the congress of the united states. this outcry reverberated all over america, including the state of arizona, and the outcry was finally heard by at least 42 members on this side of the aisle. so i appreciate the fact that the majority leader has agreed to a continuing resolution but have no doubt as to why it happened. it happened because the majority leader didn't have the votes. he didn't have 60 votes that would have then allowed for this monstrosity to be foisted off on the american people. so i want to thank the members here on this side of the aisle and some on the other side who also said they were ready to stand up against this.

but most of all, i want to thank the american people. i want to thank those that made the calls, those that sent e-mails, those that stood up and called in to the talk-shows all over america and said, we've had enough. haven't they listened to the message that we were trying to send on november the 2nd? so i think this is a great, great victory for the american people today because we would have spent $1.1 trillion, at least $8 billion of it, $8.3 billion, in earmarks that had never had a hearing, that had never had any scrutiny, had never seen the light of day but had been put in by very powerful members of this body on the appropriations committee. so i'd like to extend my gratitude to the american peop people, the tea partiers, those who've aligned themselves with

the cause to stop the spending and the mortgaging of our children ask grandchildren's future. we've -- children and grandchildren's future. we've apasse amassed a $40,000 r every man, woman and child in america. the late e commission that reported out -- the latest commission that reported out clearly indicated that we are on a collision course that could bring down the very economy of this country. so i'm encouraged, i'm encouraged greatly by the action that was taken tonight to do away with this monstrosity and go back to maybe a one-page continuing resolution to keep the government in business until the new members of congress and the new members of this body who were elected last november can have their voices heard in the deliberation of this body and how their tax dollars are either

dispensed with and those that are borrowed, how they are dispensed with. i see the senator from missouri is about to speak. i want to thank her for her efforts in trying to bring about an end to this spendin spending. so, mr. president, i again want to express my gratitude to all members, including especially the tough decision that was made by the republican members of the appropriations committee, to stand up so that we could stop this thing in its track. and i want to thank the american people, whose voices were heard in this body and forced the decision that was made -- a senator: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. mccain: i would be glad to yield. a senator: for the most junior member, for those who are not understanding what happened, did we just win? mr. mccain: i think there's very little doubt that the majority leader of the united states senate would not have taken the action he just took if we didn't have 41 votes to stop

this monstrosity. a senator: so for economic -- mr. mccain: i don't think there's anything about it. a senator: so for economic conservatives, a 1,924-page bill just died? mr. mccain: a 1,924-page bill just died. a senator: and 6,000 earmarks will not now move forward? mr. mccain mccain: yes, and i fl badly about some of those earmarks because i had so much fun with them. a senator: and all of the g.o.p. senators just signed a letter to the leadership this morning saying that we should not move forward with this, as represented actives of the new mandate. and it seems that change has come to the senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan. mr. mccain: i have no doubt. i am not finished. i have -- do i have the floor? the presiding officer: yes, the senator from arizona has the floor. mr. mccain: i would appreciate the regular order. i say to -- mr. president, i say to my friend that this may be a seminole moment in the history -- in the recent history of the united states senate.

this may be a seminole moment that stops the practice which has moved power all to the appropriators in this body, a few, and taken it away from the rest of us and may return us to an authorizing and then appropriating process. but most importantly, i think it's a seminole moment because for the first time since i've been here, we stood up and said, enough. stop. a senator: congratulations, senator. mr. mccain: thank you. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i agree with my colleague from arizona on many things when it comes to appropriations, including that i have made a decision that earmarking is not a process that i think is the appropriate way to spend public money. but i'm a little confused about some of the righteous indignation coming from the republican side of the aisle about this bill. the omnibus 2010 that they have sitting out there, they're wanting the american people to think that this document came

from democrats. they want the american people to think that omnibus 2010, that -- all those pages sitting there, were done by democrats. they weren't done by democrats. those pages were done by democrats and republicans. every bit of that document was drafted by republicans and democrats, right down to the earmarks. and for the minority leader to stand here and ask as if this document -- and act as if this document is something that is the fault of the democratic party, when he well knows that he has been involved, i have been involved in terms of trying to get the number down -- and i'm glad we succeeded in getting the number down, as has been referenced to the sessions-mccaskill number -- but this was a bipartisan effort to get the number down. and the irony is, guess who has earmarks in there? the minority leader.

who just voted on a moratorium for earmarks ten minutes ago. did he pull his earmarks out? no. did any of the republicans that voted for a moratorium on earmarks, did they pull their earmarks out before this bill came to the floor? we could have eliminated a few pages. so, you know, i just don't think the righteous indignation works. this was a bipartisan effort drafted by republicans and democrats. it came to the floor after months of work by democrats and republicans. and it was presented to this body in a bipartisan way to vote on. i wasn't going to vote on it. i'm against it. but i just -- so i think that i have a slight bit of credibility to call these guys on this notion that this is something that sprung from nowhere out of some back room on the democratic side of the aisle. this sprung from a bipartisan

effort of the appropriation committees -- of the appropriations committee and every member on that side of the aisle knows it. they know it. and they know the earmarks in there. there are almost $700 million of earmarks in there from people who voted on a moratorium on earmarks. that's like being half pregnant. they should have said before this bill ever came to the floor -- and they were asked "would you like your earmarks pulled out?" no, no. they were perfectly willing to vote no and take those earmarks home. so on one hand, i would have voted no had we had the vote and i said that from day one. i voted no on the omnibus last year. i voted no on another omnibus because i don't think it's the right way to appropriate. but this is an equal opportunity sin. the problems with this process don't lie on one side of the aisle. they lie on both sides of the aisle. and the notion that the republicans are trying to say this is just about the democrats is the kind of hypocrisy that gives us the lowest ratings we have in terms of confidence of

the american people. we need to own up here. this is not about the democrats. this is about both sides of the aisle and a flawed appropriations process that couldn't get to the floor because of a lot of obstructionism. and when it finally did get to the floor, it came in one package. but it is not fair for the republicans to act like that all those pages came from the democratic side of the aisle. they certainly did not. and i yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? a senator: mr. president? mr. corker: mr. president? mr. begich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from missouri for her work in setting the ceiling that was adhered to. and i know there's a -- i don't support this bill and i don't -- i didn't ask for any earmarks, and i know the senator from missouri did not ask for any earmarks. i think there's been a lot of

frayed feelings, no question. i think we all know that even at the levels -- and i would say that the appropriators i think did agree to a number that was passed out here on the floor. but i think we know even at those levels, spending is higher than it should be. and what i would ask is that the senator from missouri and i continue to work together. i know we've got an amendment that was going to be part of whatever passed to really cap spending and drive it down to the appropriate level of spending relative to our gross domestic product. i know that it's going to take both sides of the aisle to do that. and i know that we've had a deficit-reduction commission that has just reported, has done some great work. the senator from illinois, to his credit, courageously supported that. and so there's a lot of frayed feelings right now, there's a

lot that has been attempted to be done here at the end, and i know that that's created a lot of conflict. but, you know, the page is going to turn here soon, the year's going to end, the holidays will come and we'll be able to -- to share a few moments with our families and then be back. and what i would hope is that in spite of what all has happened -- and, again, i did not support this piece of legislation for lots of reasons, many, many reasons. i do agree, though, that there was a ceiling that was set. i agree that -- that this is going to cause some -- some damage. but it was the right thing. it was the right thing for this bill not to go forward. and i hope that what will end up and -- what we'll end up and have is a continuing resolution that will take us for several months. and then i would say to the senator from missouri that i look forward to working with her, i look forward to working with the senator from illinois so that we put in place a

construct so that we know where it is we're going. you know, each year it's not just that the appropriations bills, you know, don't necessarily come forward. and it happened -- it's happened in years passed, i understand that. they don't necessarily come forward in a way that allows us to spend time with them one a week or maybe two a week or whatever. but it's also this we don't really know where it is we're going. i mean, we don't really have a construct that's taking us to a place over time. so it's my hope that we'll either vote on something bold relating to deficit reduction and tax reform or that we'll put in place a construct to take us where we need to go. so i don't -- i don't think it does any good to cast blame, candidly. we are where we are. i think the senate is taking actions that are appropriate and responsible by moving to a short-term c.r. the thing that i think is most

beneficial to us about that is it allows us to very quickly in february or march start moving towards a downward trending line that i think is much, much better for our country. so i see the senator from missouri standing. i think there's a lot that we as a body have to work on together. that, to me, is the most important thing that is before us and i happy to when we come back, we'll all work very hard to make that happen. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, may i just say that had the minority leader's tone been the same as the senator from tennessee, i probably wouldn't have felt as passionately as i did. i agree with the senator from tennessee about the vote on this bill. i publicly said i wouldn't support it. i didn't support it for a number of reasons. but if we want to work together, then we've got to quit trying score cheap political points. and the notion that the minority

floor leader tried to give the american people the impression that this bill was somehow concocted in some backroom by democrats -- everybody knows that's not true. everybody knows that until about eight hours ago, there were a bunch of republicans voting for this thing. now, am i glad they're not voting for it? candidly, i am. i'm glad that you guys managed to get everybody to -- to -- to not vote for it because i'm opposed to it. but what i think was most offensive was trying to trot this bill out here and put a label on it and try to give the american people that this was something that was done at the 11th hour to be jammed down people's throats. this is something that was done in a bipartisan way. thad cochran had a huge role in that bill, as did every other ranking member on all the subcommittees on appropriations. so what's offensive to me is not that we're defeating the omnibus. i like that. but what's offensive to me is

that we've gotten into this bad habit of trying to score cheap political points. and for senators to get on this floor and say, "we won," and, you know, do this kind of stuff when you know how many republicans worked hard on provisions in that bill, and it -- in fact, republicans worked hard, frankly, harder than our side did, on mccaskill-sessions. when he 17 democrats supporting it. you had unanimous support. i was pleased that we came together in that bipartisan way to bring the number down. and we won bringing the number down to the level the republicans wanted. along with 17 democrats. and that's what mccaskill-sessions/sessions-m ccaskill was. so i think that if we can go forward in the manner that the senator from tennessee has just spoken, then it's really important that we quit trying to mislead somehow the american people that the bill that we were going to consider was the product of the democratic party.

because it wasn't. and that's what causes frayed feelings. it's -- and you and i -- the senator from tennessee and i have had long discussions. he was surprised to hear how angry we were on this side at some of the tactics being used. i was surprised to hear how angry the senators on the republican side were on some of the tactics being used. if there really is a moment that we come together, then we probably both need to work harder at scoring cheap political points like was just scored a minute ago by the minority floor leader. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i signed on to the sessions-mccaskill bill because i wanted to get somewhere with the deficit. we signed a recent resolution letter to try to get something under control here. i wasn't planning to speak. i came down here and i was going

to head home. the thing that triggered me is when one of our colleagues on your side said who wins tonight that's not what this should be tonight. it's not about who wins or loses. the american people are losing every day we have this bickering that goes on. i didn't actually see this pile here of paper with the little logo on it until i got over to this seat. that is not necessary for us to get on with the business. and i know -- you know, i was listening to you as a former mayor, you're a former mayor from chattanooga. you were talking like a mayor there. that's what we need. we need people to think of the long term. how we get there. that's where we need to go i didn't come down here to hear the bickering that went on a little bit and this prop that was brought out. i mean, it doesn't -- that's not why alaska sent me. to be honest, who wins and loses tonight, my state of alaska is losing tonight. they're losing because we can't get our work done. after a year, almost a quarter

of the senate sat and worked on this in multiple committees to get this bill to us an here we are. we can argue the timing and all of that. the fact is i look to my colleagues who are on there. i look to democrats and republicans who are on the appropriation committee. i listened to them. my staff works with them to hear how that bill's being put together. this is one of those that i'm impressed to hear the votes coming out of there. they're almost unanimous. that is a rare thing in this world that we live in here. and we cannot continue to bring props like that down or say who wins and loses and then giggle about it as they leave the floor. the public is fed up with that. if there's one thing they told us in november was get busy, get work done, and work together and quit the gamesmanship. so your comments i'm looking forward to. we had a meeting a group of us and it was very productive i thought talk about tax reform and deficit management and how we're going to get control of

spending. that is the direction we have to go. but we're not going to get there with these -- these games. and i know both sides and you're right we shouldn't cast blame -- we're all at fault here. this may be the moment that we finally say to ourselves, no more show and tell. no more gimmicks. get serious. and the winner should be the american people at the end of the day. so i am -- you know, i'm looking forward. like i said, i was sitting here listening to you, i felt like a mayor was coming out of you. i know as a former mayor, the only way it worked you had to reach across both ends, figure out the common ground. i think senator gregg said in his farewell speech, we work between the 40-yard lines. he's right. we've got to get back there. and quit being on these fringes just for the media that sits up here and wherever they watch us. so like i said, i'm just frustrated tonight. i'm looking forward to maybe going home, getting a good night's sleep an coming back

