get that behind us. i always thought and hoped and still do that what we would move to very quickly is really driving down spending in relation to our country's gross domestic output. i've offered an amendment to do just that.

i did that on the tax bill. i plan to offer the same on this -- on this particular -- in this particular discussion that we're having right now. but, mr. president, i am unbelievably disappointed that we would even consider punting the spending issue for a year. that's what we would be doing. in essence, if this -- if this omnibus bill were to pass, we'd be passing a huge spending bill. again, let me go back. typically appropriations are handled one bill at a time. there's typically 12 appropriations bills. and what happens when we do that, we're able to pick out wasteful programs here on the floor and maybe defund those. we're able to really scrutinize all of the programs of government, which is what the american people want us to do. instead of that, especially -- instead of that in a climate where the american people have

almost revoltd a revolted at th, and i know you know this very well, instead of carefully considering our spending, what we're being asked to do is to vote on one bill that has all 12 of those appropriations bills packed into it, again, with 6,000 earmarks, and we're asked to vote on that here in the next few days. i think it is reprehensible, and i say that respectfully. i know that -- i know that people in our proitionz committe -- in ourappropriatione worked together in a very serious way over the past year. i know that they have. and i know the appropriations committee is one of those committees that probably has the most bipartisan spirit of any committee in the senate. and so i can understand their desire to want to finish their work, but it's just being done inappropriately. this is not the way serious

people conduct their business. they take these bills up one at a time. sometimes there's two or three when there's really small appropriation bills banded together. it's called a mini bus, if you will. but to do this all at once flies in the face of everything that we all know is good government. all of us know this is not right way to fund government. a much better way for us would be to pass a short-term continuing resolution bill, as i just mentioned, to kick this down until february or march to allow us to look at something like the amendment i offered where we take spending that is at all-time highs at 24% of our gross domestic product today and over the next 10 years takes it down to our average of 46%. claire mccaskill and i are cosponsoring in a bipartisan way a bill or an amendment, depending on how it's offered,

to do just that. we know that the deficit reduction commission just spent a tremendous amount of time -- i know that the presiding officer has talked personally to leaders multiple times. they spent a tremendous amount of time this year looking at what he we, as a government, need to do to be responsible, to make sure that people around the world even view our credit as something they're willing to invest in, to really make sure for these pages who sit in front of me who work here so hard that we're not, in essence, living a life and layering debt upon debt upon debt on top of the balance sheet they're going to have to deal with. so i cannot believe in the atmosphere of having that report come forward, having us look at how draconian the problem is and some of the tough decisions that a courageous congress would need to make to put our country back

on right path. i can't believe that we would even consider passing this massive piece of legislation that, in essence, would kick the can down the road for a year. basically let the wind -- let the wind out of this momentum that's been building for us to do the right thing. i can't imagine that we would do that. mr. president, i know that you knee our debt ceiling vote is going to be coming up soon. it's going to happen sometime in april, maybe may, maybe it will drag out as long as the first week in june. and that's a vote where we to vote raise the amount of debt that this country can enter into. and i know that a lot of people say that it's irresponsible not to vote for a debt ceiling increase because we already spent the money. it would be like going out and running up a credit card bill and then not agreeing to pay it.

but, mr. president, i think it's irresponsible not to act responsibly prior to taking that vote. and the thing that -- that i i'm so disappointed in is that i think a vote on this omnibus bill that is before us, what that really does is probably prevent us from going ahead and doing some things this spring that we know are responsible to really drive down the cost of government to an appropriate level. so, mr. president, i -- i hope -- i know there's a lot of prshure, and i know that -- pressure, and i know that probably in the caulk yuses, cae the caucus that meets on the other side of the aisle, i know there's a meeting tomorrow again, i know there's a lot of pressure to get this out of the way, but, mr. president, i know with every cell in my body that passing this omnibus right now is absolutely the wrong thing to

do for the country from the standpoint of good government. and i absolutely know it's the wrong thing to do to all of those citizens across this country that became so involved -- >> [inaudible] the presiding officer: the sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. the sergeant at arms, please. senator? a senator: thank you, mr. president. i don't know what the message was, but -- are we done? at the -- as i close, mr. president, i just want to say that i hope -- mr. corker: i know there are people on both sides of the aisle that care deeply about the

future of this country and i know there are people on both sides of the aisle have some commonality as to what the path forward is as to making sure that this country lives up to its obligations to the american citizens. that we don't live for today, which is, what by the way, we'd be doing by passing this, live for today and pass on the obligations to the future. mr. president, i hope that by the time we take the vote on the bill, this will be defeated and that people who deeply care about future of this country will come together, pass a short-term continuing resolution which we know -- i think most of us know in this body that's the responsible thing to do and that we'll begin work after the first this year when this lame-duck session ends doing the thing that this country needs most, and that is all of us standing up, all of us having the courage to do those things, make those cuts, do those things that are necessary to get our country

back on the same footing. mr. president, i yield the floor and i thank you for the time. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. finesteinstein i ask unanimous consent -- mrs. feinstein: i ask that nancy be granted floor privileges throughout senate consideration of the new start treaty and the fy-2011 omnibus appropriations act. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: as chairman of the select committee on intelligence, i'd like to address the strategic arms reduction treaty called new start that is now before the senate for ratification. this treaty has been carefully vetted. i'm confident that the senate will come to the conclusion that this treaty is in our national interest. and will cast the necessary votes for ratification. i strongly support ratification. before speaking about

intelligence issues related to this treaty, it's important to remind ourselves about the extraordinary, lethal nature of these nuclear weapons. i was 12 years old when atomic bombs flattened high ro flatten. the bomb killed 70,000 people outright. you can see from this chart the absolute devastation this bomb caused. the nagg nagasaki bomb killed at least 40,000 people immediately. another 100,000 or so who survived the initial blasts died of injuries and radiation sickness. by the end of 1945 an estimated

220,000 people had lost their lives because of these two bombs. and the horrible images of disfigured bodies and devastating ruins have stayed with me all my life. i was part of the generation of youngsters being raised that hid in -- under our desks in drills about atomic bombs and atomic weapons being unleashed. so here is nagasaki before the bomb and here is nagasaki after the bomb -- after the bomb. it gives you a very good look at what it was like. now, today we live in a world with far more nuclear weapons. and even more powerful destructive capabilities. in may of this year, the pentagon made a rare public announcement of the current united states nuclear stockpile,

5,113 nuclear warheads, including deployed and nondeployed and not including warheads awaiting dismantlement. according to the federation of american scientists, russia's stockpile includes 4,650 deployed warheads -- deployed warheads, both strategic and tactical. the estimate of russia's arsenal is 9,000 warheads plus thousands more waiting to be dismantled. many, and here's the key, many of these weapons are far in excess of 100kilotons or five times more than the bombs dropped on hiroshima or

nagasaki. many of these weapons are on high alert ready to be launched at a moment's notice and it would result in unimaginable devastation. so i ask my colleagues during this debate to reflect carefully on the extraordinary lethal nature of these weapons as we consider this treaty. this treaty is actually a modest step forward, not a giant one. it calls for cutting deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 30%, below the levels established under the 2002 moscow treaty to 1,550 each. it cuts launch vehicles such as missle silos and submarine tubes to 800 for each country. deployed launch vehicles are capped at 700, more than 50% below the original start treaty.

according to the unanimous views of our nation's military and civilian defense officials, this will not erode america's nuclear capability. our strategic deterrent or our national defense. the united states will still maintain a robust nuclear triad able to protect our country and our national security interests. as general james cartwright, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and former head of the united states strategic command stated and i quote -- "i think we have more than enough capability and capacity for any threat that we see today or that might emerge in the foreseeable future." end quote. additionally, these reductions in this new start treaty won't have to be completed until the treaty's seventh year, so there's plenty of time for a

prudent drawdown. but while its terms are modest, its impacts are broad. and i'd like now describe some of the benefits of ratification. i begin with the ways in which this treaty enhances our nation's intelligence capabilities. this has been the lens through which the senate select committee on intelligence has viewed the treaty, and i believe the arguments are strongly positive and persuasive. there are three main points to make and i'll take them in turn. they are, one, the intelligence community can carry out its responsibility to monitor russian activities under the treaty effectively. two, this treaty, when it enters into force, will benefit intelligence collection and analysis. , and, three, intelligence analysis indicates that failing to ratify the new start treaty

will create negative consequences for the united states. my comments today are, of course, unclassified but i would note that there is a national intelligence estimate on monitoring the new start treaty available to senators. i've written a classified letter to senator kerry and lugar that spells out these arguments in greater detail. members are welcome to review both documents. following president reagan's advice to trust but verify, and in line with all major arms control treaties for decades, new start includes several provisions that allow the united states to monitor how russia is reducing and deploying its strategic arsenal and vice versa. the united states intelligence community will use these treaty

provisions and other independent tools, such as the use of national technical means, for example, our satellites, to collect information on russian forces and whether rus russia is complying with the treaty's terms. these treaties include on-the-ground inspections of russian nuclear facilities and bases, 18 a year. regular exchanges on data on warhead and missile production and locations. unique identifiers, a distinguished alphanumeric code for each missile and heavy bomber for tracking purposes. a ban on blocking national technical means from collecting information on strategic forces. and other measures i will describe later in these remarks. without the strong monitoring and verification measures provided for in this treaty, we

will no less -- we will know less about the number, size, location, and deployment status of russian nuclear warhead. that's a fact. as general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, recently said -- and i quote -- "without new start, we would rapidly lose insight into russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worst-case analyses regarding our own force requirements." that's what a "no" vote on this treaty means. russian prime minister vladimir putin made the same point earlier this month. he said that if the united states doesn't ratify the trea

treaty, russia will have to respond, including augmentation of its stockpile. that's what voting "no" on this treaty means. so these monitoring provisions are key, as is the trust and transparency they bring. and the only way to get to these provisions is through ratification. in fact, we haven't had any inspections or other monitoring tools for over a year, since the original start treaty expired. so we have less insight into any new russian weapons and delivery systems that might be entering their force. the united states has essentially gone black on any monitoring, inspection, data exchanges, telemetry and notification allowed by the former start treaty. last november, senator kyl and i

traveled to geneva to meet with united states and russian negotiating teams. we met at some length with rose got miller, the assistant secretary of state for arms control verification and compliance, who led the united states negotiating team. we also met with the senior members of her team, including her deputy, ambassador marcie reeves, ted warner, michel yo me elliott, kurt s e man, and mark trout. these effects and many of the other members of the united states team were very impressive in their professionalism and experience. several had participated in the negotiation of the original start treaty or the intermediate-range nuke quer --r

forces, the i.n.f. treaty. several were inspectors who are conducted on-the-ground inspections in russia under start and i.n.f., or were weapons systems operators who had been responsible for hosting russian inspectors at united states bases. so this team was not composed of the uninitiated or of neophytes. they had both background and skill. they were acutely aware of the lessons learned over the past decades of arms control and negotiated this treaty with an understanding of what monitoring and compliance verification mean. senator kyl and i also met two or three times during our trip to geneva with the russian delegation led by russian ambassador antoli antonof, who's an experienced diplomat and negotiator. his delegation included representatives from the ministry of foreign affairs and

defense, the general staff, and key agencies, such as rotottam and roscosmos. like the united states delegations, the russian delegation had among its members inspectors and weapons systems operators, including those from the strategic rocket forces, the navy, and the air force. it treaty was still being negotiated at that time but the rough outlines were very much coming into focus. i mentioned to the united states and russian delegations that it would be difficult to get 67 votes in the senate for a resolution saying the sky is blue. in order to get an arms treaty through the senate, it would have to have strong monitoring provisions. in a lengthy conversation over lunch with russian ambassador antonof, i said that as chair of the senate intelligence committee, i would have to walk