with a good attitude. i'm controlling my motion as best i can tonight. your words, i wish those were the words that started this debate tonight to be very frank with you. that's not what happened. so i look forward to whatever we can do to get through this maze and get on with the show and get what the american people are looking for and that's frults the congress. maybe -- results from the congress. maybe we'll go from 13% popularity to 14%. we can at least strive for something. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague from tennessee about the deficit commission and it was a controversial vote and it was the right vote to deal with the deficit and the problems that we face. i'd like to put what happened tonight in some perspective in light of the deficit commission. first, the omnibus appropriations bill, the total amount being spent there wa was $1,108,000,000,000. the amount of that bill was that

earmarked for specific projects was less than 1%. $8 billion out o of $1,108,000,000,000. less than 1%. and that was within the total amount that we were limited to spend. it wasn't as if we added it on. we were given a total amount and less than 1% of it was marked where it was going with complete transparency, complete disclosure. $8 billion. and it troubles me when i hear members come to the floor as some did just a few minutes ago on your side congratulating yourselves, we put an end to pork barrel spending and now we're really deal with our deficit. $8 billion is a lot of money to anyone. but in the context of the debt that we face as a nation and the need to address it, it is not significant. it is not significant in that context. i think about the fact that yesterday most of us voted -- 81

of us voted for a tax bill and included in that tax bill were tax cuts for people who were pretty well off in america. $20 billion a year in tax cuts for the richest estates in america to escape federal taxation. $20 billion there. we voted yesterday and there weren't a lot of high fives and glorious speeches given about the fact that we were adding $20 billion to the deficit with that vote yesterday for the wealthiest people in america. $70 billion of it was for tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year. nobody came to the floor and talked about deficits then. in fact, it was considered out of bounds. we decided yesterday on a bipartisan basis, and i joined in on it, that getting this economy moving again was critically important. that's why i voted for it even though those two provisions i particularly loathed. that's the nature of a compromise. here's one thing i want us to

remember as we talk about going to c.r.'s and reducing spending, the tax bill we passed yesterday, which the house may pass today is a stimulus to a weak economy in an effort to help business, help individuals create more demand for goods and services and create more jobs and reduce unemployment. that's what it is. as we take spending out of the federal side of this equation, we are removing money from the economy. the deficit commission was sensitive to this and said that before you start the cuts in spending for deficit reduction, get well. get the patient well first. stop the bleeding before you address the fractured bone. stop the bleeding of the recession and that's why the deficit commission did not call for significant spending cuts until january of 2013. and we talked about it for a long time. if we hit the deficit break, and

that's what we're going to hear now, i'm afraid, for some time to come, if we hit the deficit break too early, this economy is going to sputter and fail. we can't let that happen. it's not in the interest of either political party for that to happen. we've got to find the right combination. the combination that moves us toward long-term deficit reality, but the short term economic reality we face. i think the deficit commission got right balance. i hope that we can build on that. i'd say to senator corker and my friend senator alexander, if at end of the day those of us in the senate who voted for the deficit commission. in this case it would be senator conrad, senator gregg is leaving, obviously, senator crapo, senator coburn, and myself, if we could reach the point where we come together in a bipartisan budget resolution based on that deficit commission, if we have a senate budget resolution, take the word bipartisan out of it, but a

senate budget resolution that reflects the feelings of that deficit commission, then that commission will have been a success, will have put us on the right track and we can stand strong together. and i hope that you agree that would be the best thing for this country. i hope we can reach that point and i thank you for your kind word earlier. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i want to congratulate my colleague from tennessee, senator corker, for his usual common sense as well as the assistant democratic leader, senator durbin, for his courage on the debt commission. i -- i believe that the decision made tonight about the omnibus bill is the best for the country but there could have been a better result. a better result. it would have been along the lines that the senator from illinois described. it would have been better to agree as a senate earlier. which is how much are we going

to spend. if we had gone committee by committee, we both serve on the appropriations committee we decided more on this, less on that, but at a limit, we could have brought those to the floor by august, got on with it so the government could run, that would be by far a better result. there's no need, really, to say why that didn't happen whether it was a democratic fault or republican fault. it didn't happen. so that's on all of us to make -- to look ahead and see if it can't happen in the future. i believe that it can. i believe that it must. we have a time coming up next year when we'll be asked to raise the debt ceiling. we will have before us a recommendation from the debt commission that five of the six republican -- i mean five of the six senators who served on it voted for. they stuck their necks way out to do that. the senator from illinois, the senator from north dakota and three republican senators as

well. so i think it's incumbent upon all of us -- we can find points of division fairly easily and that's not hard to do. finding points of consensus is harder. cutting taxes is easier. reducing the debt is going to be harder. so in the next three or four months when we come back, i hope we'll build on the conversation that i heard earlier this week with senator warner, senator chambliss -- a group of nearly 20 senators on both sides of the aisle committed themselves to work on the debt commission. i hope that we can in the proliferations committee start out -- in the appropriation committee to work on a ceiling and work together, a continuing resolution for a year is a lousy way to run a government. it wastes men because you -- money because you end up funding things that should be cut and -- and not funding things that need increases. so i -- i think this was the

right result for the american people of the choices we had tonight, but there could be a better choice. towers responsibility to -- it's our responsibility to see next year if we can offer ourselves and therefore the american people that choice. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator -- the junior senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i say to the senator from illinois, leaving again, i thank the senior senator from tennessee who is always doing and saying the right things on the floor and leads us in such a great way. but to the senator from illinois, through the president, i hope that there's some way that we don't let what's happened over the course of the last three months on the deficit reduction commission go to waste. i mean, i fear that -- that what's happening right now is people are beginning to talk about some kind of situation

where we then revisit all of these things for the next year or so and i know that i'm not privy to all the details that -- that all of you worked on for so long. but i do think that when this debt ceiling vote comes up which is going to be in april, may, or maybe it's the first week in june, it seems to me that's the next moment in the senate. and i do hope that -- i've talked with some of the members of the deficit reduction commission on my side of the aisle and certainly look forward to talk to you about the same. but i do hope that there is a way that we actually have a vote on something that's real and not kick this down the road with some meaningless resolution that makes the american people think that we've done something when in actuality we've done nothing and just, as i mentioned, kicked it down the road. again, i thank you and i hope that's the case, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on friday, december 17 -- the presiding officer: a quorum call in progress. mrs. mccaskill: oh. mr. president, i ask the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning

hour be deemed expired, the time -- oh, start over. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on friday, december 17. that 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 for their use later in the day, that following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the new start treaty. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, the start treaty will be open to amendments tomorrow. senators are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate their amendments. roll call votes are possible to occur throughout the day. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. 1115, the

new start treaty. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, as mr. sessions: mr. president, as as we begin consideration of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, we mustte understand that the proposal is not made in a vacuum, and it is a part and 1 cents an important part of our nation's strategicn, policy to the surface chairman ranking member and member of the strategic forces subcommittee oe the armed services committee. sn that is one of the matters thesf

matters of nuclear policy and missile defense has been before us seo many times, but and i hae had a first front row seat. ont-ro absolutely deserves ansideration in the senate and perhaps appropriate to debateas critical part of his approach t, strategic issues repeatedly insisting it is needed so that the united states can set and ae simple to leadership and moving toward what is often stated to world. the treaty now comes at a time y when our nation is the world's only nuclear power, but we haveo tve no production facilities

ongoing at this time. they have to be reconstituted. it's been quite a few members of years in this congress that it has not happened.ade for over a decade, the senate effort is modernized, aging of the weapons stockpile with ourht scientists that told us getting to the point where it has to be fixed has been blocked off by m house democrats mostly and and e republicans and some bills o republicansut. we have gotten bills out of then senate to do this but it has failed in the house. there has been an article of in faith on the left in america and about the international left, ms and our goal must be to weapons eliminate all nuclear weapons from the world. used president obama and historic. administration have often used d that rhetoric.ility our modernization capability i hasn't been started and the

deceit troubling thing. secateurs gates said though about modernization we cannot continue at this rate. llation and 2008, i sought legislationan to create a bipartisan commission of experiencedo a statesman to a study of ourtion nuclear posture. the legislation passed in the commission on the strategic thes posture of the united states. it was headed by dr. william perry and dr. schlesinger,. former defense secretary of thi, country, a democrat and republican, actually senatoracts schlesinger served in president carter and president reagan'seas cabinet.cabi but they were able to reach a rh consensus on a number of key nr issues. they concluded that we could nue reduce our nuclear stockpile more than the current numbers, but that, quote, modernization

is essential to the the non-proliferation benefitsxtende derived from the extended esstil deterrent.o it was essential to have aw a lt modernization program.ssion i know a lot of discussion hasbn been ongoing about that. bel i do believe senator kyl has done an excellent job in raisind this issue and the legislation i has responded posnitively in soe regards. the commission also nicely in a diplomatic language reflected the administration's's goal ofey the zero nuclear weapons by saying, quote, it's clear that f the goal of zero nuclear weapons is extremely difficult to obtain and would require a fundamental transformation of the world abos political murf, quote on quote. that is about as close as you can come for a commission nextct

posing serious concern about this policy. pakistan, india continue to sto rhode outlaw nations like north korea and iran pose great risk to world peace a chance anding nuclear peace programs. we need to talk about this more as goes forward, but it is quite clear that the greatest threat to world peace and nuclear rog danger arises from the rogue nation and other nations that tn have less secure situations than the russians do. while and while it is very beneficials to have a good treatise with the russians, this is not the corear of the danger nation faces today. we have had very little work,ss

every little success in the kind of robust report from china ande russia that we should have withd regard to north korea and iran. it is inexplicable to me why they would jeopardize theirive world to favor with rogue nations like iran and north korea but this administration kd has been a successful in gaining the kind of support to ratchet countries that could perhaps make a difference. they're and the russians are steadfast in their nuclear program. n the above absolutely noo zero intentions of going to zero nuclear weapons. their i had talked to some of their people and it's pretty clear tot

me they thought it was outside the realm of good judgment to nr discuss going to zero nuclearoig weapons. they were never going to the zero nuclear weapons. and they tend to go one at a vigil for the united states and nuclear weapons, both more in a brittle and this treaty does absolutely nothing to dealy with that situation, and the may russians may make some in thecht future perhaps, but i don'tbut d think they want toon make much. in fact the nuclear weapons is e critical point of the defense pf strategy. a critical part of their defense strategy. so russia, we understand, is has willing and really has planned at this time to reduce theirls strategic filed the treaty deals

with, not the tacticalecause reference, and that is because it represents a necessary economic move i think frankly they don't see united states or europe as a kind of strategic threat it used to be and theye w are willing to pull down thoseb. numbers. a that's a good thing, and we and should celebrate what games webi can obtain.se some close observing believen yi this treaty fails the united states programs like missile defense while not curtailingno certain russia and modernization programs and systems they want to enhance. sho in short, the russians seem to have negotiated more effectiveli than the united states in this treaty.on. that's m it to desperately. i warned our negotiators that th they were to commit it and a desperate to get this treaty and would make them more desert of -- meek more difficult than negotiations with the russians..

i think that is proven to beelan true. let me deeply about my overall e concern is reversed, the idea that his been the goal of the country to move towards dissemination of nuclear weapons is not just a fantasy or wild card or harmless vision.mless i think it is dangerous. i really think it is dangerous.n we raise questions about thehe y.ality of judgment that lies pc behind our strategic policy. thus the question that arises is the determination of the seven ministration to get a treaty really a part moving to zero nuclear weapons and setting an example for a world. america the united states of america n under whose nuclear umbrella finds a host of free and prosperous nations, no longer

reliable as a nuclear power, ant we know many of the nation's that are part of our nuclear umbrella or worried about our ud nuclear policy. i can understand that. w how low do the world leadershipf make us? go how do weapons should we go to? down from 1500, as this treaty t would have us come and that be might be a sustainable number. t 1,000, or 5,000? lot 500, somebody would say, bus writingwr in "the washington po" december 10th declared that thet treaty fails in his view because tthe numbers are not low enouge he says the, quote, 500 orfewerr mr. speaker. this ample well, this is a bill of reducing our weapons will cause other nations to follow our good

i think not.th korea r if iran and north korea risk thb financial futuresui on buildingr nuclear arsenal today, will our example cause them to stop? not. i think not. rather, i must conclude it would in gold and then even the authors that within the numbers fall lower and lower.see these nations have began to see clearly their way to being a nuclear competitor. greatt the world's greatest military power.ou why would we want to encourage them? i think it is a risky goal totri effort to advance the stateds goal of this administration, the nuclear-free world the treatycov will be counterproductive and dangerous, i think. about

that's what it's about. it's encourage other nations to havey nuclear weapons and any countryr that is advanced on our nuclear umbrella that does not now have nuclear weapons may well decidee they've got to have them at home for their proliferating nuclearn weapons. that is the international interl security forum a few weeks ago r german marshall fund of undersecretary of defense for policy meshaal flournoy c to the of penetration goal of the zero nuclear weapons.n, it' the stated it's a vision, it's an aspiration, and she noted while she acknowledged it may not happen in our lifetime.ay nt i can tell you it's not happening in our lifetime with a high degree of certainty.he the name of the panel, by the

way, had a little bit of an irony to it. it was a world without -- excuse me? good question. my d some of my democratic colleaguen mazie thets statements about noe nukes or, you know, they're just rhetoric. to have to say those things toen keep the president politicalrest left in line, the presence isn'' really serious, it's not a real goal of his. well i don't know.erican lders american leaders usually mean what they say. he hasn't renounced the policy. flournoy he is repeating it juso a few weeks ago with the international conference. i've got to say a lot of peoplet were not too impressed with thad policy frankly from our allies around the world. and if the president is not telling us accurately if these words don't mean anything, he'sj

just throwing out astonishinghat visions about what he would lik. to happen with the line, what else is he not serious about as we consider this treaty? if one is infected about arave matter such significance off lep nuclear weapons we have a great problem with leadership in thisn country. does it mean that the president favors modernization of our stockpile? he says so, but in essence, hen has conditioned that support on the passing of the treaty when we need to modernize ther or now stockpile whether or not we have a treaty.efide so does this give the confidencs that the president is clear hito it about our nuclear policy when the security fence and former security fence at the laboratory directors and the military w

people without exception safe we need to modernize their nuclearr forces he is only going to support if this congress ratifies the treaty? i don't feel good about that.e modernizatithon. they think modernization is a step toward more nuclear weapons in their mind, and we are a eliminating it to the weapons,, and that is frankly where the pl president's political ancestry is, where he came from i po'mlitically. forgive me if i'm not real comfortable about this.he say does the president mean that when he says he's not compromise and will notom compromise abilie to deploy strategic missilen defense systems in europe? some in this relative post-modern world may not have h the slightest concerns about our chs wor

ambiguous on matters like this. they don't believe much of the words in the way. anywa but call me old-fashioned, i ols think words are important.hat im these words that i am hearing or in need, so they are really clo fantastic like a cloud of a entr reality over the process. i am not persuaded that the sait ministration is not retreated on the nuclear missile defense occurred. for the simple, the related wilkie weeks retial but the administration negotiated away president bush's plan for the defense a slide in poland in exchange for the russian. "new york times" summarized these on november 20 if that

throughout 2000 by the tables show the russians feel that we objected tome american plans foa ballistic missile defense siteid in poland at the czech republicl inic talks with the united stats the russians insisted that there would be no cooperation on other issues until european side. weeks later mr. obama gave the russians will they wanted, a the place for the european side with a shift system, and of quote. that was a quote from "the newe" york times," so that makes me ab bit nervous. we have a plan to place that ine the two state system sao-ys the three states we have in thethe - united states gives us redundanf targets from the iranian attacks, and the russians didn't like it. c they didn't want a missile atta. defense system of the board.thnt even though they had said it a would have only minimal supportn against the massive number of missiles that they had it onlygt

put 10i think in poland. puten but they objected the bush administration stood firm the got the last treaty by standing firm and the assistance from secretary of defense for policy ewuglas fifer wrote an article n in one of the major newspapers about this, i think "the wallhat street journal," saying that they said no eventually thesedn russians agreed to say it used o an important issue. i just want to share this with i my colleagues who i know believes so deeply we have to ol he told the russians we don't have to have a treaty with you. we other nations who have nuclear weapons. treaty, if it's not a good treaty we are not coming to agree to it. with the russians agreed, and he

said the very same insistences, positions that they asserted ata that time i guess the bushn,t administration that they sand rejected or demands acquiesced n by this administration in this r treaty. forgive me if i am a big disease for about how wonderful this treaty is. i i asked the statement to the trustee department about the stables and we haven't heard any information on that. m so, there are many, many more things we need to talk about t with regard to this treaty andya the overall stndrategic situatin that we find ourselves and copay are we making the world safer? i am worried that we are not. i am worried that this approachu may not make us safer. i am well aware some of our best

allies are worried now about the itited states. the commitment of the united ste states to defense even god torbid nuclear defense of oury world allies will follow through until they may have to have their own nuclear weapons. m so mr. president, i know thereoo is a good bit more to be this discussed in this debate. on the internet this body to be delivered to the considerations of the treaty and not happy thaa in time. i am hopeful that we would be able to have a firm date to start the debate early next year and we could have a robust the y sate not only about the treaty t but a more overall nuclear.

strategic posture what are we going to do about missilewhat a defense, what are we going to do about seven, stockpiles and what about our try and delivery systems what are we going to do about those, and now it is being jammed in here and i understand why. the have got more votes to feety now and the likelihood of ithe l passing isik greater now to thia it has a realistic chance ofas passing next year.ignifica but more significantly, i thinko that the administration would like to avoid the full debatetee about the nuclear policy of the united states if it is that successful i think the american people will be well the security of the unitede states. floor. >> mr. president? i want to ask the senator b he leaves it's now 1:30 in theo afternoon, and we have yet to have one amendment presented toe

us. v to i recognize it is a value to the having some of these comments, but it also could be done in the context of the specific amendment. i would ask the senator if he t hasha an amendment he is prepard to offer that could help us move forward. >> it's difficult to amend a treaty as the senator knows. once it has been signed, thereha are things that can be done. and i think first and foremost,e we need to ask ourselves is thii a goodng thing for the country? will lead advance our interest and i believe we need a pretty big diigscussion about that in where we stand.i has been supportive of modernization -- i believe you have, at least as this treaty has moved forward if not in the past, and we really need to do that, so -- but i'm a bit uneasy that the president basically is saying you don't pass my treaty, we're not going to modernize.

i think modernization is critical for the security of our country. and i also want to know how it fits into our overall strategic policy. so that's kind of my biggest concern, senator kerry. i don't know that the numbers that the treaty takes us to, the reduced numbers themselves are dangerous. us,gerous. iodine to, but some people say they think it's a bit dangerous. but most experts don't excel ann i'm not inclined to say whether' it's 15 feet deep or seven teams were 1900, but i think it is ift part of the tram to take her numbers down further, perhaps he saw mr. waldman's article that it ought to be 500 or lower, mae that would make me very concerned that i think would cause a serious ramificationsios internationally. would you agree if this were wou

around the world?si c. blackwell, mr. president, let me say to my friend and i appreciated his desire and abot the treaty as a whole. we appreciate that. a couple comments i want to make. number one, the administration is not thinking modernization through this is -- i think it's clear to senator coe. i read a letter before the senators started speaking fromtd the direct use of the three laboratories, expressing theirsa satisfaction and gratitude withg the t levels of funding that haa been put in there. senor and i've acknowledged that senator kyl was correct in finding some inadequacies in the original funding levels that the administration in good faith har made up for those. what happened over in the houses

happened over the house and was not as dictated by then has administration, but the administration has countered that made it clear that modernization is necessary as a matter of modernizing in order to keep our arsenal viable.e her second point i would like to this meet senator, i hope the senator does not vote against this treaty because he thinks this is somehow a step to some irresponsible slippery site tha takes a to quote zero, nuclear weapons without all of the other things that are very, very intei intelligent thoughtful statesmen have talked about in the context of us nuclear weapons. i should point out dr. henry ha- kissinger who was an advocate for this concept to, not if or n something were going to do years tomorrow or the next 10 years

perhaps, 20 years, 30 years, but ya as an organizing principle, as e way of beginning to think differently with how we resolveu conflicts.do t because whatever you do that is you towards a world with use wev nuclear weapons, because we havs to get 67 votes here clearly the would build the kind of consensus that says we are doing things that make us safer.compad and so, it would have to be o accompanied by other countriesa, transparency, by other countriet taking part. it would also, i would say to the senator, almost necessarily have to a pontiac company buy kd something today that is way out of reach, which they say kind of constraint on conventional weapon growth and involvement in the way in which we try to. resolve conflicts between it' n countries. but it's no accident that george

shultz, bill perry, sam nunn, just to mention a few others, both of the 2008 presidentialor nominees, senator mccain and hae president obama have all agreed that this is a principle were trying to move towards. the road to a reduced number of nuclear weapons in the world, r which reproduced the anonymousal fishable materials that have a been potentially available to ts certainly doesn't pastor a nuclear tehran. if were going to have our bona fides to be able to leverage north korea and leverage iran, we need to at least prove we can put at three bilateral agreement between the two countries that are 90% of the world's nuclear w weapons. so i would hope h my colleague would not do this, given all ths

sign-ups that have accompanied it from our national securityrom establishment, from the joint chiefs of staff of the militarya leaders, from the national intelligence community, from ouo laboratory are scum the em strategic commanders. all of them have agreed 1550,aue the current number of launchers we have, et cetera, this isto pe going to permit the united that states to maintain the advantages that we feel we have today. and i hope my colleague would h look hard that sort of how henry kissinger and george shultz andr bill perry have framed this that concert of moving in thatrganizg direction as an organizing principle appeared i don't s expect it in my lifetimeen. i doubt the senator does.vides , but i wouldn't vote againstino this treaty that provides a window into what russia r is do, doing, provide verification, reduces threats and create stability. i would link the two and i hope the senator would not.nd i w as for the senator from arizona

has deprived that i wanted to have a chance -- can i just askn i believe earlier today you mada a point quote, we're not going to amend the treaty at self wita staff resolution that don't toet the treaty. i think i understandol not, but. do think as we both know, amending the treaty is not something that's easily done. dl he's not whether we think the treaty is hopeful. we can do somethings to the amendment process to make itccel more powerful and acceptable toi dispute that. i do feel like that fundamentally this day had to be discussing the overall strategi, impact. thank you, mr. chairman. i >> i think the senator and i hie just say to him, we have incorporated into the resolution of ratification some 13

different declarations understanding conditions.erta we certainly would welcome more if they're instructive and aren't duplicitous because of ae party dressed in missile defense issue, the real multiple issue,n verification issue, all of those that have been addressed, but ie i look forward to working with the sender to see if we can do d that. look >> we are discussing the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty at this time and i look forward to continuing vital and very important national security issue. twant to however remind my colleagues at us with in any other issues that relate to this treaty and the russians, that ie can't be totally considered in t

vacuum. seval because the events that transpired in the last several years in russia should bringl great concern and palace to all of this. goi and so i'm going to speak todaya about the situation in russia today specifically the continued imprisonment of mikhail kotter roethke and his associate who thought that the debt and the imminent verdict by a russianebv judge to likely extend that l imprisonment which was delayed from yesterday to december december 22nd -- excuse me, december 27th.e and if we needed any more reasoi to know what verdict was coming, this it.sov it. s the russian government seems to be trying to perry sentafter thy inconvenient news by issuing ite two days after christmas and rafication after we'll be done debating thn possible ratification of the

sederation. a some may see this as evidenceod that the russian government is eccommodating u.s. interests and desires. i would be more inclined to eve believe that these prisoners werese set free. until that time, i will continue to believe that the prime says minister putin says carter i rossa, quote should sit in jail as he said yesterday, that this is exactly the verdict the russian court will deliver. d the fact is, mr. president, the political fix has been in for years on this case. mr. kotter roethke but what of the most successful companies in the post-soviet russia and was under no illusions that some of these games may have been out gotten, and the subsequent crimes committed against them by the russian state have exceeded the boundaries of human decency, equal muscle justice in the

of god-given rights of man. i ask unanimous consent for an o article in yahoo! yesterday that said russia's putin had a ross key quote should sit in jail.d that is what the prime minister -- prime minister of russia said in an ongoing judicial situation. quote, i believe the thief should been in jail. with more than a touch ofhief sarcasm, his lead lawyer let him think prudent for speaking hised mind quote because it directly and clearly answers the question of who would put me similar in some way power is putting is pressure on the court as the judges deliberating. in 2003 when minister potter rasky became increasingly outspoken aboutme the russian abuses of power, it's growing authoritarianism, corruption and