on to this very floor and assure my colleagues that the provisions in this treaty are sufficient for the united states intelligence community to perform its monitoring role. i believe that ambassador antonof clearly understood that. and one year later, i am able to say on this floor that the intelligence committee has reviewed the question of monitoring the new start treaty at length. it is adequate. after the treaty was submitted to the senate on may 13, 2010, seven months ago, the committee began its review of its provisions and annexes. we reviewed past intelligence community nalsdz o analyses on g previous treaties and the tools available to monitor russian behavior under this new start. the intelligence community completed drafting its n.i.e. on

its ability to monitor the treaty's limits in june, six months ago. we received a copy on june 30, allowing members to review it for six months before -- well, to review it before and after the 4th of july recess. the committee held a hearing on the n.i.e. with senior intelligence officials in july. not a single one of them questioned the validity or the judgments of the estimate. following the hearing, the committee submitted more than 70 questions for the record and received detailed responses from the intelligence community. those are obviously classified but they can be seen. in addition, the committee undertook its own independent review of the n.i.e. and the treaty's implications for the intelligence community -- committee, excuse me. committee staff participated in

more than a dozen meetings and briefings on a range of issues concerning the treaty. focusing on intelligence monitoring and collection aspects. based on the committee's review, after reading the n.i.e. and other assessments, and having spoken to directors of national intelligence, dennis blair, david gompert, and jim clapper, it is clear to me that the intelligence community will be able to effectively monitor russian activities under this treaty. for the record, i'd like to describe the monitoring provisions in this treaty, many of which are similar to the original start treaty's provisions. one, the treaty commits the united states and russia -- and i quote -- "not to interfere with the national technical means of verification of the other parties." that means not to interfere with

our satellites. and not to use concealment measures that impede verification. this means that russia, as i said, agrees not to block our satellite observations of their launchers or their testing. without this treaty, russia could take steps to deny or block our ability to collect information on their forces. let me make clear, they could try and perhaps block our satellites. like start, new start requires russia to provide the united states with regular data notifications. this includes information on the production of any and all new strategic missiles, the loading of warheads on to missiles, and the location to which strategic forces are deployed. under start, these notifications

were vital to our understanding. in fact, the notification provisions under new start are stronger than those in the old start, including a requirement that russia inform the united states when a missile or warhead moves into or out of deployment status. let me repeat that. there is an obligation that russia informs us when a missile or a warhead moves into or out of deployed status. third, new start restores our ability to conduct on-the-ground inspections. there are none of them going on, none have been going on for about a year. new start allows for ten so-called type i on-site inspections of russian icbm,

slbm, and bomber bases a year. the protocols for these type i inspections were written by united states negotiators with years of inspection experience under the original start treaty. and here's how they work. first, united states inspectors choose what base they wish to inspect. russia is restricted from moving missiles, launchers and bombers away from that base. second, when the inspectors arrive, they'll be given a full briefing from the russians to include the numbers of deployed and nondeployed missile launchers or bombers at the ba base, the number of warheads loaded on each bomber -- this is important -- and the number of

reentry vehicles on each icbm or slbm. third, the inspectors choose what they want to suspect -- to inspect. at an icbm base, the inspectors choose a deployed icbm for inspection, one they want to inspect. at a submarine base, they choose an slbm. if there are any nondeployed launchers, ones not carrying missiles, the inspectors can pick one of those for inspection as well -- as well. at air bases, the inspectors can choose up to three bombers for inspection. fourth, the actual inspection occurs with the united states personnel verifying the number of warheads on the missiles or on the bombers chosen. as i mentioned earlier, each

warhead is coded with a specific code so that you know which warhead, both numerically and alphabetically, which warhead you have chosen, and they cannot be changed. under this framework, our inspectors are providing comprehensive information -- excuse me -- provided comprehensive information from the russian briefers, and they're able to choose themselves how they want to verify that this information is accurate. the treaty also provides for an additional eight inspections a year of nondeployed warheads and facilities where russia converts or eliminates nuclear arms. now, some people have commented that the number of inspections under new start -- that's the total of 18 i've just gone through -- is smaller than the 28 under the previous start

treaty. this is true, but it's also true that there are half as many russian facilities to inspect as there were in 1991 when start was signed. in addition, inspections under new start are designed to cover more topics than inspections under the prior start agreement. in testimony from the director of the defense threat reduction agency, kenneth meyers, the agency conducted -- conducting these inspections, he said, and i quote -- "type one inspections will be more demanding on this agency, his agency, and site personnel as it combines the main parts of what were formerly two separate inspections under start into a single, lengthier inspection." that's important. the inspections are going to be

better. so while the absolute number of inspections is down from 28 to 18, the ability to monitor and understand russian forces is not lessened. i'm really confident that we can achieve our monitoring objectives with 18 inspections a year. i also urge my colleagues to review the new start national intelligence estimate which addresses these issues in detail. now, let me discuss a couple of monitoring provisions that were included in the expired start treaty but are not in the treaty we're now considering. first, under start, united states officials had a permanent presence at the russian missile production facility at vutkinksk. you will hear about vutskinksk.

inspectors watched as missiles left the plant and were shipped to various parts of the country. new start does not include this provision. in fact, the bush administration had taken this provision off the table in its negotiations with the russians prior to leaving office. new start does, however, require russia to mark all missiles, as i have been saying, with unique identifiers so we can track their location and deployment status over the lifetime of the treaty. so it's not necessary to have a vutskinksk. the treaty also requires russia to notify us at least 48 hours before any missile leaves a plant, so we will have still information about missile production without the permanent presence. our inspectors and other nuclear experts have testified that these provisions are, in fact,

sufficient. secondly, start required the united states and russia to exchange technical data from missile tests. that's known as telemetry -- to each other but not to other countries. that telemetry allows each side to calculate things like how many warheads a missile could carry. this was important as the start treaty attributed warheads to missiles. if a russian missile could carry ten re-entry vehicles, the treaty counted it as having ten warheads. information obtained through telemetry was, therefore, important to determine the capabilities of each delivery system. new start, however, does away with these attribution rules and counts the actual number of warheads deployed on a bomber or

a missile. no more guessing whether a russian missile is carrying one or eight warheads. with this change, we don't need precise calculations of the capabilities of russian missiles in order to tell whether russia's complying with the treaty's terms. so telemetry is not necessary to monitor compliance with new start. nonetheless, as a gesture to transparency, the treaty allows for the exchange of telemetry between our two countries only, up to five times a year if both sides agree to do so. and, in fact, it should be pointed out that if the treaty included a broader requirement to exchange telemetry, the united states might have to share information on interceptors for missile defense, which the department of defense has not agreed to do.

third, there has been a concern raised about russian breakout capability, a fear that russia may one day decide to secretly deploy more warheads than the treaty would allow or to secretly build a vast stockpile that it could quickly put into its deployed force. i don't really see this as a credible concern. according to public figures, russian strategic forces are already under or close to the limits prescribed by new start, and they have been decreasing over the past decade. not just now but over the past decade. so the concern about a breakout is a concern that russia would suddenly decide it wants to reverse what has been a ten-year trend and employ more weapons than it currently believes are needed for its security. it would also have to decide to do this secretly, with a

significant risk of being caught. because of the monitoring provisions, the inspections, our national technical means and other ways we have to track russian nuclear activities, moscow would have serious disincentives to do that. moreover, instead of developing a breakout capability, russia could decide instead to simply withdraw from the treaty, just like the united states did when president bush withdrew from the antiballistic missile treaty. and finally, even in the event that russia did violate the treaty and pursue a breakout capability, i'm really confident that our nuclear capabilities are more than sufficient to continue to deter russia and to provide assurances to our allies. the bottom line is that the intelligence community can

effectively monitor this treaty, and if you vote no on this treaty, there will be no monitoring. now, as i noted earlier, a second question relevant to new start is whether ratifying the treaty actually enhances our intelligence collection and analyses. this is above and beyond the question of whether the intelligence community will be able to fulfill its responsibility to monitor russian compliance with the treaty's terms. while i'm unable to go into the specifics, the clear answer to this question is yes. the ability to conduct inspections, receive notifications, enter into continuing discussions with the russians over the lifetime of the treaty, will provide us with information and understanding of russian strategic forces that we simply won't have with a treaty. if you vote no, we won't have

it. the intelligence community will need to collect information about russian nuclear weapons and intentions with or without a new start treaty, just as it has since the beginning of the cold war, but absent inspectors' boots on the grouped, the intelligence -- on the ground, the intelligence community will need to rely on other methods. a november 18 article in "the washington times" noted that, and i quote -- "in the absence of a u.s.-russian arms control treaty, the united states intelligence community is telling congress it will need to focus more spy satellites over russia that could be used to peer on other sites, such as iraq and afghanistan, to support the military." end quote. put even more simply, the nation's top intelligence official, director of national

intelligence james clapper, was recently asked about ratification of the new start treaty. he responded, and i quote -- "the earlier, the sooner the better. you know, my thing is from an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? we are better off with it." end quote. so members should realize that if they vote no to ratify this treaty and lose out on its monitoring provisions, that means we're going to have to spend much more and it's going to be much more difficult to get information about russian forces. the final intelligence related question on the new start treaty is what impact, ratification or failure to ratify will have on our other foreign policy objectives, and i think this is important. we live in a different world today where there are nonstate

actors, where there are two nations, iran and north korea, moving to develop a nuclear weapon, and it's very important to be able to achieve a working relationship with the large powers that give confidence to other nations to stand with us. this question can be addressed largely through open source intelligence. there have been numerous news reports and press conferences in the recent weeks about the broader effects of ratifying new start. many supporters of the new start treaty have noted that ratification is a key achievement and symbol of the reset in russian relations that presidents obama and medvedev have sought. but beyond generalities of an improved relationship, a senate rejection of new start would not only undermine our understanding

of russia's strategic forces, it could disrail or disrupt a host of other united states policy objectives. in russia today, there is a heated debate over whether moscow is better served by domestic reform and engagement with the west or by hard-line behavior that rejects cooperation with the west. russians view new start as a signature product of the reformers. this is the signature product of russian reform and a new russian president. they view the fate of new start in this senate as a crucial test of the reformist claim that russia and america can work together. if we, the united states senate, reject this treaty, we confirm

what russian hard-liners have been saying all along: the united states is not a viable partner. here are a few real-world examples. russia has been allowing the united states and other members of the international security assistance force in afghanistan to transport materials into afghanistan over russian territory. this has assisted our war efforts, especially in light of recent attacks against convoys crossing through pakistan. russia has withheld delivery of the s-300 advanced air defense system to iran and supported united nations security council sanctions against tehran. tehran wanted to buy this sophisticated air defense missile defense system.

russia was going to sell it to them. russia has withheld that sale. that is a major achievement. also, russia and nato partners agreed at the recent summit in lisbon to a new missile defense system in europe. brand-new. this is an agreement for a missile defense system which russia has fought violently over the past decade. at that same summit the foreign ministers from denmark, lithuania, norway, latvia, bulgaria and hungary spoke out in support of the new start treaty. these are states to be defended, and they spoke out for this treaty. as neighbors to russia and the former soviet union, they praised new start as necessary for the security of europe, but

also as an entrance to engage in tactical nuclear weapon treaties which pose an even greater threat from state or nonstate use. there is no quid pro quo here. russia has not agreed to support united states initiatives around the world if only the senate would ratify the new start treaty. but as every senator knows, when you're trying to get things done, relationships matter. and the relationship between the united states and russia has been critical since we fought together in world war ii and will continue to be so. this is an unparalleled opportunity to enhance that relationship and to say by signature and by ratification of this treaty that, yes, the united states of america wants to work with russia.