disregard for the law wasny wasn arrested and detained under politicalm charges.n his country was owned by russiaa authorities and he was thrown in the as an very process that fell far short of universal standards of due process.even mr. kotter rasky was held inse, those positions for seven years and when it was brought to a thn close company charges were were brought against him which were more than the second one.compy h they were charged forad stealing all of the oil of the companym that had been so egregiously stolen from him. the trial but is now concluded. c now what will happen next? seems rather clear. mr. kovsky after spending seven years in i prison, mr. kotter rasky will likely face anymore, which i ence. feared is tantamount to a deathf

sentence.juste f this case is a travesty of justice for one man, but it'sthe also a revealing commentary onmt the nature of the russianyestera government today.y o yesterday the senate voted to ts take up the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, to be sure this treaty t should be considered on its nato merits, to our nationale security. but it is only reasonable to ass and i ask my colleagues this question, if russian officialsal demonstrate such a blatant disregard for the rights and cgal authorizations to one of they treat us in the legal obligations, be at this treaty or any other that the 02 s.? of what is worse? now the sad part of mikhail carta rasky looks like more of a corrupt officials ruling today. québec to quote from the dec economist and 2010 and titled

like to ask unanimous consentai: into the senate. mr. kartasheosky is a symbol of the injustices perpetrated by of the security services who epitomized the nexus between power and wealth. the article goes on to describe the scattering skill in russia today.y arrest,ma mr. kartasheosky attic about $30 billion or 10% of the. country's gross domestic market, product. by 2010, the bribes market to according to indent, a think tank had risen $300 billion orri 20% of gdp. a as mr. kotter rasky said in aost recent interview, this is not ts

put traffic police were doctors to their affiliated companies. administrathtive power rather tn newfangled property rights. in the profits are often stashed away in foreign bank accounts are quickly sent on luxury capir property and capital's fund neir children's educations or british private schools.th unsurprisingly, serversat showed that young would rather have ast job in the government or state s firm nst business., f over the past 10 years and the number of bureaucrats has gone up by 66% from 527,000 to 870,000 in the impact of holding the state machine has risen from 15% to 20% of gdp. figures point other figures point out in the

productions of corruption, russi transparency rushed me show 154th out of 178 countriescorrun perceived as more corrupt than pakistan, yemen and zimbabwe. the world bank considers 122 countries to be better for you places to do countries and russia. one of those countries is georgia, which thek world bank o ranks as the 12 best country to do business. present the data speaks often e the need forve russia to be governed by the rule of law.come considering the likely outcome s of mr. kataraski's show trial,pg it is surprising by present medvedev himself has integratedo his campaign as produced in his ch russians who are better for their country and dare to challenge thate current aircraft will govern it are oftenh

targeted with impunity.arnered one case that it's garnered enormous attention, both within russia and around the world of sergey wanniski, a tax attorney for an s american investor who uncovered the threat by russian officials of $230 million from the russian treasury. because of mr. ben macy's relentless investigation into thisel corruption, the russian interior ministry term in prison to silence him. water he was deprived of clean water, left in a freezing cell for days and denied medical care.his after 358 days that the subpoenas, sir kiley kinski died. he was 37. not only has the russiany did government held no one accountable for is that, severae issues connected to his murder have actually receivedrussia's accommodations. then there's a tragic case of russia's last remaining

independent journalists. last month a russian journalist named public passion who had written critically of the youth movement was beaten by attackery who broke his job, both his legj and many of his fingers on a bot clear political message toh oth. writers. has no one has been charged with this crime.is and breaking "the new york times" this sunday is a cautiono that suggest that no one everntb blll. it seems indubitable he right that the atmosphere featured an aggression artificially fomentem by the kremlin has become a rusn dominant factor in russian tk politics. i was having relations with the united states and talk of economic notwithstanding, a man with theo still rises standing behind the smilingf politicians who speak f democracy. batman is a real defender of the kremlin and its order. egot to feel that man with my s

own hand. inc i witnessed this entire article be included in the record as well, mr. president. >> without objection. >> an earlier story took me 17 of this year and entitled russian journalist writing craft fate in blood describe the fate of other independent journalists in russia. rusa, one is mikhail bakken tov, his t first corruption in the moscowov scuppered. this is what happened to him, a and a quote, les burnett called for the resignation of the city's leadership he said in ony of his final editorials. a few days later my automobile was blown up. what is next for me? not long after he was savagely beaten outside his home and lefs to bleed in the snow. his fingers were bashed and three later had to be amputated as if his assailants outside tor make sure that he would never egite another word. l he lost a leg.

now 52, he's in a wheelchair. his brain is so damaged that he cannot utter a simple sentence.i no one has been charged are not responsible for this kind easier, mr. president. the same article mentions another journalist, theodore p liftoff, was attacked whilelipia covering an opposition rally as he was leaving the article says and w i quote, three men push io the car and punched him repeatedly on the head. even when a subconscious they the beating was recorded on video by protesters.test ifers. you liftoff colleagues u. video to track down the men who beat him. they were police officers. recovered in the hospital, two recovered in the hospital, two others visited nursing to sign a statement saying they tia provoke the attack. officials later acknowledged they were not involved in theaid attack.

they raided mr. liftoff offices, seized computers about a criminal extremism suit against him. they asserted he has sought to n foment quote negative stereotypes andti negative imagf of members of the security safed forces. fearing for his safety and more criminal charges he quit. sadly i can go on and on like this, mr. president. to say nothing of the manyludedn unsolved murders. but as the entire article be russia's beleaguered politicaltn opposition unfortunately fares no better than its i journalist. i met a few times this year with former deputy prime minister boris nemtsov with peaceful political rallies with democracy in russia and a right granted rs under the russian constitution. but the israelis are often brokn targeted and vitally broken upsa by russianut reporters.ns, it's considering this is a russian se

officials treat their fellow profound c citizens, it's not hard to see a profound connection between the russian government authoritarian actions at home and its aggressive behavior abroad. over two years after the0% invasion russia not only continues to occupy 20% of georgia's sovereign territory, s it's building military bases there for many anticlotting ofnd this subsection ended nine and humanitarian missions.tehr all in violation of russia's obligation under the cease-fire agreement negotiated by presidenart sarkozy. in a recent step, present sacra feely even announced the use of force to and wrestlers presentation, pledging only to defend not occupy georgia and of prevented the russian attack. and yet russian officialsnded

tesponded hostilely i asked my a colleagues -- i asked my colleagues when the russians illegally in violation of all o internationalcc law occupy a sovereign nation, a sovereign t nation and not recognized these two provinces within the international boundaries of georgia as independent nations, how in the world are we going to trust them if they adhere to a treaty?een dis i hplave met with the people in. georgia who have been displaced from their homes. asaro and the misery inflicted on them. president sarkozy of francee rur pulled a comfort range for aon f cease-fire. russians agree to it. the total violation to it. they were occupying 20% of the country in georgia. and i think nicaragua fromognizd another country is also recognized these truewhich r

independent states in which thei russians are now carrying out ethnic cleansing and stationing russian military. w, we but not to worry, we can trust the russians to a tier two. solemn treaties and abide by international law.n governm police consider the various crimes and abuses of this russian government, mr. president. it's hard to believe that this government shares our deepest nr values. and this doesn't mean that we fd cannot or should not work with the russian federation if possible. the world doesn't work that whatut it does mean is that we r need a national debate about thk real nature of its russian government about what kind of gt relationship with thisisticall government.reign picy. about the realistic should publicly occupying us weren't te policy. debate, it offers a chance to have this debate at this russian accessioa to the wto. some may want to avoid it, but

we cannot. they believe we need a greater with them as pessimism where some of them were demonization.a i'm an optimist, even aboutfor russia. and i often find sources for hope in the most hopeless of places. mikhail kataraski is in prisonf for seven years. on december 27, you likely be to jue in endure many more. and a final appeal to a judge in his case, mr. kataraski gave ong of the more moving speeches i'v. heard in a long time and i bestd could be included in the record, mr. president. this is how -- this is how mr. kataraski saw the broader implications of this trial. and i quote, i will not be exaggerating if i say that

millions of eyes throughout all of russia and through the whole world are watching for the outcome of this trial. they are watching with the hopeo that russia will after a become a country of freedom and of the law. for supporting oppositioneing a parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. with the special services willat protect people and the law and bureau not the bureaucracy from the for human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the soccer, good or evil. truly run the country the power will be truly --l the power will truy be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law and guide. for me, as for anybody, and it's hard to live in jail and i doie not want to die there. but if i have to, i will not in hesitate. the things i believe in are worth dying for.ll men but there is still men and womeh of such spirit and in russia as

a cause for hope. and eventually maybe not this year or next year for the yearse after that, but eventually these russians occupy their rightful place as the leader of the nation, were equal justice canbe thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. massachts. >> senator from massachusetts. >> mr. president, i want to thank and congratulate the senator from arizona for his important comments about the sin situation in russia regarding rg the rights of mr. kataraski ande i would associate myself with thosed comments. the i would say to him for one you tr thing. yes the question, how do youus trust russia? and that is precisely why this treaty is so important. the treaty is not built on truss

no one taught us that more than in those famous words fromvefy. president reagan, trust but verf verify. we don't have verification today. we're sitting here with no verification. were they forced position of quote trust, where we don't e sooner w necessarily. so the sooner we get the treatya ratified, the sooner we provide a foundation underneath the mccain asked, which is to cant e trust them you got to have verification. and the whole point is that you build worst of times, so that yourore country, our country is more stable and more protected. during the worst of the soviet rontatio union, during the worst years os a confrontation, we still builtd up a series of treaties in thest arms agreements and various other kinds of agreements in nrder to try to tamper down thew potential for hostility.

and we hope we can do this as m. soon as possible here. i'm going to suggest the absence of a quorum. >> clerk will call the roll. mr. k [roll call] rd >> mr. president, i want to address a couple of points thatd were raised by senator kile number more as the debate goestd forward. but let me just be very clear for the record ahead of timertit because he opened his full remarks this morning by eatyrting that we don't haveme e time to be able to consider this treaty before the end of thethot year.rt and then he said that even start one treaty has said even though it was completed in four days, maybe four plus, slightly, he said that it wasn't done toe the same circumstances. it didn't have to compete with other legislation and so forth.. a look at the record straight.ae

on the same day that the sun on the cloture vote on theotes s.t.a.r.t. one treaty and votese on two amendments related to thn treaty, on that same day, they x voted on the final passage of the tax bill. endment ae following day, when the senate voted on another amendment related to the treaty, and also agree to the conference report on interiorappropations appropriations passed the d.c. appropriations bill and debated in holland to roll call votes oo the foreign operations appropriations bill. the following day, a complete in the passage vote on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so you know, if our predecessor had the ability to do s.t.a.r.t. i, while the past three or four other bills had held for five separate votes on the other items, i think it's very clear that we have the ability here tt be able to do this treaty in the

next few days. more importantly, the senate haw been considering this treaty, not just for the day and and a half we've now been on it. on we went on this treaty yesterday and some people chose to not even come to the floor to talk about it.alk now were back here waiting for chosen on the other side to come and bring an amendment.nt. we are ready to vote on thetrea. treaty. fifty-eight democratic senators are ready to vote on the treatyt and the only thing we're waiting for the people who say we don'tt have time, will haven't brought an amendment to the floor. i clearly smelled a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy strategy going on here. going but they have to know that when flights are disrupted next week or people can't get home, we're here to do business. and i think it will be clear why were not able to. her so we're going to stay here. we've made that clear.

the majority leader has made clear the president and vice president made it clear. or are prepared to succeed f forward on any amendment with respect to understanding declarations other conditions they wish to bring. and certainly to have a robust debate on this.rate i also would reiterate that l starting in june of last year,in was briefed at least five times during the talks with the russians. on. 60 so we have a group of senators here, almost 60 strong, what one time or another, over year and y half, i've been following these negotiations very closely. they've been briefed down in f secureac facilities.negoators, b they've been briefed by the negotiators, by military, by intelligence community, the intelligence committee is waiting. the arms services committee hass weighed in and the national on security group has had an

since the treaty was submitted their been 12 opening classified hearings were 20 witnesses. the secretary of defense, secretary of state, joint chiefs of staff chairman, the commander of the strategic command, director of the missile d defene agency have all urged us to pass this treaty. be and the question is beginning tk be asked now why should we do it now. the question is why are we doing it now? and i hope that we can get some amendment can proceed forward. so mr. president, i at this point might share a couple of other thoughts while waiting for a couple of other colleagues whr overpriced him to come near. but they mentioned that senatord kyl asked a question of what we

get out of this? getat versus what we get and sey to apply that were not getting very much.- that like an escher, the senator frot joint chiefs of staff, secretary of defense, leaders of our strategic command and othersstat don't come before the united states congress willy-nilly just ett g to say, he do this because we don't get anything out of it. every single one of them is articulate very clearly how they believe this treaty strengthensi national security. advantages are leadership in the world, positions us to be able a to deal more effectivelyn withnh iran and north korea. theht and you know, i have to say to l my colleagues, you receive the right to come to the floorf senate and talk seriously about iran and north korea. if you can't talk seriously about the ways in which thisabil treaty enhances our ability to

put leverage on those countries. before we pushed the reset ratton so called with russia, wi didn't have their cooperation with respect to iran. in fact, the russians are very d skipped to go about the intelligence that we were't untw offering and putting on thefacea table.throug that it wasn't until we sat down with them face-to-face and really went through that but they became alarmed and they begin tn see indeed this question of how we respond to iran is deadly serious. as a consequence of that, russie joined with the united states. now i agree with my colleagues. you know, the mere fact that they are joining us is not a reason to embrace the treaty ifd the treaty doesn't do all the other things you need to provide stability and enhance your thoso ndability.gs a but when it does all those othen things can you know theachievems consequences of turning your back on all of thoseo achievements is going to create a negative relationship to meme

what to try to believe that a little bit. it seems to me when someoneview like, you know, whose point of g view comes specifically from sort of the economic engagement and business worlds, somebody like steve ford writes that this iptionsh is important to the economic component into a relationship in that component of the reset see button. t you know, i think you can see the threat but a treaty like this can have. mo but let me say a few more wordsf about what we do get out of all, this. first ofs all, and this is iso significant as any reason there is to be considering this. we get nuclear stability. the fact is that nuclear stability enhances the relationship between the countries so that we can do a ot lot of other things that assist

in stabilizing this important i, relationship in a time of crisis. ier -- the fact is, as i mentioned earlier and we all know this, the united states and russia possessed 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. any single one of those weaponsn accidentally released, stolen or if they became, you know, on thr materialsia and then have the ability to be able to destroy any american city. and so, both countries have decided -- it's in both countries interests to reduce the dangers that arise when your haveus misunderstandings or mistress without thend verification and it's important to establish limits on those weapons in order to achieve that.s w predichat the ability is what tt comes withy this treaty.omes wit

transparency is what comes of this treaty. accountability comes with this o treaty. without this treaty, we don't have a right to count their a warheads. within this treaty, we have the specific timing and identifying mechanism which would provide for greater accountability and greater stability.aid secretary gates said very said clearly -- i went to cody. he said russia is currently above the treaty limits in terms of its members. so they're going to have to take down warheads. how could it not be in theintero interest of the united states to have russia reduce the number of warheads at his house today? now, there are many other issuer are my colleague from north dakota has arrived and i will go to a member of the fathers has the opportunity presented up later, but i think there are a t

host of reasons that are very, very clear and they areut of t appointed the record alreadyhiss have a highlight as we go forward as to what we get out of this treaty and minuses directly in the interest of our countryes and that is theid only reason tt the president of the united states is submitting a this trey to the united states senate and we need to pay close attention to the rational better military and intelligence community has laid out to us for why they would like this treaty is jim, s that the intelligence community has said, you think dinner.,he the sooner the better, quicker,f center, the better. i yield the floor.come >> asunder from north dakota. na >> mr. president, i've come to the floor today to speak in treaty andfi to do so promptly. first, let me say i've been listening to chairman terry,trey

senator lugar, discuss this and treaty. i think they have been clear and compelling, with respect to then arguments that they advanced. i think senator kerry has mades abundantly clear by this treaty is entirely and the interest of the united states. this treaty simultaneously maket real steps towards reducing the number of nuclear arms inhe the world, while also recognizing dn the important role of theseseele weapons by in our national defense all else, i believe this treaty is stabilizing.clear weas should be the goal of any action related to nuclear weapons. the mr. president, i currently serve as chairman of the senate icbm coalition. north dakota probably host it on the air force base in theions. country that has to nuclear missions.

the air b force base hosts boths icbms and nuclea ar firearms. ds as a result, north codes have a special appreciation for the in their critical role in our te national security. while most people approach the existence of these weapons. from an academic standpoint, we are in north dakota are coconfronted with the reality on a daily anoh basis. are still, we is what dakotans are really only observers. i assure you there is nothing more sobering than visiting avey missile facility in talking with the young men and women who stand every day as the sentinels of we're talking with bomber pilots as they apply to fly halfwayforr around the world to control the skies for protection, which iay was fortunate to do this summere let me just say parentheticallyy these young people are women of

extraordinary. we can be incredibly proud of the young men and women of our military. the quality of these young people is really extraordinary. mr. president, these brave men and women that the reality of nuclear deterrence and thecuritb stability and security that it brings to our nation. as we approach this treaty, our first consideration must be its implications for our ability to maintain deterrence andrall stability and overall nationaln ndcurity. my colleagues on the icbm coalition and i watched closelyd throughout the negotiation of this treaty.reaty wld we attended dozens of meetings and briefings to understand the impacts this treaty would have ter t on oheur national security.to t i even visited russia shortly after the treaty was presented to the world and met with many of their top military caref leadership. after tho careful of their anals

of this treaty, i can say with confidence that this treaty wilt strengthen our national security. i have no doubt about that at.ht there is no question that the dc treaty will reduce the number of launchers that delivered nucleas weapons. this treaty israel cuts to thosm forces, cuts that perhaps gocoal even deeper than theit icbm coalition initially would've liked. but after speaking at lengthespe with our military leaders, men and women responsible for developing the plans for the use of these weapons, it is clear to me that the numbers contained ie this treaty remains sufficient to ensure the success of thethel euclear deterrence mission.ther they tell me that while absolute numbers are important, there is no precise number that ensurestm our committee and enhances our

nuclear stability.ine i the bottom line is that we muste maintain and of launchers to have a credible and security turns to promote stability iny times of crisis. this treaty does that. it not only maintains her nuclearet deterrence, but shines for coming decades. deter beyond protecting a sufficient come a credible nuclear deterrent, o this treaty advancs or national security in other ways as well.d president ronald reagan famouslr said, trust but verify.pect however, for over a year we have been unable to discharge russia's weapons. that is found in our interests. risks developments that harm our national security going to or cris. even misunderstandings that could lead to a national security crisis.ows u this treaty allows us to resumet

the expensive and intrusive inspections that began under thh first s.t.a.r.t. treaty signed by the first president bush and ratified by the body i may vote. of 93 to six. ninety-three to six. dhis treaty also moves hermore e nuclear security forward at a moreth advanced level. all although i doubt we can never rid the world of all nuclear weapons, we are no longer in the midst of a nuclear arms race. by signaling a commitment to ts reducing our nuclear arsenalad while still maintaining a sufficient and credible deterrent, this treaty will advancner our interests in haltg nuclear prolsiiferation. would the single biggest threat to oui weapon.elop this treaty willment enhance our ability to enhance nuclear will

weapons by rogue states. and it will reduce the risk that nuclear arms races around theudf globe, destabilize regions of the world or create opportunities for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons.ue now, many treaty opponents argue this treaty may weaken our national security. find while closely reviewing their pv concerns and consulting with experts,e. and do not find their arguments persuasive. let's look at those arguments in first, some opponents greatly inflate the importance of atreae short phrase in a nonbinding preamble of the treaty to argue that it would somehowstense constrained our missile defenser abilities. this ignores the remaining 17 pages of treaty text and 165t mj pages of protocol text. let me just say. defense i have long favored missile

defense. i have many times been in the minority, i mailed them a. question. if i believe this prevented here creating a stable and secureaty missile defense, i would not tt. favor the treaty. this treaty doesn't do that. i think it's as clear as it can be. other than limiting the conversion of existing icbmtors launchers to missile defense orl is, which our military leaders have hurt he said would more expensive than building newould launchers.cbm and more importantly in my view, would degrade our icbm on capability. there are no restrictions on our missile defense, none. others argue the treaty willct restrict future conventional missile capabilities.ca that is simply notpa accurate. e the treaty fully aroused for th.

yousef conventions. we finished our unilaterally decide which capability we want. we also hear their precious typw of weapons should be included iw the treaty. fa i've also been one who long favoredvo restrictions contact l nuclear weapons. and while i recognize the importance of addressing that threat, the strategic arms treaty by definition is not theb place toat debate them. t never iacn history have tactical weapons ban included in treaty a is aimed at strategic weapons. m and that's not stop the senate from ratifying this agreement. pharmacists have disagreements from serving our national ades.ity interests for dec they let me say. i am quick to recognize tactical weapons at some point can become a street chic issue. the problem we confront here iss never before in the context of d

strategic agreement have we at is included tactical systems. that is the reality. frankly, i would very much like to have tactical weapons included in this treaty. let me be clear. that would be my preference. but that is not the reality ofse the history of these wgotiations. mr. president, some argue the number of total for a post-20.la however, the treaty allows at least twice as many asar launchers. importantly, the number of total launchers available is fae more important deterrence for national security than the this treaty shows themi administration understands the a critical nee sufficient number of launchersse to assuring -- to assure continued nuclear stability.ian

with that said, like many other civilian experts on our nuclear forces, i would bef extremely nr wary of any efforts to furthern. i argued repeatedly as chairman further reductions atst this prt stage. and i played them is a prudentrs position. committ finally, opponents argue the administration hased not commitd to investment in the modernization of our nuclear weapons and infrastructure. i this argument completely ignores a dramatic increase in modernization funding thebudget president proposed in his budget.tee, i can as chairman of the budget fact committee, i can attest to the fact that this increase ise unprecedented. this commitment ensures t rhat remained launchers and warheads will be reliable and affect it in the event way for me to lunch need t then.

in short, the arguments advanced by those who claim this treaty would hurt our national securitt and that is not just my conclusion. and that is the conclusion of former secretary of defense and former secretarie fs of state from both the republican party and the democratic party and previous ad administrations as well as current and former militaryhat i officers who have all publicly stated that this treaty will not advance -- led fans, not harm our national security.or a let me say, mr. president, a two major air force bases in theforc bate. grand forks air force base, mina air force base. i spend a significant amount of rce time talking to our top air force leadership. the i have consulted with them closely on this matter as

chairman of the icbm caucus. i am absolutely persuaded by the best military thinking availabls to me, that this treaty is entirely in a national security interest of the united states. i believe that is clear. of national security, especially when it comes to our nucleario arsenal. for a generation, the young men and women randwho serve them byt agreeing force air force base has declared peace as their as they defended the united states from global threat as through nuclear deterrence. but they may not be recognized as publicly today as they were 50 years ago, the airmen who stand guard at mina remain at

the vanguard of our nation's mot ast important military mission. i would never do anything to undermine the mission they carry out every day. after careful review and discussions with our nations best nuclear experts, both those in uniform and those who do know where the uniform. i am confident that this treaty makes our nation safer and morel secure. treat mr. president, i will strongly support to proving this treaty and call him my colleagues to join me in that effort. beg mr. president, i just want torar click as they begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this matter. it is in the highest traditions of the united states senate,

working together in a bipartisan, really nonpartisan d way. senator lugar and senator kerryo have provided vital leadership to this body into this country. and we are all very deeply inss their dad.gratit i want to express my gratitudeoh to them both for thession statesmanlike quality that they apply to this discussion and debate. i yield the floor. mr. luga >> mr. presir:dent. >> senator fro >> mr. president, as were waiting for other senators coming to the floor, hopefully you offer amendments to the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. relevan to i have some interesting information that i think is relevant to our discussions rs, today. t as has been suggested by other senators, the so-called

nunn-lugar prep reduction plan for the last 19 years has made it possible for operations of m, the united states military, united states contractors, working with their counterparts to russia, the destruction of very sizable amounts of nucleark weapons, threats that we took very seriously in 1991 that i hope americans take very seriously currently. i just received a report that since october and that is specifically during months of november, we have eliminated eight more sl beyond in russia. we have secured 10 more nuclearn weapon transport trains in nature last 100 plus more timess metric tons of chemical weapons. i mention this because i've bee5

fortunate enough to receive rep monthly, at least for theor last 15 years summer reports. stra at the scoreboard in my office and in fact illustrates first of 599 all the 7599 strategic nuclearhe warheads aimed at the unitedeact states have been the debatedcoor through the cooperative debt each reduction program. at each one of those warheads pointed out would not be melodramatic. it may have beenn sufficient to completely eliminate by home city of indianapolis. looking i take serious the treaty were looking at now, not so much incs terms of the numbers have calls reductions the treaty calls for, but simply given if 1550 warheads are left on both sides. it's an existential problem for both of our countries that we need to take seriously. any

but in any event, in addition to the 7590 by nuclear warheads, 7591 intercut monopolistictinenl subindustry. these were the missiles on which the strategic nuclear warheads e are located. so they take in the warheads off of the missiles, then takingthe down the 799 intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroy them, the icbm silos in which these missiles are located destroyed and 100 icbm mobile im launchers destroyed.destyed, 659 submarine launched ballistic missiles eliminated the slmbs. a 492 slmbs munchers eliminated submarines capable of launching. ballistic missiles that have been destroyed.