yes, the united states and russia have mutual goals. and, yes, with respect to iran and other trouble spots, the united states and russia can in fact stand together. mr. president, let me move on to the nonproliferation reasons to ratify this treaty. new start demonstrates to the world that the two nations possessing more than 90% of the planet's nuclear weapons are capable of working together on arms reduction and nonproliferation, a "no" vote says we're not capable of doing that. i believe that this will pave the way for more multilateral efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons as well as restrictions on tactical nuclear warheads that could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. and let us not forget the

centerpiece of our nuclear nonproliferation regime, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. it's based on a clear bargain. those with nuclear weapons agree to eventually eliminate them and those without nuclear weapons agree to never acquire them. with the signing of the new start treaty, the presidents of the united states and russia are showing the other parties to the n.p.t. that we are living up to our end of the bargain and without new start, with a "no" vote on new start, we do not do this. this will strengthen the resolve of other nations to maintain their commitments and uphold the credibility of the nuclear nonproliferation regime to hold violators like iran and north korea accountable and subject to sanction. in fact, we're already seeing the benefits of commitments made

in the new start agreement. the latest review conference of the n.p.t. in may of this year ended with 189 parties recommitting themselves to the treaties after the 2005 conference collapsed. on june 9 the united nations security council passed a fourth sanctions resolution on iran for its violations of its commitment under the treaty with the support of china and russia. ratification also opens the door to further arms control agreements, both to further arms reductions and to address tactical nuclear warheads. the smaller-yield devices under five kilotons that are in some ways more dangerous than the strategic weapons with which we're dealing now.

ratification moves us down the path to a world without nuclear weapons as envisioned by presidents obama and reagan. for years the idea of a nuclear-free world was ridiculed as a fantasy. this may now be beginning to change. don't turn it down. republicans as well as democrats have come around to the idea that eventual nuclear disarmament is not only desirable, but it is in fact doable and it is consistent with our national security interests. former secretaries of state george shultz and henry kissinger have joined forces with former senator sam nunn and former secretary of defense bill perry to make this case. in a january 4, 2007, op-ed in the "wall street journal," they called for united states leadership in building a -- quote -- "solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear

weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing the proliferation into potentially dangerous hands and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world." we can now do our part to build that consensus and help ensure that we never again see the destruction caused by nuclear weapons. and once again i return you to these charts. i was 12 years old when i saw these pictures. i was 12 years old when i realized what a 21-kiloton and a 15-kiloton bomb can do. ladies and gentlemen of the senate, these bombs are well in excess of 100 kilotons today. the number is classified, but trust me, they are well in excess. we can destroy the planet earth with these weapons.

and they are deployed and they are targeted, and they are on some time-release schedule. this treaty gives us the unique opportunity of working to reduce 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world. it is a big deal. and to say no to this treaty is in fact to say we want to go back to the days of suspicion, of not working together, of the cold war ethos. we will succomb to the russian hard-liners. and we will take this first major test of russian reform and effectively trash it. we must not do that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i commend the senator from california for her remarks as a member of foreign relations. i will talk about a treaty but at another time because there is one more pressing matter i'd like to discuss this evening for a second. we now have before us the start treaty, but on a parallel track we have before us the question of financing this government through the end of the fiscal year next year. there are three alternatives available to us. one of them is a continuing resolution through the end of next year. one of them is a continuing resolution that is modified with an omnibus appropriation that is put on top of it, which i understand is the plan. and there is a third option, which is the short-term c.r. it's to that question which i rise tonight to address for just a few moments. 43 days ago i ran for reelection to the united states senate. for two years i traveled the state of georgia campaigning for my reelection. and throughout that campaign, there were three guiding issues that i focused on. one was tax policy that, at a

time of economic recession, difficulty and high unemployment, the worst thing for to us do is raise the taxes of the american people, and in particular small business, which hires the majority of the american people. that is one. number two, i campaigned on the fact that we didn't have a revenue problem near as much as we had a spending problem. we needed to ask of ourselves as united states senators what every american family has had to ask of themselves at home. they've sat around the kitchen table, they've looked at what their income was, they've looked at what it now; they've looked at their priorities and reprioritized their money because times have been tough and they have been difficult. they did that because they have to. they don't have the luxury of credit and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing like our government has, which takes me to the third point i ran on the campaign. that is unsustainable debt will make this democracy an unsustainable country. one of the things that i understand a little bit about from having been in the real estate business is leverage.

leverage is a powerful thing to be able to do things, but too much leverage can destroy even the best of people or the best of ideas. and we are rapidly approaching a time where we owe entirely too much money. i'd love to tell the story about a lesson i learned in good politics. i know the presiding officer has had the same kind of lessons he learned. i was in albany, georgia, making a speech in november of 2009. i kept talking about a trillion this and a trillion that. this farmer at the back of the room raised his hand and said senator isakson, i only graduateed from doherty county high school. i don't understand how much a trillion is. can you explain. i babbled and finally said it is a lot. i couldn't think of a way to quantify $1 trillion. i got home and my wife said what is wrong with you? i said i got stumped in albany. she said what was the question? i said the question was how much is a trillion.

she said what did you stphaeu i said tass -- she said why don't you figure out how many years have to go by for a trillion seconds to pass. i said that is a terrific idea. i pulled my calculator out and multiplied 60 seconds by 60 minutes to get the number of seconds in an hour. multiplied that times 24. multiplied that times 365, the number of seconds in a year. do you know how many years have to go by for a trillion seconds to pass? 31,709 years. i put an asterisk by that product because i didn't count leap years. every fourth years there is an extra day so i know that will throw the number off a little bit. we owe $13 trillion, not just one. it is an astronomical a. money, an amount of money we ought to quantify and lower in two ways. one is the prosperity of the american people. as prosperity goes up, revenues come back to us, the government.

first and most importantly, we've got to get our arms around spending. i'm deeply opposed to putting an omnibus appropriations bill on this c.r. that's coming to the senate and passing an omnibus appropriation on 12 appropriation units in a short time debate without the transparency we need. now i'm not a johnny-come-lately -- pardon the phrase -- to this particular position because in the house of representatives when president bush brought an omnibus budget to the house, i voted against it. i voted against it last fall on a number of occasions when we had omnibus appropriations bills matched up coming to the senate floor under president obama. it is a bad way to do business. by rolling all those things together, you don't have the scrutiny, the oversoothe or under -- oversight or understanding are where the money is going and the tendency to push money beyond your limits becomes a reality. we've got to make some hard decisions. we've got to execute some tough

love. we've got to have some shared sacrifice. and we've got to do it quickly. time has run out on the american government, and our american budget process without substantial reform, which is why it would be a tragic mistake for us sometime this week or this weekend to ratify or to adopt an omnibus appropriations bill and send it to the house of representatives. there's an underlying reason why i don't support that and that's because i think a short term c.r. makes a lot more sense because a short term c.r. will put the senate in position of debating the rest of next year's spending under the cloud of the debt ceiling which is going to confront us in april or may or the middle of march. if we pass a c.r. or omnibus that goes beyond that date to the end of next year, september 30, we have no leverage to address the subject of raising the debt ceiling. and it's time we stopped borrowing to spend more money that we do not have. so, mr. president, i come tonight at a time where i know

the pending business is the start treaty, which i will address on another occasion. but to point out why i'm so deeply disappointed that we're rushing to judgment on an omnibus appropriations spending bill at a time the american people want us focusing on our spending, focusing on the deficit and improving the way we do business. and i will vote against an omnibus appropriations bill. i will vote against cloture on the bill. and i will support a short-term c.r. that's the best way for us to set up an occasion next year where we address our priorities in the right order and at the right time. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call. quorum be terminated. officer without objection. mr. reid: i have three statements that i am going to make, one regarding senator speck tearings one blanche lincoln and i'm going to do another one regarding russ feingold and i ask unanimous

consent that they appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you very much. ask anyone in this body for one word to vims allen specter, i think the word that would come up most often is he is real estate a real fighter. he fought to defend our nation in korea. he fought crime in the streets of philadelphia as the district attorney. he's fought cancer and won three times. and he's fought for pennsylvania every day he served with us here in the united states senate. senator specter has witnessed three decades of progress in washington. he's a man who has risen above party lines to demonstrate his independence time after time but his independence wasn't about him; it was about the people of pennsylvania, where he served with honor and dignity for 30 years, even when cancer tried to keep him from doing soavment i've known and served with senator specter for almost 30 years and have come to admire his service and dedication. we've not always agreed on the one hand how to solve the issues facing america, but he's always been willing to listen to me and any other senator in hopes of

forging bipartisan agreements that would help the country. he is a very principled man, a man who does what he believes is right, even when few others agree with him. senator specter was raised in the midwest by his mother and a russian immigrant father who came to the united states and later served his new country in world war i. he first discovered pennsylvania as an undergraduate student at the university of pennsylvania where he earned a degree in international relations. after serving three years in the air force during the korean war, he attended law school at yale and established a successful law practice in what would become his home state, pennsylvania. just as his father left his land and served in the united states military, senator specter left his home in kansas and served his adopted commonwealth in a different way, first as a district attorney in philadelphia for nine years and then as a united states senator for the last 30 years.

and, mr. president, he did this with his tenacity. he lost a number of elections, but he kept coming back, never giving up. as a member of congress, he's ban stalwart for justice, health, and education. he's presided over several supreme court confirmation hearings, and played a major role in many more. he's ensured that vlt vital and potentially lifesaving research for alzheimer's, cancer and other areas. one personal experience with senator specter, the so-called economic recovery package, the stimulus -- he was the key vote, one of the three key votes -- he was a republican. he and the two senators from maine made it possible to pass that. but his passion in that legislation was the national institutes of health. part of the deal was that they

had to get $10 billion, money well-spent, but something that he believed in fervently and we were able to do that. he's also worked to cover children and seniors who struggle to get access to health care that they desperately need. he's done that as a member of the appropriations committee, where he's worked to make more education available to all students with the help of scholarships and student loans. furthermore, his work with constituents of every stripe makes a difference every day. senator specter is really a throwback it a previous chapter in the history of the senate, a time when moderates were the rule, not the exception. when i came to washington, mr. president, republicans like arlen specter were everyplace. that's not the case now. he's a rare breed and will truly be missed. i wish senator specter's wife joan and their two sons and four grandchildren the very best in the coming weeks, months, and

years. mr. president, arkansas has given america a lot for proud of. from the late-senator william if you will bright, whom i did not know, to senator clinton, whom i do know, arkansans have always produced proud public servants. i have had the opportunity to serve with two of the finest senators in this body, dale bumpers and david pryor. i've said publicly and ail say again, the finest legislator i've ever served with -- don't want to hurt anyone's feelings here -- was david pryor. david pryor was a superb representative of arkansas and the country. blanche lincoln has continued that long tradition of arkansans who come to washington to shape our nation and blanche has never forgotten from where she came. senator lincoln has been a

trailblazer during her time in the senate. in 1998 she became the youngest woman who ever be elected to the senate. she was also the first woman elected to represent arkansas in the senate since world war ii, and she was the first woman and the first from arkansas to chair the senate agriculture committee. a dozen years ago blanche was one of the youngest people in this body. from day one she earned her represent taiftion being very wise, wise beyond her years. she's always understood that we're here to serve first and foremost and she's never gotten that. senator lincoln once said, "i'm not normally a betting pen, but icy that put you are your money on the american people is about as close to a sure bet as you're going to get." blanche lincoln always bet on the american people, and particularly the good people in arkansas.

senator lincoln never sought the national spotlight. she is he's all been focused on one thin cloosh making sure that the people of arkansas are represented fairly and forcibly. her legislative accomplishments are too long to list here today. her impact will be felt long after she leaves this chamber. perhaps her most important work has been her tireless efforts to protect america's children. senator lincoln was lead, driving force along with the first lady of the passage of the healthy hunger for our kids act. and sheefsz a cofounder of the senate -- and she was a fa founder of the senate caucus for the missing and exploited children. so i'm honored to call senator lincoln a friend and a colleague and i join my friends and colleagues in saluting her remarkable accomplishments. i'll miss her, but we know her too well to think that we've heard the last from her.

and it wouldn't be appropriate not to say something about her wonderful family. her dr. /husband and her twins are remarkably good individuals. her husband is one of the nicest people i've ever met. i mean, he has such a great presence about him. i've met him on many he indications. we've been able to get together as a senate family, and he certainly is part of that feavment family. but if i ever need to find senator lincoln, i'll always know where to look because if there is an that issue has gone unnoticed or a cause that's worth fight, blanche lincoln is probably not far behind and already on the face. so i wish blanche and her family the very, very best and its a been a pleasure to get to know blanche lincoln. i look forward to our future association. i've served with russ feingold

in the senate for 18 years. there is a never been a point where i didn't know where he stood and what his correspondent principles were. russ feingold ways and means to the senate in 1992 with one goal in mind: to always represent the people of wisconsin, not the special interests, not the establishment and he never compromised his principles. even though sometimes it made it very difficult for me. but he was a man of principle. and that certainly is the truth. when russ first ran for the senate in 1992, he famously wrote down five promises he will always keep if he was elected. he wrote them on the paper and then he affixed this to his garage door in his home. to rely on wisconsin citizens for most of his contributions, to live in middle opinion is, wisconsin, and send his children there, to accept no pay during his time in office -- to accept no pay raise during his time in office, to hold listening sessions in each of the 72

wisconsin counties each year of his term in the senate, to make sure that the majority of his staff are from wisconsin and with a wisconsin background. it should surprise no one that he held true to each of these proms promises and surpassed every expectation that any badger could have had. as quick as senator feingold has been to voice thoughtful opposition to anything that would go against his correspondent principles, he never hesitated to reach across the aisle to work in good faith with every member of this body. because of his bipartisan efforts, our financing for political campaigns is cleaner. it is too bad, mr. president, the supreme court has so weaninged the mccain-feingold legislation. in 2002, senator feingold spoke on the senate floor during the campaign finance debate and he spoke remarkable words about why he fought so hard for that legislation. he said, "nothing has bothered

me more in my public career than the thought that young people looking to the future might think it is necessary to be a multimillionaire or somehow have access to the soft money system in order to participate, to participate as a candidate as part of the american dream." end of quote. that's a simple statement but truly helps us understand why the people of wisconsin were always proud of their junior senator, because he spoke simple truths, fought passionately for the middle class, and was able to always tap into what people were discussin discussing over r kitchen tables every night. russ feingold often stood in the minority to voice his positions that weren't necessarily popular. he was a strong advocate of equal rights for same-sex quums, even when it wasn't the popular thing to do and he opposed the 2002 -- 2003, i'm so, iraq war from the very beginning and stayed true to his feelings on

this issue since then. that's the very essence of russ feingold. he stands on principle and his correspondent beliefs, even when iten -- and his core beliefs, even when it isn't pop loor. it's very difficult to express to everyone within the sowfngdz my voice what a special type of person russ feingold is, the type of person that will remain steadfast in all the moments that he serves. he is that special kind of person. he continued the traditions of some of greatest members of this body and combines the tenacity of paul wellstone and ted kennedy always fighting fob the underdog. for many of us he will always be a part of our collective conscience. if we follow the example of russ feingold, we can rest easy at night when we stand on

principle, we can never have to worry about second guessing ourselves. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, as if in executive session i ask unanimous consent that on thursday, december 16, following any leader time the senate proceed to executive session to begin consideration of calendar number 7 start treaty that the treaty be -- i ask unanimous consent that the order for the printing of the tributes be modified to provide that members have until sine die of the 111 tsz congress to submit tributes and the or for printing remain

in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 6516 which was receive at the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6516, an act to make technical corrections to provisions of law enacted by the coast guard authorization act of 2010. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate compleets it's business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, december 16, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day that following any leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the new start treaty as provided for under the previous order.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, votes in relation to amendments to the start treaty are possible throughout the day tomorrow. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

>> we are lighted to be here. at the beginning of the debate on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty on the floor of the united states senate really marks an historic moment. the senate has the opportunity

and frankly it has the solemn responsibility to act to reduce the number of nuclear weapons pointed at our country. that's what makes this moment historic. it's the continuum of an effort that has been engaged in by republican and democratic presidents alike. and congress, the united states senate, is overwhelmingly embraced arms reductions as in our national security interest. some have suggested that somehow we don't have time to take up the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty because christmas is only ten days away. let me read you what retired brigadier general john adams said in response to that claim a couple of years ago. he said we have 150,000 u.s. warriors doing their job over christmas and new year. the united states senate should do it's job and ratify this

treaty. and all of us agree with that statement. i think that general adams says it precisely right. and he echoed the support for this treaty that has come from every single leader of our military. the secretary of defense, robert gates, all the way through to the director of the missile defense agency, to the commander of our strategic forces. all of them have asked us to ratify this treaty as soon as possible. and the question that ought to be asked to others is why if the entire military establishment of our country and the national intelligence establishment of our country and the strategic command of our country are asking us to ratify this treaty. why do some senators know better than they do and suggest that we shouldn't? we believe we should stay here as long as it takes to get this treaty ratified and we are prepared to do so.

there's no reason not the finish the work that has been done to date. to anyone who suggests that this treaty is being rushed, i offer little reality check. the original s.t.a.r.t. agreement in 192 was -- 1992 was far more dramatic. it came in the fall of the soviet union, it had a great deal of uncertainties that it faced at this time. it was a more dramatic treaty than the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the cuts in nuclear weapons were deeper. the uncertainty was greater because the soviet union had just collapsed. yet, the full of the united states senate needed only five days of floor time before it approved the treaty by a vote of 93-6. the s.t.a.r.t. ii treaty which was ratified by the senate but never fully approved by the russians, because of the abm

treaty practice. it took only two days of floor debate before it was approved 87-4. and the moscow treaty, there the debate took exactly two days and it was approved 95-0. and no verification in it at all. so the question has to be asked, what happens if you delay now? what happens if you don't do this? it's a recipe for endless delay on a matter of enormous national security importance. with newly elected senators, if it went into next year, you'd have to go back to square one. you'd have to go back to new hearings and a new round of questions. i think we have a book here. we have two books here over 900 questions, let me put those up here. 900 questions were filed and asked and answered, by the

administration in reference to all of the questions posed by senators over the course of the last month. we've gone a year and ten days without any inspectors of russian nuclear sites. and while the debate goes on, and the delay goes on, our understanding of russia's nuclear arsenal will continue to deteriorate day by day and our efforts to contain the nuclear ambitions of iran and north korea will be weakened day by day. i know that senator levin and i, and i know senator feinstine to speak to that in a minute. :

>> they are away from their families because they are protecting our country. surely, we in the united states senate can't ask any less of ourselves as we sit in a warm chamber and talk about this treaty. we owe it to our servicemen and women in iraq and afghanistan to do everything in our power to make the world safer and reduce the threat of conflict to them and the threat to our own citizens. this treaty is the least we can do.

now, another answer to the claims of those who incidentally proposed most treaties, but that aside, the s.t.a.r.t. process goes back 20 years, folks. this is not new. this treaty was built on the foundation laid by earlier agreements. we're safer today because of that legacy. the original s.t.a.r.t. agreement cut our arsenals from some 10,000 nuclear weapon on each side to 6,000. it would have cut them to about 3500, and the moscow treaty did ultimately reduce those numbers to 1700 to 2200. that's worth trying to do is come down from there to 1550. i don't understand why an agreement that reduces our nuclear warheads and reduce us to 1550 warheads can't be done in the next few days in the

interest of our country. starting in june of 2009, nearly a year before this agreement was signed by the president, the foreign relations committee was briefed five times on these talks with the russians. senators from the arm services committee, services committee, national security working group which john kyl heads on the other side, we took part in all of these briefings. roughly 60 senators were able to follow the negotiations in detail over the course of an entire year. we were present in realtime as the negotiators worked through the details with the russians. we met with the negotiators, the negotiators briefed us during this period of time. that's what makes this senate and this congress uniquely qualified to ratify this treaty. the fact is that individual senators and individual opportunities to meet with the negotiating team, and a

delegation of senators including senator kyl traveled to gee neigh that in the fall of 2009 to meet with the negotiatorment my friends, that kind of deep, deep detailed involvement in the production of this treaty is not rushing anything. in fact, the republicans came to me last summer and said, gee, pleases don't have the vote in the committee. we'd like more time over the august recess, and against the will of many of our members, i exercised the prerogative of the chairman and i give them that extra six weeks in order to make certain we gave people as much time as possible to get these questions answered. they were answered. when we came back, they then made the request, the people here who say we're rushing something made the ask to delay, again, saying please don't do this before the election, because if you do, you'll politicize it.

we didn't do it before the election out of complete commodity to their request to give them time. we came back after the election, and now, it's gee, let's not rush up until now. this is the time. this is the time and this is the moment when the united states senate needs to be counted on an issue of national security for our country. the fact is in the six months after in treaty was signed and presented, the committees of jurisdiction have held more than 20 public and closed hearings. my own committee held 12 hearings. we heard from past, current military leaders and statesmen, and as i've said, every living former secretary of state, republican and democrat, supports this treaty, and last week, former president george walker bush who signed about s.t.a.r.t. i and s.t.a.r.t. ii

issued a statement he too supports this treaty. there's been no rush in the consideration of this treaty. still, some sort of suggest why do you have to do it now? well, the real question, my friends, is not why now. the question would be why delay? why would you not do this now when you have a chance to reduce the number of weapons pointed at the united states and the chance to get american inspectors back on the ground in russia to understand what is happening there, so i hope that in the next days we will give time. we're not rushing this vote. they can decide how much time they think it takes, but we believe that a fair amount of time will be allotted by the majority leader in order to allow for amendments. i will go in with my statement on the floor to the huge number of changes we've made in the resolution of radification on behalf of the republicans. we've worked very closely with

many of them, taken their comments and advice, incorporated them into the resolution. there are at least 13 amendments that we've already accepted and made on missile defense. we've provided additional funds on modernization to meet the needs of senator kyl. i think we reefed over -- reached over every way possible to be fair and allow people to comment on the treaty, but now is the moment and time to proceed forward. if there are questions on the delay, i can certainly point to sort of what the history has been that leads us to this moment that we need to proceed now on a dual track. istle turn it to -- i'll turn it no senator levin. >> thank you for your leadership and you and senator lugar have made a bipartisan team that will lead us to success. we're not blocked by obstructions here. we cannot be because the

national security of the country is at stake here. this is a significant treaty because of the reductions it provides in terms of nuclear missiles aimed at our country. it is significant in terms of our relationship with russia, and we should not underestimate the importance of strengthening that relationship. iran is the greatest threat this world faces. it is a state which is aimed as far as we're concerned, i think most of us agree, at acquiring nuclear weapons. it's essential that russia continues to be a part of that group is either near iran or distant from iran that understands iran with a nuclear weapon would be a major threat to the well-being of this world, and we need to be linked arm and arm with ash sha with -- russia with this treaty, and not to rad my this treaty would be a significant breach in terms of that relationship, and we cannot, cannot, tolerate that

kind of a reduction in the relationship that is so growing and so important. two quick points. one, the argument has been raised that somehow or another this treaty would in some way limit our missile defense programs. it does not. that's not just me saying that. as chairman of the arm services committee, the bill we passed in the committee says specifically "there are no constraints contained in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty on the development or employment of effective missile defenses including all phases of the phase adaptive approach in europe and further enhancement to the ground course of the defense system as well as missile defenses." that is con confirmed by general chilton and the commander who says that and responsible for sing newsing operations and