under 55 bombers have been, 're eliminated.ut were talking about so-called carriers. we talked the t treaty about evy 1550 with carriers on bothy theg sides. for those of you not follow closely these arguments over tht years, these are the elements the that have been named as the vehicles that would've madei wou possible what they were doing. i would just say and it totallyo without taking the time of othen senators, that during one of myt visits withhe senator not, in pharmacy from georgia and her body, went to a site in siberia were in fact a missile had beenm taken out of theis ground.old, it was a missile that we were told had 10 warheads.ple warheads on one missile. we were in the silo.it it was like a large tube in an d

elevator goingow down. which flr i don't know which one we finally arrived, but it was thes floor in the silo in which russians status card or is watch officers. the authority they had was not clear in terms of actually launching the missile are following the orders from wherever they may have come vivd from, but the impression i havee from that fitted to the silo isy where was -destroyed that very day.ilo only pictures of the silo b beig destroyed. and i explain this as not a nuclear weapon being destroyed, this time just a silo in the ground. around a table, with the russians who were on duty said n were pictures of american cities.sibly t these are the targets of the 10o

warheads and its chilling effect as you go around and discover which cities are cities that ion represent here on the chart. the fact was that was the intend and that it was made known to us in the united states that areccl total populations, not the occasional nuclear a terrorist attack for at risk. mention all now, i mention all this onceellw again not as a melodramatic presentation in a very serious treaty, but we are talking about something that is veryvery fundamental.eard durin t i've heard during the course oft the debates several of myhe colleagues say and i think theye are mistaken there right now the american people are focused, ase we all are, and how to treatoate jobs, how to make a difference in the economy, how to bring noh hope into livesop of people whoe

confidence has been destroyed or is that the shaking. problems occur in a world that is not necessarily -- does not necessarily wish us well and is prepared to leave us in our domestic economy to work our problems out while -- while the rest of the world necessarily takes time out. i'm not one that envisions, after all this time, a nuclear attack using icbms and the carriers that we're talking about except the fact as a practical matter by and large these weapons are maintained for the security of -- of the the security of -- of the are maintained for the security of the countries involved, butps at the same time, it seems to m, to have been prudent throughouty the years to have taken thosee

steps we could, but to take the warheads of the missiles, destroy the missiles, the silos, take up the cable in the fieldse around them and innocence eliminate a lot of the threat.he my score board starts off with 13,300 nuclear warheads. whittle is precisely the number that is the best we could arrive at and how did we are right at d because we had to literally boots on the ground, a subject discussed frequently today. on the dilemma that i foresee and i am not trying to borrow trouble is that the boots on th, ground in terms of the specifics of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty ended as we now know december 5, 2009t most of us, senate knew of the date and lamented the fact thatt was occurring, but the fact istb we have notate been able to tak.

action until today's debate to limit the that.r we must do so. this is not a question of the discretionary treaty that someone might be held over to at more convenient time as the facts of life are that even them program i've discovered has diminishing results because of o yhe russians aren't waiting fora word from this fundamental hope treaty. in due course, even though we may appropriate in our defense budget as i hope we will substantial money for the non-nuclear program next year. our ability to continue to work with russian military whi contractors outside a situation which there is no s.t.a.r.t.

treaty and which the russians ty may feel there is no expectation of a new s.t.a.r.t. treaty coulr mean the monthly reports areffi. excited today and more specifically the one for november of this year may cease coming to my office. eit the members of war heads move, the numbers of missiles no destroyed and so forth may simply either stop, or we have no idea what, in fact, the russians have decided to do. i appreciate in past the gatesi. some of my colleagues have said, and i think they were mistaken, but i understand their plight of view, this is russia's problem. why were american taxpayer funds ever involved in helping submari russians take warheads off missiles? destroying missiles, destroying,

submarines? weapons that were aimed at us. now for use in those terms, that does not seem to be a sensiblern bargain, that if you havey reduction, russians are around s for 19 years have allowed us to work in their country on theircl sites where these weapons were s located with not only b transparency, and actual fieldae of the hardware. it the silo i was in was real. dip. it wasn't by electronic meansery that we founded or surveillance and is from diplomacy, it waso very real. so was the submarine base that e was invited to visit, internally out of the blue during one occasion in a visit to russia. and why was i asked to come?eren

necause they had a feeling directly that if they presented to me the fact that there were a existence than six typhoon labmarines that each one of thec had 200 missiles, small missiles on them, that even though tomth" clancy finally discovered thean typhoon's for "the planned for o october, stop with stories the russians i have been operating t these marines up and down the ad eastern coast for as long as 20b years, whether we know about it or not, and as you saw the submarines, the largest ever wee produced buy any country, andph cth the 200 warheads that were chip shots into new york or philadelphia or any of our large eastern coast metropolitanmater. areas, whether the citizens evel knew there was a threat or not as a material there was a very e substantial one.

destruction of these submarinest because the work is very complex, extraordinarily leave expensive.ons in the and was beyond their ability ato that point. and we can take a choice to leave six typhoons in the worldo that might begin to cruise again me someplace else were work with them to destroy them. i am here to say that even after several years only three of the six have been destroyed. it is an extremely complex operation. and this is why we need to haver treaty arrangements with the sen russians so there are formalersl reasons why their government and our government might be prepared to send our military personnel, our civilian contractors, others who might wish to work with us on projects that we believe

mutually are important because,t and i will give this one more , because this is very subjective, but on onere occasion, i was surprised although i should not have beena that many nuclear warheads when very they are removed from the c missiles are not destroyed. it is difficult to destroy ae warhead, very expensively and t. complex, dangerous for the personnel involved, and the russians did not have many facilities to do this.ited so they put many of thesen, warheads into caves or caverns. i was invited into one of these caverns on one occasion, andthea lysol or heads lie in their almost like corpses in a more. this is what it reminded me of. there were small captions at the top of each corpse, in essence t which gave at least the russians

told me in translating what was on there a history of that morehead.w, i when has it been creative? w what service it had received overt the years. srting now i mention this because thesf particular warheads were not injured matter like sporting goods material. aye russians who were involvedlw servicing apparently from time s to time. and one of the reasons why russians always ask the united h states military and contractorss to remold the oldest warheads first is that none of us have that much of a history asked how long these warheads survived without potential accidents, something that could make a huge difference in this particular ia proximity to that particular fid case if. this. it is a crucial matter for them

and for us that we findere tlutions to this. and this is why i believe theref was urgency in considering the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, urgency in doing so right now as a matter of fact and as rapidly as possible re-entering americans russians who will be interested in our situation because this ia important for the two countriesf and is important for manyould, innocent people, who were never part of the designs of these a weapons, but could in fact be ao vastly affected in the yvette but we mistake. and we will make a mistake if we fail to act promptly knowingy: what we do about the situation.c i am pleased to yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from massachusetts. wt

>> i have said a couple of timeg during the course of our openin, comments and subsequently what a privilege it is to be workingg with the center on the street, and i listened to him talk about, and i've heard before,ssf about his experiences of prra traveling over to russia and det giving to othe process ofdershn establishing this extraordinaryg program, but the country and the world owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his leadership on- this issue, his vision together with senator nunn is just has global basis for that, so i thank him for his commentsagemea calling every call week to ndfof on this linkage of the threat reduction program to the s.t.a.r.t. agreement and therds relationship that comes out of e it. i know senator inhofe is here, but i would like to say a few at words before he does, the vefication verification because i think of

it's important as we go forwarde here to be very clear about the ndme, a verification components of thist treaty. a number of colleagues have questioned the verification regime, and we may yet have a further discussion on that. so let me just make as clear as i can that this treaty is fully satisfied our intelligenceolks community and military community and our stockpile verification folks as to the verify ability ofst the treaty. now is it slightly different from what we had before with s.t.a.r.t. juan? the answer is yes.ue but importantly, i want to w underscore why the difference wg exists because one copy sort of raised the issue a little whilei reo. i think it was senator kafeel who talked about why it was we might not have gotten them to an

extension of the start i treaty. the reality is it takes all extension. all the fact is kazakhstan, ukrainew belarus, they all dropped out of the nuclear game, and all of tha party to the original agreemento but russia made clear to the bush w administration long befoe president obama came to power oat they weren't going to proceed with that same system gt anymore.anythi and the reason was they saw it i as a one sided structure. they they felt that they didn't get m anything oetut of it. us -- something out of it, and as long as they weren't getting something out of it, they made us put on notice we aren't streg continuing that one.on and now, that said, the new it s.t.a.r.t. succeeds in

streamlining verification and tracking procedures, and it rep creates a new system, a state of the art inspection system and ie very strict reporting guidelines and compliance and verification measures that are in the newtecv s.t.a.r.t. banallan 20 years ofs verification experience, and thp appropriately reflect the and technological lead advances that have been made since 1991 as well as the difference oft -- relationship between the united states and russia because of the end of the cold war. ben so colchleagues need to look at those changes and measure it ven against the original benchmark if you will. oe fact is that new s.t.a.r.t.'s enhanced verification measures have a five prong approach, five different components. one, and invasive, on-site inspections. technical number two, national technical s means, and we have always had on

that, but our national technical means have improvedtechni significantly without discussing them here on the floor. identift i think colleagues are aware of the capacity of our national technical means. befor three, unique identifiers that will be placed on each within w, didn't have that before.at's inc now we have each and visual within wartell the account them. that's new, but increased, weroe gain a great deal, they gain aor great deal is a mutual process of exchanging data which provide stability and assurances from both sides. u the movement of any weapons. it to 18er short notice onsite y inspections. each year in order to determine the accuracy of russia's data is and verify the compliance.

the fact is this new system isl. every bit as rigorous as the system that existed previously. in fact, because of the change n described earlier the dollar --n belarus kazakhstan change, we eariiously and those were thedel nuclear facilities in each of denuclearized, the result is th3 former soviet union's remainingg in russia and divided between 35 nuclear facilities. so we go from 70 facilities wepo used to have to inspect down tow number of annual inspections for 28 and s.t.a.r.t. i and the new s.t.a.r.t. is almost the same

allowed under s.t.a.r.t. ither s because we are inspected fewer places and the inspectors now are allowed to gathther more tys of data during those inspections. the u.s. is also allowed to use national technical means whichy would be reconnaissance treaty satellites, ground stations, ships, all of them to verify's compliance and the treatya has o expressly prohibits tamperingino withrm the other party's nationf technical means. third, russia has to sri and and for the united states of the nol specific unique alphanumeric better said designating the and sl p.m. and nuclear heavy capable bombers. this information gives us a great deal more inside look with respect to the tracking patterns on russian equipment throughouts

the full life cycle with any of those specific systems. data russiacl to regularly provide to the u.s. the aggregate data on de including numbers, locations,fit technical characteristics of deployed and non-deployedre strategic offensive arms and rui fifth, the new s.t.a.r.t. is published as a comprehensive notification regime allowing use to track the movement ofso, russia's strategic forces and any changes in the status of the strategic weapons. so mr. president, the fact is this agreement in place and the leaning effective verification system and it's been predicatedd on decades of our doing this very thing with the same people. this is not a new ground we are pabiliti breaking. we know how to do this.ncrasi we have built up a certainnces.