advocacy, i can say with confidence, this treaty does not constrain any current or future missile defense plans. secondly, in terms of verify cation, and i believe that senator feinstein will go into that issue because of her position as chair of the intelligence committee, but it is vitally important that we have people on the ground in russia looking at their systems. we've none now. the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, the previous one has run out. this s.t.a.r.t. treaty will again get our people on the ground looking at their systems. we believe the trust was wise advice of president reagan that in order to have the second half of that wise advice in place and in effect, we must ratify this treaty, so it is a treaty which is clearly in the narnl interest of our -- national interest of our country

and previous secretary of defenses of both parties and secretaries of state of both parties and previous presidents of both parties urged this senate to ratify. we cannot allow this to be drublghted in this congress -- destructed in this congress to stop this national security interest from being taken care of. >> senator feinstein? >> thank you very much. we come to these press conferences and our colleagues speak and we agree with some things, and perhaps not all things, but in this case i want to say i very much agree with the statements made both. i think for the perspective of foreign relations and arm aveses, this treaty must be ratified. i want to add to that that the intelligence committee carefully reviewed the june 2010 national intelligence estimate, or as we

say, the nie on the intelligence community's ability to monitor this new streety. we held a hearing on the nie and related issue and sent 70 questions for the record and received detailed responses from the intelligence community. the committee undertook its own independent review of the nie. committee staff participated in more than a dozen meetings and briefings on a range of issues concerning the treaty focusing on intelligence monitoring and collection aspects, so i'd like to focus my remarks today on the intelligence-related aspects of this treaty beginning with the monitoring provisions based on our committee's review. new s.t.a.r.t. includes several provisions that allow the united states to monitor how russia is reducing and deploying its stay

teggic -- strategic arsenal and vice versa. we use these positions and other independent tools such as the use of national technical means that's obviously our satellites, to collect on russian forces and whether russia is complying with the treaty's terms. these provisions include on the ground inspections of russian nuclear facilities and bases, 18 per year, regular exchanges of data on warhead and missile production and locations, a requirement that there be unique identifiers, a distinct alpha knew maric code for each missile and heavy bomber for tracking purposes, and a ban on blocking national technical needs from collecting information on strategic forces. these provisions enable the

intelligence community to monitor russian activities under this treaty. more broadly, they provide indispensable information on russian strategic forces. there have been no inspections and no data exchanges and no prelims since the inspection of the s.t.a.r.t. treat my for about one year. we have less insight into any new russian weapons and delivery systems that might be entering their force. we have essentially gone black on any monitoring, inspection, data exchanges, and notification which is allowed by this new treaty, so i believe it is the nation's interest to act quickly to ratify this treaty. the senate and intelligence committee has done a detailed review of the monitoring provisions for the treaty and

whether the intelligence community can affectively monitor russian activities. my conclusion is yes, we can. the intelligence community will be able to perform its monitoring mission under new s.t.a.r.t., and we will have far more information about russian strategic forces with this treaty than without this treaty. the intelligence committee also looked at the consequences of failure of new s.t.a.r.t.. senate rejection of new s.t.a.r.t. would not only undermind our understanding of russian strategic forces; it could also derail or disrupt o host of other united states objectives. russia has been allowing the united states and other members of the international security assistance force in afghanistan to transport materials into

afghanistan over russian territory. this is atisted war efforts especially in lite of recent attacks against convoys crossing but pakistan. also, russia has with held delivery of the s300 advanced air defense system to iran, and supported united nation's security counsel sanctions. russia and nato partners agreed at the recent submit to a new missile defense system for europe. here's the conclusion. beyond the intelligence regions i've discussed, there are many reasons so support new s.t.a.r.t.. it's important to nuclear nonproliferation and lays the ground work for future arms control agreements and it will strengthen our relationship with the key world power, and i really cannot say too much about that. this is a world where nonstate

actors are the fighting forces, and there are no rules of the battlefield. our relationship with the big nations is extraordinarily important, much more important than ever before, and this treaty helps cement what can be a much more and better relationship between our two countries. without new s.t.a.r.t., our national security will suffer every day without this treaty is another day without american inspectors on the ground in russia, another day in the dark, in the black. bottom line, we should ratify this treaty without delay. >> thank you very much, senator feinstein. let me just say quickly, you know, i've been here for 25

years, carl, a little longer than me, but i'll tell you there's no two senators who lead their committees more come tently and more diligent and substantive, and i'm pleased to stand here with them with their expertise lent to this effort to get this treaty ratified. . >> before you came in here, gop senators were in here and we asked if they support it. are you saying you're confident without those 12, you will have 57 yes votes this year, yes or no, and, you know, furthermore, if you can't get in agreement with the republican leadership, and it seems like you can't, how can you ensure that those 12gop senators won't vote no forever? >> first of all, look, i understand the emotions and

currents of this place better certainly than i did a number of years ago. let's see how people feel form and how they feel the day after tomorrow, after people had a chance to really step back and digest what is appropriate and what isn't. you know, i want this to stay up at a higher level. i don't want it to become political, and it shouldn't be. this is about american national security. our country is stronger when republicans and democrats together come together, but i would ask them in good conscious to ask themselves why we are here at this late hour. as i said, senator lugar was asked 13 times, they've counted them, by their own colleagues to delay the process of s.t.a.r.t. so that senator kyl could do modernization.

we did the modernization. i think there's such a thing as reciprocity here in the workings of the united states senate, and we're looking for it. the fact is that since january of 2009, we have had o file 125 closure motions in order to go forward and do the senate's business. that's why we're here late. that's as -- we need you to tell this story to america. you know, as many closure motions have been filed, in the last year as we're filed between 1919, world war i, and 1975, and so they can't even say that we've somehow, that you know, we were guilty of the same thing because the fact is they've doubled the number of closures since 2007, so all i can say is that, you know, we've had to file 264 cloture motions or an

average of 66 per year since 2007. that's why the business is slowed down, and that's what americans are mad at, and they need to take a look in their hearts, frankly, and in the realities of these choices about where we're heading here, so yes, i believe we'll have the votes. also believe that if weave given people adequate time and moved down the road with respect to motions and amendments, and we're willing to do amendments and votes and give people time to debate, but as i said, the first s.t.a.r.t. treaty took five days. the second s.t.a.r.t. treaty, two days, and the moscow treaty, two days. after a legitimate amount of time, i think harry reid is prepared to mile a cloture motion, and hopefully we will get that. we are not rushing that. we want people to have time and be able to debate. >> senator, can you be more specific about how much time it

would be? at what point will you feel like a vote is ready to be cast, and at what point do you feel possibly you want to put off the vote until next year? >> we're not putting the vote off until next year. we'll have this vote this year. it's up to them on how much time. look, five days on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. two days on the second s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and two days on the moscow treaty with no verification at all. they need to know how much time it takes. at some point we'll make a decision whether the motions and the amendments are dupe my caytive -- dupetive and there to delay. we are not judging that. we want people to have an opportunity here and have people have that chance and make a opportunity for us. i'm not prejudging in terms of days. >> are you willing to put it to the vote if you have a leadoff and you think the vote might go

down? >> that's a decision that the president of the united states and the vice president have to make. the vice president said yesterday, look, if we have a chance of losing this now, next year it looks like there's a greater chance that that would happen. we would rather lose it now with this crowd that did the work on it than with this group and start with strach. we understand what's at stake and the implications here, and i think they do too. look, we've got time. there's nothing written in the rules of the united states senate that says we can't do the business of america that remains here before we go home. i think we have an obligation to do it. our caucus is ready to workday and night. we're ready to be here late, all weekend, we are ready to work and vote, and it's up to them how quickly we do that. yes, please? >> i just want to say one thing. i was in gee --

geneva with senator kyl, and we met with the russian negotiating team as well as the american negotiating team, and a lot of questions were asked about inspections, prelims and the missile defense, and specific weaponry, and the questions were answered, and that was a year ago, and here we are a year later, so this treaty has been out there, and as i look at it, basically every informed republican that i respect, president bush 41, president bush 43, all major secretaries of state who are republicans, james baker, and on and on, are in support of this treaty, plus all of the united states military. there's a few outliers who may have their own reason, so why

delay it? why do we pass a s.t.a.r.t. treaty at the time when the soviet union was collapsing and when there was major anxiety over where the world would go, and now when we know, russia wants to move closer to the united states. russia wants to develop a relationship with the united states. this could be positive for both countries. here is a treaty which improves the cooperation between both nations. why would we knot support it? >> one quick word about reciprocity. we have a working group that senator kyl is a member of, and every time he wanted a briefing, we got the security folks up here to provide that briefing. when he wanted to go to geneva, that was worked out. there's been a real effort on the part of the administration and on the part of senator kerry and all of us to accommodate

senator kyl throughout here, and a reciprocity has to be a two-way street. the public wants the business of the senate done, and that does require reasonable action on the part of both, and we've taken that action with the delays, and now it's time for senator kyl, it seems to me, to reciprocate. >> right here. >> do you know why he missed the vote this morning, and do you have any indication he's waiverring? >> no, none whatsoever. >> can you talk about if whether the dual tracking with the pending bill and the other things still on the schedule according to senator reid, is that complicated matters? >> no. it takes 51 votes to go from executive session to legislation session, and we'll do that when necessary, and we'll come back to this when appropriate. >> is there a reason the treaty was not brought up in the lame duck?

>> for the reason we were trying to accommodate senator kyl, and his request for a little more time, a little more work, a little more discussion, and we kept the door open until we are at a point where obviously we had to fish or cut bait, and that's what we're doing. >> senator feinstein, you mentioned today again, and -- >> oh, can i add something else? well, the 42-person letter obviously complicated the choices and with the tax issue, and people felt it was important to get the tax issue done as a sign of good faith that we were really going to do that and not try to jam that at the back end by delaying with the treaty. the treaty was really held in good faith in order to show them that we were prepared to be serious to get that done, keep our word. we did it, and you all saw the flak the president took in the

effort to do that. once again, this begs the question of reciprocity, and i think, you know, this can't be a one-way street. it just doesn't work that way, and we're asking our republican friends to sort of respect that and send the country a message at christmas time that we have the ability to be able to work together, particularly on something that can reduce the number of nuclear weapons pointed at our nation and help to leverage us against iran and north korea. what is more important than this time of year? that's what we are trying to achieve. >> on verification, that's a big issue with s.t.a.r.t. treaty and the critics, and the response often is much better off with this treaty than without one which is a pretty low bar. would you say you are better with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty than the previous treaty in terms of verification? >> this is a very important point for you to reflect ongoing forward. first of all, on verification

with respect to the component that some of our friends complain about, the bush administration prior to president obama coming into office was noticed by the russians that they were not going to continue the same process of reporting on the mobile missile, you know, production line because it was a one-way street to them. they found that to be unfair in terms of the treaty, and so they noticed george bush, that would not exist going forward. it wasn't something that happened under president obama. it was previous and prior to that that they said we're adjusting this in whatever the next round is. our administration has negotiated frankly what our people feel is a terrific, and in some ways better, because for the first time we have an accounting of all war herds.

we didn't have that before. we now have a tracking on those individual warheads. as you see from others in the debate on this, they will be required to provide us with 18 short notice, on the ground inspections each year in the most sensitive nuclear installations. there's all technical means some of which we cannot talk about publicly, but our intelligence community completely signed off on the notion that this is fully verifiable. they are comfortable with its provisions, and to them, there is no issue of capacity to verify. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, all, very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> next, two leaders of the new democrat coalition, an organization of self-described

moderate house democrats for their expectations of the new congress. they spoke for an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, all, for coming. welcome to third way. happy holidays. we have two congressional guests. i sometimes refer to them as the minority party, but they are not yet. the minority party is the most oppressed party in the politics. they have little power. the senate minority has power, but the house my torety -- >> still have life. >> you still have life, but not a lot of power. we're going to talk about that. i have the news letter available on the table, and as i said in

the beginning, about the deficit that we're talk about shortly, and on the back page, we looked at the latino votes in select the states and found that, as you can see on the last page, the percentage of the total vote cast by latinos compared to the last three elections. it's not notably higher and it's 60% democratic nationwide and remained fairly stable, usually slowly growing up to 2 #% of the vote in california, but there's no sudden explosion of latino votes. we also have photographs and identifications of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven new latino republicans in the house, one in the senate, several in the house, and two governors which is something republicans will be talking about, i'm sure for the next two years. we're going to start with a presentation by anne kim from here at third way on our poll on

what happened in the election. droppers and switchers and the obama coalition. she'll talk for a few minutes. >> thank you -- [inaudible] you know, there is a group and former voters -- [inaudible] >> they were with obama in 2008, but did not stick with democrats in 2010 either because they stayed home, those are the droppers, or they decided to switch and vote republican. those are the switchers. we think of these voters of the soccer moms of 2012. not only with they the most swingy out there, they are the key part of the 2008 coalition that put democrats in power. i'm just going to talk a tiny bit about why these voters are so important, and we'll give top lines of who they are.

we've got copies of the ton line in the room. by definition, these folks are important because they were once democrats, and now they are not, but the significance goes deeper than that. the reason they matter is because democrats face real limitations if they go with a strategy focused only on the liberal base. here's why. first of all, democrats topped out in terms of liberal base. looking at turnouts in 2005 and 2010, turnout is the same, and now performance increased by democrats by 3% in 2006 and 2010. moderates and indidn'ts, on the other hand, there's a moderate turnout problem, an 8% drop, and among independents, a 20 percentage point drop in performance. the droppers and the switchers are the leading edge of this trend. larger shifts, the democrats

have to fight against, it's called a red shift with more calling themselves conservatives, and fewer moderates. the liberal base, again, completely static. again, finally, in terms of mathematical base of the democratic party, not the ideological base, but mathematical base, given the knew number disadvantage, democrats get the majority of their votes mathematically for moderate, not from liberals. again, the droppers and the switchers are in that key group, so who are they? >> we conducted a post election poll in ten states, 500 switchers, 500 droppers. what we saw is that a lot of the conventional wisdom or what has been talked about after the election tends to not quite hold water, at least in our numbers.

in our droppers, some have said, well, it's just a liberal base that stayed home and were upset. what we see with the droppers from the ideological standpoint, we see a third, a third, a third. a third liberal, a third mod rail, a third conservative. 30% consider themselves democrat and 80% republican. this was not the liberal base staying home, just upset that not enough happened. 36% of the droppers think they are in line with obama and democrats, but 25% think obama is more liberal than they are. 31% democrats 234 congress are more liberal than they are. in when comes to the -- when it comes to the issues, 50% of the droppers think government is wasteful and inefficient and that obama has government do too

much and that the deficit is a huge problem. this is not just affected base liberals staying home because they were upset. for the switchers, again, as anne pointed out, these are the swing of the swing. 45% consider themselves mod moderate, 53% are independent, and low numbers on both parties. these are really people without a home. the economy was -- it was not the only issue, but just 64% didn't think democrats had a plan to address the economic situation, and 52% didn't think there was enough focus on jobs. two-thirds of the people who left the democratic coalition saying that democrats did not have a plan to address the economy is one of the more, i'll say frightening numbers for the democrats we saw in this

survey. at the same time, these people are not -- we're not saying that they did not report the economy had a direct effect on them. 82% said their own personal situation was good or excellent, and a vast ma majority, over two-thirds, say the economic downturn had no affect on themselves. the other concerns we see beside the economy, spending and just sort of the role of government. 66% too much government spending is a reason for voting republican this year. 78% don't think government is responsible with taxpayer dollars, and 53% think democrats are too reliant on government to solve their problems. we're seeing a branding problem with the voters when it comes to the democratic party and not seeing the democrats are in line with their values and ideals, and until that changes, it'll be hard to win these voters back.

just 14% of our switchers think that the president and democrats are where they are ideologically. 64% think that democrats are more liberal than they are, and 60% think obama is more liberal than they are pointing to we are not making a connection with the voters that were once with us. now, on the -- i'll say the positive side for democrats, republicans want a chance, not a mandate. we're just seeing 10% of our switchers wanted to give republican ideas a chance as their reason for voting republicans, and 20% said republicans had better ideas. this was really purely an antidemocratic vote than a prorepublican vote. also, again, pointing to our switchers being people without a home, 44% of the switchers think that republicans are more conservative than they are. they are stuck in the mid middle

bouncing back and forth and probably will until one party is seen as a logical home for them. we asked at the end of the survey two open-ended questions. one is if you could say one thing to republicans in congress, what would it be? and the other question was if you could say one thing to president obama, what would it be? the vast majority of responses was work with republicans, the president, and across party lines, and get things done. usually if we get 15-18%, we consider that a pretty big deal that that percentage of the voters said a similar thing. this was over 50% pointed to this concept, and when it came to for obama, again, we see the same things, a few more words of praise for the president who still remains fairly popular with both groups. again, the vast majority of responses had a lot to do with work together, work across party

lines, listen to the people, get things done, let's move forward. >> okay. i notice the jobs were front and center in both charts as being the most important thing that people said about both the democrats and the republicans. i pointed out that in the newsletter on page 3, i do a little quick analysis of what happened to the democratic vote at the bottom of the page, the missing wing. there's two wings in the party, one is progressive, the other pop populous. that was hillary clinton, and populist wing fell off, the vote of working class democrats were white without a college degree was down to one-third for democrats, and that was a serious loss we saw in places around the ohio river valley and

states where hillary clinton beat barak obama by 2-1 in 2008. those voters just disappeared this year. obviously, had a lot to do with the economy. obama kept the liberal base as the polls showed, but that's only 20% of the voters, not big enough to really rally and win a majority. we have two guests with us today, both from congress. conk joe crowley from new york, and ron kind of the wisconsin. they are both leaders of the coalition. both, by the way, are honorary cochairs, both on the house committee. they will remain on that committee, and probably most important of all, both survived. they are here. there are certain differences. congressman from wisconsin

represents rern wisconsin, a farmer, a harvard educated farmer. >> although, i would never call myself a farmer. >> well, okay. congressman crowley represents a different district in queens and co-op city, one the modern wonders of the world, and he may have the most diverse constituency in congress. he can talk about votes, but that's not for today. today, we want to talk about congress and what's happening, so let me start my butting this question -- putting this question -- what's going to happen to the tax bill, and why do you think your fellow house democrats got so upset over the tax deal? was it tax breaks for the wealthy, or the way the deal was made, joe? >> well, thank you, first, bill, for this morning and reaching out to us and asking us both to participate this morning.

really, on some of the most critical issues we face tonight. as we make this transition from the majority to the minority, i am grateful i'll be serving on the committee. i'm the last man on the totem pole, but it's a great opportunity and a wonderful community to serve with the greatest minds, i think, in the congress. i think democrats we all respect the position the president finds himself in, and appreciate that he wasn't -- he was dealt a bad set of cards here in this game, and looking back on all the accomplishments we made this last session whether it be healthcare reform, or third reform, i think it's something we look back on very proudly of. we have this overwhelming issue still of how to deal with the

tax, the bush tax cuts. i don't think there's a conference in the notion of extending those cuts for the wealthy is 3%. we are trueing to draw that distinction where we stand and our republican colleagues stand. many of us feel as though these issues were being held over our heads, and i think what's really something that we've been, i think, very frustrated with our caucus has been, and it's not something that maybe the american people really care about, it gets into the weeks, but the 60-vote rule with the senate, it's not so much the president not move ling here, but we've been dealing with the 60-vote, but the most common denominator that gets a bill passed regardless of what we do, you take it or leave it, and this is not a new one pertaining

to this particular issue. it's been frustrating and continues to be frustrating. i think we have done a fairly good job of discerning where as democrats stand opposed to where republicans stand. we're still, i think, going through the throws here. we had a very long conference caucus meeting last night. i stayed to the very end. listening to our colleagues and getting the perspectives on this. the senate is taking up the bill today, and in all likelihood we'll bring this up sometime tomorrow, and i think the focus has been right now on the amendment process, and i think from our end, it looks as though we're making an attempt on what was the language pertaining to the state tax where the senate and white house proposal has it at 5 and 10 million with a 35% tax after that. our position, i think, has

consistently been reverting back to the 2009 level, 3.57 and 45% after that, and i think that's where our focus will be today and tomorrow. >> will, you know, i think our tax cut agreements is one the modern problems with our democracy today. we cannot govern the nation with the majority because of the rules in the senate. they can literally make our country ungo veerble. we had a tax cut measure a couple of weeks ago. it covers 98% of americans, able to pass that on to the house, but the votes were not in the senate. i think that's where most the american people were. what concerns me is this might be the new bipartisanship coming out of washington where i get

yours, i get mine, and there's the deficit at a time we're looking at structural budget deficits, and no one wants to make tough decisions again. this is disconcerning especially with our democratic colleagues right now. it may ultimately be on the estate tax measure in this agreement where now it sits at 5 million under the kyl legislation, dropping the rate down to 35%, get the stepped up basis again. that will mean $25 billion tax relief to 6600 estates in the entire nation. is that the fair or smartest use of resources we have in our country today? and many people have a problem with that. we thought a fair way was pulling back to the 3.5 million exclusion, 45%, still covering the vast universe of small businesses and family farmer in the country, but it was not good enough.

the president as joe indicated was between a rock and a hard place on it. does he risk seeing tax increases take effect on all americans next january, or swallow bitter pills in order to sphear that doesn't -- ensure that doesn't happen, but that doesn't make the tough decisionings we -- decisions we have to make going forward. this is another trillion dollars of debt over the next two years for the sake of reaching a bipartisan agreement. i don't think that bodes well for the tough decisions to make to get serious on the budget deficits as we move forward. >> both of you have raise the the issue of the 60-vote filibuster. it's worth pointing out that historically the filibuster was not routine. it was reserved for the whitings of southern ray cysts, but it was not routine. somehow the use of the filibuster has become routine. everything needs to pass with 60

votes. i take it both of you seem to be in favor of, it's none of your business, of course, you're in the house, but you would like the senate to change that rule even if the republicans win the majority? >> i think ultimately the american people are going to be the referee in everything that we do, and if they get more disenchapterred with the supermajority requirement in the senate all the time, maybe that will be reflected in future elections, and i think the minority party figured out saying no to everything is short term strategy. they benefited from that after the last election, but it's not the type of leadership our country needs right now which means shared sacrifice across the board. i don't see that in this tax agreement coming before us right now. there's no sacrifice being asked of anyone. in fact, we're digging the hole deeper and making it more difficult for congress to address these budget deficits, and instead, we're going in the

opposite direction. >> i don't know about ron, but i have yet to witness a filibuster in 1 years here in -- 12 years in congress, and i think the opportunity for this to discern for the american people where we as democrats and they as republicans stand on the issues. i think to some degree they be, bernie sanders attempt over the weekend kind of got people's attention a little bit. at least, now, you know, sanders went on for quite a few hours, and i think he off with mary lain drew in setting the stage on what these issues are, but creating that drama gets the attention. they haven't focused on that. the other point that ron touched on, i wanted to come back to your original question on again, and i know you have more, but ron mentioned sacrifice. in looking at many of my friends in new york, some of them said,

you know, who have done very well, i'm doing great, had the opportunity to to live in this great country. this ought not be about class warfare. this ought to be about what can we do to ensure this country continues to grow economically and grow and take care of itself? what can i do to participate in that? my father growing up said to me all the time, this is the greatest country the world has ever known, and it's because of the fact we had this shared experience. right now, you have the wealthiest saying or at least the republican parties looking out for wealthiest 3% in holding, again, all the issues over our head as the deficit continues to grow, and there's not that sense of a shared sacrifice that i've been talking about. the image of the bill of

trouble, the idea we were holding out to ensure a dog-like trouble that inherited $12 million was getting a tax cut and making sure that dog got the tax cut before the american people, and the middle class got a tax cut. it was humor, but there was some reality to that. people know about that dog. we're holding, again, the rest of the american people at bay to ensure that the wealthiest in this country get a tax cut. i think that's what's stuck in the democratic majority in the house today. >> i have a question. >> are you most deficit plans focus on spending in 2011 because of the economy and sort of a wholesale provision of them starting in 2012. if you're going to be on ways and means, one of the things talked about is an overhaul of the tax system.