understanding of each other's vn capabilities and idiosyncrasies and resistances. we know how to do this and the verification system that was designed for a this treaty is oa complicated, less costly and more effective than the one that was in the original start iait treaty.ater now i have a series of quotes i want to ask my colleague, both r of them, to have an opportunitys to speak so i will wait, and leader share with colleagues the number of differentieutenan distinguished, respected, long serving personalities within thf intelligence community, formerai lt. general jim clapper of thefn united states are force, others all of whom have a firm to the ability of the certification system to do the job and protect the interests of our country. i yield the floor. >> funding for the federal government runs out saturday at midnight eastern time. in order to prevent a government

shutdown, both chambers have been working on legislation to provide funding. the senate is looking at a catchall bill called in on the best.rly the senators on both sides o of the issue came to the floor to talk. this portion of the the date isg just over 20 minutes. t >> the american people are focused like a laser beam on the spending bill. i can't turn on the tv without e hearing commentate -- comments by both the commentators as well td i as people in public life about s what this spending bill will don for this country's future. and i think that it's time that we devote some attention to the spending bill rather than to puu itld under the table and to tale of the s.t.a.r.t. treatyding f e instead, which after all wet o could accomplish at any time, but as the majority leader saids the spending for the u.s. o government runs out at midnighte on saturday night and i can just hear the cry at that time we s have an emergency on our hands,y you don't want to shut down the federal government, do you? we've got to do something.ich wl

well, the something is apparently this 2000 page from p over 1 trillion-dollar bill,an which will not have had adequat, time or exposure to the americao people. and apparently come under the schedule laid out by theoment. majority leader, wouldn't evenar mtitled to try to amend it.he now think about that for a in is moment. that which is most important to the american people and the subject of the message that was conveyed in this last election, stop the wasteful washington ha t spending, we are not even going. to be able to amend the billion -- petroleum plus bill that hast been laid before us. malae no i think most people int this body know how important i think international relations te and treaties are including the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, but also forr agree with the colorful, and to buy james carville, for art adviser to president clinton who has a way with words and said

the american people don't get a pig's put to the about thert s.t.a.r.t. treaty. well obviously those in thevioue senate to do. we understand its importance.imt but at this moment the most american people is how we are going to fund the federallarsf government without continuing to waste billions of dollars of f their money and that is what wes ought to be focusing on the lasd few hours that we have. so but me address a little about what we have found so far is in this bill and why so many of us are so concerned about it. the first point i would make is, i don't think ever in the s, history of the modern congresse the congress has failed or thett senate has failed to should say to p aass a single appropriatios bill. ch, the american people should understand that p ordinarily congress passes a budget and wes each, both bodies pass about 12s

sometimes 13 bills to fund the e departments and functions of th. united states government. we didn't do that this year.t we didn't pass a simple one ande we didn't pass a budget. and so now the emergency that is occurs because we've run out of funding on saturday of his pleag his lead at the feet of the majority which didn't do its work earlier in the year and forces us into this position of way. and as of the republican leader set fire on ackley at the samee time that we were considering the health care legislation lasy christmas in a situation in which members have very littler, time and ability to change the legislation is before us the bill that will cost more than a. trillion dollars and very fewerf members will have had time to analyze and let alone read.ave, funding of the government of

is bill i course one of the most importanf responsibilities that we asill n senators have, but as i said it this bill does clinton get a may short interest on the floor because it appears we will not even have an opportunity toics n amend it the majority leader schedule holds. so let's talk about some of theg specifics. as i said it costs more than a trillion dollars.empora there is nearly $18 billion mort than in the tiberi continuings g resolution that was enacted last september. understood we needed to begin edderstood we needed to begin the process funding the government even though not one single appropriation bill hadbin been passed t and so we passed legislation that over 12-month period is $18 billion less inee the bill but comes before us re. now. i don't think this is that have had to trim their a budgets do.t. responsible. the talks to kids are the 6,700o earmarks.

think about that for don a mome. and there are only 535 members of congress and most of us,7 dot have your marks in this bill.s. so at 6,700 earmarks' come your talking about some legislators in the house and senate havingut numerous your marks, and the or your marks. now there is a debate whether earmarks' are good or bad, and some who believe that they are okay say it's not that muchgorn. money to $8 billion is a lot ofe money, no matter who is doinggsy the counting. even in the federal government. it includes things, and i don't like to make fun of these things because all have some purpose, i but we've got $247,000 for the , virus free wine grapes in i washington. people who now i'm sure it's important towl have fi riss free wine grapes, people who grow grapes are doinf fairly well financially. who could probably afford of the pool their resources, all of

their grow worse, to come up with $200,000 to try to make sure that their crepes are free of a virus. there's a $100,000 appropriation for edgar allan poe and visitors center in new york. edgar allan poe is certainly a iconic american literary figurek but for the federal government, i mean, the taxpayers in arizona i think probably don't really money for an edgar allan poe visitors center in new york. the omnibus bill contains upwards of $1 billion increase o in spending for the best the unpopular health care bill the americans said they didn't want it continued to strongly oppose. and here are a couple of the details on that. f there is an allocation off $750 million for the prevention of public health fund slash fun9 for a variety of programs, not named. 175.9 million adjustments in the center for medicare and medicaid

services program management account to medicaid expansion as well as the cuts to medicare advantage, something that at least my constituents strongly objectedld to, and 80.7 million other management and on aniad on. inc there are also millions fortiesd implementation of the onntroversy of dodd-frankilli financial reform bill including the securities exchange commission and increase of o $180 million. that's 70% more than last year. the commodity futures trading commission increase of 117.2 million or 69% increase over last year's funding.o treasury gets an increase of $32.3 million in tenders of increase and on and on. and the omnibus contains 790 billion tr ans increase of education stimulus programs and thorough f examination of a lot of the cause of the teachers' unions am least in my view more than the

cost of educating american children. now some claim at least you can say this bill's top line is a gross amount of spending ismanyr proposal of the kidder by senator sessions and mccaskill and many of the restt of us nur including myself but it isn't actually true as it turns out. ch as the omnibus excludes numerous c, parts of the sessions mccaskill proposal such as desnn multiyear spending caps, enforcement mechanisms thatis limitations on the emergency spending designations. something i will talk about in e just a second.proposed in addition the majority isps f using a budgetary sleight of011. hand to ostensibly meet thetheyo proposed discretionary spendingf caps for 2011. s this is what i was going to mention. they do this by a trick ofge cls retroactively declaring spending in half last year's supplemental appropriations bill for the agent orange claims as an go to c emergency, so that money iserge. spent as last year's funding no? we are going to say okay we ared

going to call the emergency funding. by what is the effect?an emergcy tt it doesn't count. reduces the baseline thereforeel like magic by treating it as an emergency come to the tune of almost $3.5 billion, they have been able to secure a lower cbo score on the bill and therefore not exceed the spending caps. well, with a demagogue to easily would exceed the spending caps sess proposed in the sessionsrocess. mccaskill legislation. let me just mention the process here briefly. this bill was being considered under a deeply flawed process a. the republican leader said. voters may be very clear care statement i think last month. they don't like wistful rus washington spending. they want it stopped. they don't want us here a weekhc before christmas to rush very tu complex, very large bills through the congress without time for their representatives to read them and study them and even have an opportunity ton

potentially amend them but under bi the schedule laid out as i said in an open amendment processtler would be impossible.ach of at the very least, one would think republicans should be entitled to one or two amendments to each of the 12unru appropriation bills includedeseb withinil this giant omnibusweld appropriations package. under the regular order each ofo the bi hlls would take at least several days of time and we would consider is numerous amendments, not going to happen at this bill. instead, we will to the of e equivalent of more than a month's work of foretime aseverl couple of days with no amendments and some wonder why congress's approval rating hasow fallen to 13%. someone said who is the 15%, anc the answer wonas well it is our staff and our families meanly. e let me just conclude here with a little bit about jobs. this bill will raise energy prices in the united states and the story energy jobs through,lr

provisions.fter the there is a ban on shallow water drilling. now i felt the whole ideas especially after the gulf wheres we had a deep water drilling law problems was to encourage drilling in the shallow water tt production. the bill changes ball to triple the time of the the part of onterior to theon explorationiat plans for offshore operators from 30 to 90 days. the provision could lead to huge up each contracts and that further and parents to creating jobs and energy here at home. the bill reduces the state's share of the federal in short pass revenues to 40% down from the 50/50 split required under the current law a the reza c's for offshore and onshore energy production in the land and these amount to a taxable makeh domestic energy production moreh expensive to produce especiallyg for the small businesses that do so and there is much more that the american people should known but we are supposed to be

talking about arms control treaty with russia instead. is madam president, i want to enact remind everyone we are in a lame-duck congress and my view is trying to enact such a huge complex bill within the narrowev post/rocky election timeframe really shows disrespect for theo space process.d and for that reason and the other side discussed, urge my t colleagues to oppose cloture onr pntinuing resolution of the kind that the republican leader has introduced, and i just want to leave no doubt about this final point.ss those who are watching thisvoter process carefully and toirst understand how the process works ouderstand the important vote eere is on cloture. b it's the first vote, to consideb this omnibus bill. our ilconstituents will not be fooled by senator terse to vote yes on cloture and go to this bill ensuring that it will bestt

considered under this process, without amendments, but then who vote no on final passage after it is too late to stop the process and said i voted no on the bill. well of course they voted no ond the bill but then it was too late. the vote is on the cloture vote whenever that might occur and ir am told it might occur actually 12:01 on sunday morning. in other words, one minute after midnight. well, i would be very by, reminiscent of last year's consideration of the healthcaren bill where the role of therocest procedural gimmickry, this bodys i think did not distinguish itself in adopting legislation under a process that theon american people saw through, as objected to, and continue towe t criticize thehe legislation adopted as a result of the substance. tha this we want to do the same thing ont this legislation here that will demonstrate relating to spending after the election de this senate did not get the messagetg sent by the american people.the

>> madamedu president, are we ii morning business at this point?t >> we are.en we are on the treaty.ction. we started --dent, i'd >> i ask consent to speak as if in morn than ten minutes. >> without objection. >> i would like to respond with has been said by my friend fromf arizona as willis kentucky about the appropriation bill we arensd going to consider in a verywa short period of time. r i am a member of the said appropriations committee. and i remember what happened, and i want to put it on the record right now so that some of the things that have been saidin can be compared to what i think bcommi is the reality that this is the reality. in the appropriations subcommittee each and every pre subcommittee of that fullill. committee met with democrats ana republicans and prepared a bille i have a subcommittee onl. financial services in generalhea government. senator susan collins of mean t and i worked long and hard inull

preparation of the bill. other subcommittee chair did the same thing. there was full bipartisanan otoperation in the preparationiv of each of these subcommittee bills. every single one of them.ut in the appropriation bill thatey we will vote on is a combination of all of that effort. the let me also talk about the amount of money that we are going to appropriate to continue to fund the operations of our federal government. it's true it is over a trillion $1.1 trillion in this bill, butc what hasn't been said by senatoe mcconnell and senator kyl that is exactlany the amount that thy suppor ask for. senator mcconnell and to the senate appropriations committee and said republicans will not support this bill unless yout bring the spending down to $1.10 trillion that is exactly what we bring down to the floor to be considered. so to stand back in horror andnh

look at $1.1 trillion say we're disfigure come from it came fro. senator mitch mcconnell and a motion he made in the senate appropriations committee it reflects the amount he said was. the maximum we should spend in this current calendar year on s our appropriation bills.gure he prevailed. that's been it's the same number as the so-called sessions mccaskill figure that's been debated back and forth on this floor, voted repeatedly by the republicans te be the appropriate total numbere so we have a bipartisan the agreement on the total number. i now the republican leader comes the idea of $1.1 trillion, thel. very same number he asked for ii this bill. you can't have it both ways. second, they say this is a 2,00f

page bill.subcommiinstea well, allow me to explain why. when you take the work of 12pags subcommittees and zero separate bills and put them in one bill, the total lumber of pages isnate going to increase. caucuis maybe the best thing we can give is a christmas gift to the senate republican caucus as age speed reading course so they cao sit down and read these bills. it turns out their fingers getd smudged andwo their lips get tid if you have more than 100 pages of the bill. over and over we are told don't worry about the substance of the bill, tell the pages and if it k gets up to a thousand pages it 2 is clearly a bad bill. republica wrong. this 2000 page bill reflects the work of 12 subcommittees and 12 republican senators who helpedhr to assemble and to devise the contents of that bill. it is no surprise that it wouldl reach that number when we put dc all of the spending bills, thes appropriations subcommittee

bills into one document. us, surprise. to we have this thing thrown at us. we haven't seen this before. we don't have time to look at be this. sator this bill was posted to days ags and will be available not only e for every senator read every staff member, bbuhet for everye member of this country to look at in detail.almost the reason members have been orming to the floor talking butf its contents is to have access to it and they have had for almost 48 hours and for an even longer period of time before ite is finally considered.g also want to say that the schedule that we are facing herf eow, the schedule which istroubl putting us against some deadlines, dedeadlines for the d funding of government, a lot of personal family debt lines which trouble all of us, but we accepted this job and its responsibility, many of these deadlines have come to be again, because of an exercise of the go senate rules. it's time and time and time

again, the republican minority has forced us to go into a years cloture vote and to a filibustes record brigade numbers of back filibuster so for the last c several years. if members of the united states senate were to go back home and asked the cable tv viewers to d watch c-span with their weary dy impression of the senate is, their impression is an emptyepun because the after day we have had to put up with cloture votet and fimilibusters from thed offe republican side delayed us timer burn off the hours on the clock, instead of rolling up our sleeves and actually getting down to business. d now they come and tell us well, we are going to threaten tothese start reading bills. well, they have the right to don that under the rules. now it's really not needed since all these bills have been posted it any senator who wanted to read t them has had 48 hours to readng the appropriations bill if they want to but a neighbor of ours on the clock again and then

complain that we are running coo christmas for members of the ths senate and their family.'ve well, unfortunately, their handl areic not clean and when it coms to the things included in this bill incidentally i've heard manye republican senators comees down and talk about specific parts of the bill they disagree with and that is their right. he but many of the same senators ht who were criticizingtand u congressional the direct request expanding earmarks' have earmarks' in the bill. the that is the height of hypocrisy to stand up and request and cont earmark included in the bill anr anen fold your arms and piously announce on against your marks. you ought to be consistent enough to know that if you're asking for and earmark one day and criticizing the next your credibility is going to beof thg challenged. that is the fact. some of the things that have been talked about one brought up by senator kyl relates to the drilling and how quickly the permits will be issued by the federal government.ill.