the president says he's open and interested in that. what do you think the prospects are of that? >> that's an important point, and the president raised this recently in the context of the tax cut agreement, but here are two little facts that have not been widely reported in the context of the tax debate. one is that the tax rates and the revenue is at at 60 year low right now. we cannot sustain that because -- we're talking about a period of time before medicare existed before we had 70 million baby boomers about to retire, and obviously the consumption of more health care because of the age, and the other important fact too is there's all this talk about the upper marginal tax rate moving from 36 to 39%. that's not what they pay. the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 2% is 17% because of all the itemizations and deductions and loopholes that exist in the tax code. if you want to be serious about having a fair, progressive tax

system in this country, i think you have to go into tax simplification and reform, reform done in a way that eliminates the loopholes that have been created through the code that we have today. that enables us to lower the marginal rate and corporate rate for all americans in this country, and that's a discussion that's long overdue, and hopefully in the context of what we're going through in the last couple of weeks, more eyes will be opened about the overriding need we have to change the tax code so it's for fair, efficient, progrowth, and lay the ground work for economic growth even in the sense with the latest tax package, we're just plugging holes right now. there's a lot of incoming, but there's no overriding plan of getting the economy back on track creating good paying jobs in a sustainable fashion and what type of long term plan do we have to get these budget

deficits under control. that's what the switchers and droppers are looking for right now, that political leadership, and they, quite frankly, are not getting it from either party today. >> [inaudible] >> as far as tax simplification? there are colleagues we've talked to, and hopefully more as we move tbarnd on ways and means and even outside the committee that would be interested in really getting serious about comprehensive tax reform. there's so much drag with the code that we have right now, just with compliance costs alone, and it is not right we live in a country where people fear of criminal prosecution of filling out their own tax returns given the complexity that's built into the code. this is crazy. it's not economically efficient or leading to the robust job creation that we need, and in fact, it's a major anchor as far as our competitiveness compared to the rest of the world right now. >> i think in terms as america as a competitive force, we need to address the issue of personal

tax structure and also corporate tax structure as well to make america more competitive and more intiesing to do bis in and to attract foreign dollars here in the united states for investment and to get the dollars overseas and back here and address the issues of overspending and doing the comments where we bring down the overall, some 35%, you know, somewhere within the mid-20% range to help encourage that investment here in the states. >> just on the tax bill, if you told us this morning, hold the high ground morally, fiscally, and politically, what's so bad about beating the republicans in lock step, they are in lock step, for the next two years and taking the congress back on an issue that you see as compelling to 98% of the american people? >> well, i hear what you're

saying, and if i was advising the president, i'd say let's have this fight, discussion, this debate as a nation with the tax code and the distribution of it right now, and that means calling up harry reid and having an honest to god filibuster in the senate. i'd put the president in a sign room right next to him with a pen ready to sign a tax agreement that makes sense in addressing the deficit we face. clearly, that was not the strategy taken. >> we've been promising the middle class and poor that their tax cuts remain in place, people making less than $250,000 as a couple and extend unemployment ?urnses -- insurance for 13 months as people need it during the holidays, so i think having that coupled with given with we are now and the deal we're in

together, i think those are also some of the issues weighing upon our caucus that this is not just about the rich, and though the focus has been, but it's also about the middle class and poor. >> the rich -- senator kyl cut a deal with president bush on smart in return -- s.t.a.r.t. for the 35 million? >> that's our understanding. >> talk about the deficit and about the reforming the tax code. both are in the debt commission report, yet two of your colleagues voted against that. how do you square that in your own caucus to tackle the deficit? >> i think there's commonground here, some bipartisan work done own deficit reduction. go where the money is in the budget. for businesses and families alike are health care costs and that's why health care reform and the measures in there is important to move forward. this is something joe and i were very close in working on over

the last year and a half with health care reform is changing the way we pay for health care in the country. it's value, not volume-based anymore. there's bipartisan agreement on this. newt gingrich talked about this and others who are serious about health care reform that stated if we do one thing, we have to change the way we pay for health care. it's no longer volume-based payments. a lot of those tools are in health care reform right now. if we don't get that right, nothing else we do is going to matter because this will consume everything else. there's elements of bipartisanship agreements on that. another area is in defense spenting. another one of the new entitlement programs that are only growing. the defense department has programs they don't want. we have weapons in the pipeline that are $300 million over budget. the blank check that the taxpayers have to pay and got to

end. there's been work done in this area, an area that is near and dear to my heart, a rural farming state, is the farm bill reform. these subsidies go to a few businesses is not fiscally responsible or helping family farmers in the country, and we've had bipartisan work being done with farm reform in the past. there's the largest categories in the budget i think where there's commonground to be had. if we can get in a room and talk with each other to come up with a long-term plan to turn this around. >> as you look at the next year, can you explain what you expect to happen around the debt limit and how that plays out in the house and whether that's going to be another one of these opportunities or whatever you want to call it for the president to get together with republicans and cut some sort of a deal? ..

you know, i think you are right. i think this is going to set the stage -- there was some discussion that raising the debt ceiling. if that would have happened there would have would have been all-out revolt. many of us believe that you no part of the job of governing is taking tough positions from time to time. i think they are going to have that situation before them in the very near future.

you know, i don't know what will happen at this point. we will have to see how they deal with the. >> our majority leader never voted against an increase in the debt ceiling limit because he felt it was the responsible thing to do. the majority party has the responsibility to make sure this gets done and we are coming off campaigns now. i know personally with the winds still cut deep where a lot of ads were run against me for supporting an increase in the debt ceiling limit. they used it as a political weapon and it was the responsible thing to do, and yet now we are in the minority. the responsibility shifts now at the governing party and we have got to pick out a way to convince members, specially new members just coming in now, that they have this responsibility or we know what the consequences will be if it doesn't happen. >> it is maybe worth noting that many people have seen this tax deal made by the president and republican leadership as some kind of a signal for new bipartisanship that may point

the direction for the future. it must be stressed that they did this with a gun to their head. there was the threat that if they didn't do something before the end of the year, taxes would go up for everybody so literally there was a gun to their head. they had to have some kind of a deal or they would end up blaming each other for the tax increase. do you see that this kind of bipartisanship has any real future in this congress because my reading is the tea party elected feel that the mandate to stop this president, to reverse what he has done it to try to bring him down. >> i think part of what the results of the election were that the american people would like to see us move in a more bipartisan way. i don't necessarily comment i agree with you i don't think this is the way we see bipartisanship taking place, that you know the house of representatives itself would be put aside and that the deal would be made basically with one or two or three senators. at that from our experience has been in many respects what has happened over and over again.

i think what we have been able to do in the house is again, to delineate between oz and where we stand on these issues, what we would have liked to have seen in this but what it comes down to begin that the most common denominator in getting a bill passed, that has been what gets you 260 votes, how do you get three or four or five people to support this and make it a bipartisan bill to get the 60 votes. that is what is frustrating to us they i think in the house. it will be interesting to see what happens with the minority. weaned in the minority and house are still holding the majority in the senate, they having the majority of the house but still with a 60 vote rule, how that will play out and then with the president. >> there is an additional concern of the tax cut deal. it will set up the argument for the excuse to go after deep cuts in educational funding in the next session. cutbacks on children's programs, nutrition programs, going after the most vulnerable in our society because we don't have the money to to do it and yet they are going to be supporting

a trillion dollar budget deficit which will naturally lead to the argument that we don't have the money and in order to have an innovation this will be economic readiness if we don't move forward on some of these friends. or additional resources, to get serious about the infrastructure backlog and deterioration that is taking place throughout our nation today. if we are not careful we are going to be turning into a third world nation when it comes to our infrastructure compared to what other nations are doing. i come from a state right now where all governor-elect has just rejected the high-speed rail money and the 5500 short-term jobs it that would come with it but more importantly the modern infrastructure system that our nation needs today. it was right next door, literally across the river from us. >> i wonder if each of you you would talk for a moment about the perceptions of president obama among your constituents and particularly the point you make congressman that your father always said we live in the greatest country in the world. there's a kind of refrain amongst some republicans that is

a belief that president obama subscribes to and doesn't believe in american exceptionalism. do you think that is an issue? what do you think your voters and your constituents think about that? >> my constituents think the election of president obama is a combination of what my father talked about. that his election is an example of how wonderful this country is. and i think many of my constituents still think that is the case. look, as i mentioned before the president didn't create the economic situation that we have found ourselves in and i think he has done everything he possibly could do within the first term to try to turn that around. there is more work to be done and i think what the american people and my constituents are looking for is for the president and republican and democrats to come together to find solutions that work for the american people, that don't cause harm to

the institutions that we have created, social security, medicare as ron has talked about, that don't further deteriorate the people who are disadvantaged in our society as well, people who are unemployed at this time as well. so, i think that for my constituents point of view there is still a great deal of hope in this president and this administration that he will be able to turn things around, that working together we will make that happen. speak you know i do represent one of the last few swing districts left in the country and today that is what attracted me to the new democratic coalition. is a group of like minded pro-growth democrats who want to do what we can to make sure every citizen in the country whether you are in "the new yorker" western wisconsin -- that is the real challenge that they face. america has so much going for

its tail and i think people still believed that her go speak you believe president obama's -- believes that? >> i think so. look at some of the polls that came out this past week or so. compared to the alternative which may not say a lot right now given the state of american politics, but there are certain things that we have neglected for too long and again the new democrats have taken the lead in congress or the american competes agenda so we can be the most innovative creative and competitive nation in the world. that is getting back to the basics. i am an old lombardi fan of politics. that is setting up the next generation so they can be effective in competing globally getting back to the this dumb study, science, expansion of broadband. with the new dems have been promoting as far as the pro-growth agenda with lay the groundwork for the sustainable growth we are lacking right now

but this won't happen on its own and it won't happen if we start supporting measures that exponentially increase budget deficits and use that as an excuse to cut back on innovation agenda, science and technology programs, basic research we are starting to lag behind more and more. research and development. tax credit is another issue that new dems have been very strongly in favor of so that our companies will have a chance to compete successfully globally and also the trade agenda. i think the new dems have taken a lead in the importance of an active economic engagement with the rest of the world and for too long our nation has stood on the sidelines when it comes to having a meaningful trade agenda to move forward on and we have a president right now who wants to get that back on track and hopefully we can do that in a bipartisan way. >> congressman you mentioned the democrats. moderates in the this election have been decimated. republicans have been decimated in the last election so they have been disappearing in both

political parties. they broke with moderate, new democrats. do you think new democrats will have much influence in what looks like a more left-leaning demick reddick caucus? >> let me take a stab as an observer and having watched. there is no question we preserve the number of our great thinkers within the new democratic coalition particularly ron kind, adam smith and others to name a few. we did lose a number of great minds do think in our caucus and i will mention a couple. scott murphy, an impact player. the guy came in and was involved in so many issues particularly as it pertains to the issue of regulatory reform. one thing about the democratic coalition is i think he broadband brings world life experience to the congress and that was lost, but that is also reflective of the fact that the folks that took seats from more

republicans. these are districts that we have taken back over the last previous two cycles and they are in the interface or on the frontline, and when there was a wave and the american people are expressing themselves in some ways, they are very vulnerable to i think sending the message to congress, whether they are the democrats or the republican moderates. now the one big difference is there was a big tension during the party that welcomes people of different philosophical beliefs within the party. that doesn't exist in the republican party. there is very little tolerance there at all. there is very little support structured within their party to maintain those moderates and that is also reflective in many of the folks that took seats. the wave was so big, people that i don't believe would have been elected in a normal election year got elected this year.

we feel it is interesting to see how many are retained in the next election cycle. >> run as a member of the frontline. >> i'm concerned with middle in american politics and this is that all politics, federal state and local and the extremes are becoming more emboldened and more powerful especially during these elections. you look across the aisle and d.c. republican base right now that will punish moderate republican members who have the audacity to talk to democrats today and tried to strike some compromise and reach some type of bipartisan agreement and they are being taken out in primary challenges right now. it is now much easier in the democratic caucus now but what is different is citizens united and the fact that these independent expenditure groups know what seats are competitive and they are generally moderate centrists represented districts. again speaking from past experience i had $3.5 million worth of independent expenditures come into little rural western wisconsin.

i was just informed last night the karl rove's independent expansion group has now started running issue ads against him hundred democrats on the tax cut passage. this may be the brave new world we new world we find ourselves with unlimited expenditures by these independent groups that can come in and declared nuclear war against any candidate who tries to function in a moderate or centrist fashion. redistricting which is going to happen next year, will make the problem worse? >> 19 legislators are at least part there including new york where the state senate went back to republican control and they think you know there is -- be careful what you wish for because it doesn't always pan out. i can speak for new york for instance. i think in the state senate for its is the attempt would be to draw state senate lines that will protect their incumbency. the problem is i think that

these districts are changing and i think reflected even in the census members that are showing that any portions of new york city which were once predominantly african-american and hispanic are becoming more white and the minority committees are actually moving into the suburban areas that are now represented oftentimes by republican so i think there is a nuance within new york that is going to change the landscape in the future. but there certainly was some concern i think belated that we lost not only the house and we have taken such a shot in the chen that from the state legislators point of view there were some losses as well and i think that will have an impact. it is hard to say exactly what that will be but there will be some. >> more pork into you guys to tweak the senate bill, tax bill, tweak the kyl language and risk sinking the whole bill or would it be better to give the president at least a symbolic i partisan victory going into the

new year? >> i think that remains to be played out. what we would like and what will actually happen will depend on what the amendment has offered them what that will be. everything seems to be focused right now on the estate tax, portion of this and it happens to be the one point that i think was the dealbreaker, either kyl gets his tax bill as he proposed it and you get s.t.a.r.t. or he doesn't get it and s.t.a.r.t. collapses. it puts us in a very precarious situation i think in many respects gives a little more power to the house that we have yet to have, heretofore have. but i think that really is the question and it is really in terms of -- it doesn't sound early to you but it really is early yet in determining where those boats are out at this

point. >> well the language pass? >> i don't know yet. i can predict. i haven't even been able to figure -- i think there's a strong possibility it could have given we have a party have supported that in the past about a year ago. >> at that point with the house say okay we made our point and now we are going to go along? >> my sense is that ultimately that will have been. >> i think there'll be a lot of focus on what we can can do to revise the estate tax and where the agreement went without. it really is egregious and you are talking about $25 billion going to 6600 estates, given the deficits we face and the fairness or the lack of fairness in the code we have already but i guess the trillion dollar question is whether republicans were really willing to go to the mat and hold 98% of america hostage and prevent a tax increase on 90% of americans including small businesses and 44,000 wisconsin citizens who are about to lose their unemployment.

where they will really willing to do that? we will never have that opportunity now to test that because the debate is not going to occur. >> speaking of the tax bill, what are you hearing from nancy pelosi and steny hoyer? from what we hear in what we publicly -- they seem as much following as leading and kind of letting this play out. we have not heard any language of them saying we are ready to stop this bill. >> he and dennis know how to get in trouble so we are not going to be speaking for the leadership on our own party with this but suffice it to say they have been in a lot of listening moments and the concerns being expressed in the democratic caucus have been heard loud and clear in regards to this agreement but there also political pragmatists, both of them and they understand that the president right now is boxed

in given the timeframe in which we are operating. at the end of the year rapidly approaching, lot of that things would happen if there isn't some agreement ultimately reached. whether it is this agreement is something we have got to work out over the next couple of days. >> it is a doomsday scenario. >> well, again, the president has got the megaphone and i have always believed the white house has the bully pulpit and the president would have had this argument, have this debate and really laid out with the options were to the american people. that is the irony of this agreement. i think the american people are overwhelmingly in support of what the president wants on the extension of the tax breaks up to 250 million but not beyond that. does not like the most wealthy wouldn't get tax relief and with the president was proposing they would still get tax relief even up to 250.

i've always believed if those who are so adamant in extending tax relief to the wealthiest 2% they should at least lined offsets in the budget to pay for it. that is what we have had to do the last two years, operate under under pay-as-you-go budgeting. outside of the american have reacted more time planning everything we have done has been offsetting completely paid for whether wall street reform, whether was health care reform. >> the 9/11 health care bill. >> that was completely offset. the small business lending bill was completely offset. the largest expansion in higher education financial aid funding, in our lifetime was not only completely paid for but we save $10 billion for deficit reduction operating under pay-as-you-go budget and now we are saying with and if you are so strong and feel so much and delivering more tax relief to the upper 2%, we are not adding to the debt or debt our children and grandchildren. >> the public all of the country says obama raised your taxes because he wouldn't deal with us

in an honest way. you know that it's going to have been. >> do you know what else is going to happen? the president is going to sign this tax break in the next day they will start slapping him upside the head because of huge deficits that still exists. you have talked about the importance of the deficit and you've talked about urgent national priorities like infrastructure. it should not escape unnoticed that we the deficit report a few weeks ago which talked about big sacrifices we have to make for a radical changes in measures that have have to be adopted and then a week later the president and republican leaders made a deal that would increase the national debt by nearly a trillion dollars. we have had deficit commission reports in the past, two of them in the 80's and 90s. will the response to this be essentially what it has been in the past? who elected erskine bowles? who elected alan simpson? will this one have any impact at all? >> i think it is already had an impact on the debate. i think people focusing on and we mention some of the issues earlier today that is corporate

and personal tax restructuring as well. i think as you mentioned they have, and they have gone in the past and i think one of the issues that continues to regurgitate is the issue of the mortgage deduction, the issue that never seems to sit well with anybody i ever speak to. but i do think it has again not the way to forcing us to vote on something. they didn't quite get there but they have the weight of presenting issues for debate and discussion. i think it has been taken very seriously given as ron has mentioned just be overall growth of the deficit. the route question is going to be, do people love their tax breaks for them to hate the deficit? and i think that is what we are focused on right now. i think politically speaking. there is no question though from a responsible sense i think we all share, that we will have to deal with the issue of the

deficit and i think one of the things coming out of that report is the issue of corporate and personal tax reform that needs to take place, something i've been advocating and i know braun has is well within our committee and we will continue to do on the ways and means committee. >> there are a lot of i think very good recommendations coming out of the commission and what it does is sets the table for serious engagement on deficit reduction as we move forward. the question is who is going to be willing to come to that table and actually get to work? the recommendations they were making on overall tax reform. you go right on the list from health care reform to defense reform to the other big spending items, they have really set the table for a think a serious attempt at having a long-term plan in getting these deficits under control. but the question is ultimately this is only going to work if people understand there is going to be an element of shared sacrifice, that everyone is going to have to give a little bit and that a minority can

basically shut everything else down. >> this follows on exactly what those question was and that is this concept of shared sacrifice. there are those conservatives who say you could confiscate or take every dollar of the top percentile of this country and not allen's the budget. if you have an honest conversation with a middle-class family sitting here at the table with you what would you tell them is going to be rid tired of them as shared sacrifice over the next-generation? >> one of the things people need to understand is there has to be further reforms reform within the health care system. again back to the point of the largest and fastest area of spending at all levels and if we are not serious about that for nothing else we do is really going to matter at the end of the day. there is going to be adjustment in how we pay for one fifth of the entire united states economy. studies show we are spending close to one out of every three health care dollars on the procedures that don't work. they don't improve patient care. that is almost $800 billion out of this 2.4 gillian dollar

system that has been created that we are not getting good results for and that is going to require a period of adjustment and people getting used to a new system of paying for health care in this country. if we don't get that right no matter what we do with defense or with farm programs or any of the other spending categories it is not going to add a. >> i think if you look at polls, 60 to 62% like this agreement. they like their tax cuts more than they hate the depth and i'm wondering if you are going to get serious about this issue of the deficit? with serious questions are you going to put to the middle-class? are you going to have to say you are going to have to pay higher taxes? >> this is where i most disconcerted about where we are going as a nation when it comes to deficits. there's a huge political disconnect and i don't know how to bridge the disconnect. people like the medicare. they like their social security. they like the roads, bridges and highways. they like the farm programs and they like a strong defense but they also like low taxes and balance budgets.

that is the disconnect that we have and i think the commission, one of the purposes of the commission serves is continuing to get the voice out. you can't just have at all. there has to be some element of shared sacrifice ultimately. again i represented district and i had taken on the farm lobby and even my district would take a hit based on proposals i've been offering throughout the years but i think people. >> and i so bravely supported. >> you have been with me every step of the way too. i understand that there have to be tough decisions made. they are not hearing that i don't think coming with this tax agreement. it is just more of everything for everyone with no tough decisions being made. >> can i just add, place to start, this would have been a good place to start. this is not going to make the problem easier. it is going to make the problem more difficult. the notion of going to back -- back to market constituency. there are very few who make more

than $50,000 in a year or couples that make more than that and explain to them that millionaires and billionaires continue to get a tax cut when our country continues to bleed into the deficit. you know this would have been a good place to start. what we have to do down the road that we will have to come to terms with will include all of us americans making some sacrifice unfortunately we have lost this opportunity i think right now to at least address some of the problems moving forward that would have helped her code would have been and all but that explains the constituencies as well. >> let me conclude with pointing out in insures thing irony. there were two polls that came out since the text it was announced and both of them revealed that the least popular provision in that compromised proposal is the provision to cut the payroll tax by 2% for social security. that is unpopular. the majority opposes that in two different polls. i thought the first one was a mistake or two polls have shown

that. what is up with that? it seemed to me that what is up with that probably, it is only a guess but what is up with that is that a lot of voters they don't touch social security. don't even cut the tax on social security. i've never seen people opposed to tax cuts before but this proposal is to cut the payroll tax which will put money in the pockets of a lot of working americans and help stimulate the economy and it is the least popular provision. >> i'm not surprised. i think once you bring the payroll tax rate into play then the skies the limit as far as far as eviscerating associates criticism of most americans want and any. two-thirds of my seniors in western wisconsin will rely on social security as their primary sole source of income in their lives. two-thirds of seniors in that rural district that i represent so they understand how fragile this is. when you start taking money away from that and suddenly it just opens up all kinds of possibilities to destroy something that people rely on to survive. it is a very sophisticated

understanding obviously of social security. people don't even want the social security tax cut. they don't want anything happening to social security. not to mention it is very regressive. >> with that, we'd thank our guest congressman crowley, congressman kind and we appreciate your coming. it will be a very interesting year i am certain with a lot of twists and turns. thank you all and we wish you a happy holiday and a happy new year and look forward to meeting again next year. thanks very much. >> thanks, bill. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..