our department of interior has s asked for 90 days to review applications for the drillingama permits included in the bill.we why would we want to be careful when it comes to drilling and we permits?or many americanos why. we saw what happened in the gulf of mexico. know that for many businessesrom and families and many people and for a very fragile environment, things will never beai the same. let's avoid that from happening in the future. waiting 90 days instead of 30one days is hardly an onerous burdea ll make sure that what is donefa is done properly and in a way that won't come back to haunt te us. e that this isgu dsrespectful in theag spacehe process is to ignore the obvious time and time and time againfrod when we have tried to move theu. space process we have run into a roadblock filibuster's from thei other side t of the all, obstructionism. i'm glad we passed the tax bill yesterday. it was an amazing bill. i think the final vote was 81 to

18, which was an incredible, let's end this session on aacroe let's get away from thesehe lobbying bonds back and forthmeo across then aisle.the hetsor look our sleeves and do timeswe need to do. senator kyl should come to the floor and offer his amendment on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. he t amendments.s vote on list with this morning, stuartbt process, have votes, let's not p on the substance and bring this to an end then let's bring thise on this appropriations bill and the sea are and let the senate worked its will and vote on it. we have two or three other itema we can complete and people don'd exercise the tactics we can geta this done in age few days. i would urge my colleagues in the spirit of what we did with o the president's tax package let's return to a more bipartisan approach to completing our business and going home to our families, and i yield the floor. >> senate majority leader harry bet said democrats do not have

the 60 votes to move ahead with the $1.12011 trillion spending measure. the senate will instead try to work out a short-term continuinb resolution. we will t hear senator reid, minority leader mitch mcconnell, and illinois senator richard durbin of illinois talking about the spending package.ng cloture >> mr. president, we were undert the -- members on both sides anticipated to night my filingpg cloture on thus spending bill that would take us through next year in. mi everyone knows we are operating on the continuing resolution now expires on saturday night. it might -- midnight. senator leahy has worked so rtry, very hard for the entireaa year working on a bipartisan ye. agreement and a bipartisan manner put together a bill would fund the government for the next

nator fiscal year. all he hasn't done this asking he started working with democrats f and republicans.ag he has been an all the efforts of senator inouye has made. the product as filed a few days ago. overall spending level on the bill was supported by 40 republicans earlier this year.dm priorities from the members, democrats and republicans and ro though some of my republican colleagues in recent days publicly distance themselvesw tr from the idea that members of role to play in the appropriations process all of them did nothing privately tong withdraw the priorities from thi this bill. mr. president, i'm not going tov take a long tieme to light plane going to say a few things about this. it's no surprise because it said it before i like everyone here supports the constitution of the united states. i don't carry this with me every

day but nearly every day. is t i don't read it every day but i have a pretty good idea of what is in it and one of the things that i understand and support il the three separate and equal branches of government set up bf the founding fathers that i hav. a number of responsibilities, but one of thoses responsibilities set forth in that constitution is to makeranh sure that the executive branchwy of government does not take power away from us. ches o three separatef and equal brancf of government not three branches of government with one struggle and the other, and i think minep republican friends are giving uf so much to the executive branch of government and doing away with congressional lead direct spending. now mr. president, i wouldth sar this, it wouldn't matter if george bush i, george bush for beneteau, jimmy carter, ronaldn reagan, president clinton or w

barack obamaer were president. i don't like this great power. y that's what -- and i don't know why people in this branch ofill, government are willing to gives that power up., this bill put together bys thate senator inouye and senator cochran is a good bill important piece of legislation for the country. chs priorities that are so000 vitally important to children. tg 300,000 children in america as a result of the action thethe discussion to be taken not moving forward on this are going to be treated much differently. historic program has been be proven, mr. president, to be bee something that is vital to theil country. be 300,000 children would not bes d eligible for head start becauseg

of this. programs in the schools will ben much less they should be. senior citizens are going to be significantly harm to. we have in this legislation programs that will create jobs,n infrastructure that is so cause desperately needed in our country. this action taken by my friends on the other side of the ogle is going to cause people to lose - their jobs. this nn military construction, yets hap important bases that are vitalne to the security of this nation in nevada. they're all going to be damaged as a result of what has happened up here. a w one reason ior feel so put upono probably a word that people don't much care put upon or note but i have tried to make this

something that was good for thet congress and i was elated. kee of my republican friends tal said she is going to support yoo come up to nine.nd i've talked to a number of thosr identify -- i have it right thes here. i know every one of the metaly will not tonight or ever publicly say anything about who they are but they know who they- are.the ab and in thile last 24 hours the. have walked away from theias ability for us to complete thesn legislation. i was told within the last 24 sl hours we had bipartisan support to pass this bill. many -- i shouldn't say that,col many as a word is too large a large number of senators told me they would like to see it pass and they couldn't vote for eight

so those nine senators i have called some of them to might and visited with them the are not going to support this legislation. we have era simple choice. are we going to help people in america? i have listed some oanf the peoe that desperately need this bill, nld appears the answer is no. o or we will wind up passing theor short term.i s i askhoul my friend, senator mcconnell if i should voteues cloture on the house and we saio no. abody i one thing about senators on mcconnell i found he levels wit4 the on issues and there is nonaa need to go through that with a procedure. in's not worth anybody. in the next 24 hours or so, senator mcconnell will work to try to come up with the ec are

to fund the government for a -- certain period of time. that is where we are right now. i am sorry and disappointed that we don't have -- >> i would say to my friend may i make a few observations about where we are?ing to >> republican leader?nigh the de >> i would also say this -- i am going to file cloture tonight on the dream act and have a cloturt vote on that on saturday mornina fairly early and we will have at cloture voteo tonight on "don'ts ask, don't tell," not a cloture vote, file cloture tonight., the so, those will be sequenced fory saturday whenever we get to repb them, but we have got to moveseo this along. following that, i was told by a number of republican senator the need six or seven days to ie debate and offer amendments on l the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i will certainly be available and finished i think if the math works out the a way i believe it

will and early monday morning a the five festival tomorrow the debate can start to everyone's part content to the decision and then monday we can go to that or again.s, remember this would have beent three days already completed on that three or four days when it- feels procrit next week to complete the s.t.a.r.t. treaty o and we would wind this up byeopl taking care of the nominations of senator mcconnell so that is the range of things we have tout do. i've told the people the twockl. sinators from new york will hav. all week to consider their votet at some time but that is when ty happen fairly quickly.. >> mr. president?ork >> republican leader. >> let me respond very briefly to the majority leader. i do want to commend the members of the appropriations committee for all the work they've done, particularly republican membersg of the appropriations committee. who did spend an enormous amounn

of time crafting an bd developig the 12 different appropriation bills that we should have been acting on all year long. a this is the first time in modere history, the first time in. modern history that not a singlo appropriations bill went across the floor of the senate, not fue one.di do i d committee members on a bipartisan basis did indeed do their job. the problem is the senator didn't do its job and so what we ended up with, mr. president, was this, this almost 2,000 page omnibus appropriations bill which weer only got was it is yesterday? yesterday.s and so the point here is the work that the appropriations committee did in many respects was squandered because the fullf

senate didn't do its job, and this is precisely the kind of ts thing the american people have gotten tired of. and so i think the message we ought to take out of this isit n that next year we are going to listen to the american people and we are going to do our work, do it in a timely fashion. basik there is no more basic work andh the funding of the government.rh the first thing we ought to be,s doing. here we are trying to do it right at i the end as an old a congress goes out of office ande a new congress comes in. so the message is let's don't do this anymore. i let's make a bipartisan decisioa at the beginning of the next session that the basic work of government is going to be done t in a timely fashion for an imove t opportunity out here on the floor of the senate for members, of both parties to offer amendments, make suggestions ane improve the bill.he hid so on, too, respect thet t

board the appropriations committee has done. i don't agree with thehe end priorities we've had here in the senate about what things are important and as a result of nod doing the basic work of government here we are the and struggling with this issue. now there's only one reason why cloture isn't being filed andsod the majority leader to hisecause credit has already said it, he doesn't have the votes.this s and the reason he doesn't have the votes is because members ons this side of the audio increasingly felt concernedut t about the way we do business, and for many members it wasn't m bill, bult the process. so let's learn from this. we will get together as the opee determine what the appropriateth time for the continuing resolutionol makes sense toess n operate the government on an a o

interim basis and let's come back year after the holidays and renew our desire to do our floor business on a timely fashion an: avoid this kind of thing in the future. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. majority leader. it's been a kiss, mr. presidentn it reallyde doesn't take a persa with a ph.d. to understand and different from my senator from kentucky that is set things that don't indicate what history is in the senate.and so we have been facing 87 tha filibusters in this congress.nd 87. was and so, for anyone to suggest that the reason the work offetc. senator inouye and cochran wasn't completed this, excuse me, we didn't do the appropriations bills is were far-fetched.the drats mr. president, senator inouye and cochran in good faith work ;

to what they were told that the democrats and republicans wanted to do.iend yie that is to have a bill that took the priorities of democrats and ll t republicans, theha bill -- the bill before -- the bill that wey that is a democratic bill, it is call t >> with leggitt friend yield for a question? s >> i would like to ask the majority leader does he recall the time i return from the appropriations committee andtion said that senator mcconnell has come to the committee and saidn he was going to establish th maximum amount he would vote foe in all appropriation bills, thee 302 g allocation of $1. n108 trillion? and i said i to the majorityawaf leader he ultimately that is what we are going to be voting for, senator mcconnell number sr and as a senator from nevada aware of the fact of the bill wt were going to consider was at ty that number that was asked for bye senator mcconnell and the appropriations committee?as t >> is added satisfying i see myl

friend from allawi, it satisfied what we have deviated here on a number of cases and voted on tho plus a so called sessions mccaskill number. so we did that. mcc this is not a big balloon we just threw up to see how itaprit wheat, senator mcconnell has hal a longstanding association with the appropriations, that was a member that he told us we shoulr work with. >> would the senator yield for one further question?durbin: thh >> as the former member of the e appropriations crommittee --ion ce i have the floor and yieldino for a question. skype i would ask the majority leader who is a former member of nder a the senate appropriations committee, are you aware of the process of that committee of thv bipartisan process where the rankinghe republican member at t democratic chairman of each subcommittee sat down toract literally have a hearing marked up a bill except your marks fro both sides of the aisle? that is the common practice and has been followed with the bille are currently sitting in fronte t, the minority leader? credi >> to senator cochran's credit,

there were things he thoughtevet shouldn't be in the bill senator inouye was putting together. the senator in a way to his credit said okay, doesn't go in., any everything people wanted in this bill in addition to the worky that went on the subcommittee. level, the full committee level, anything there was added and at a later time had to be approved by both senator --d thing what s >> on a bipartisan basis. senatr on a bipartisan basis. geneman t >> and things senator cochran didn't want, senator and we begin the gentleman he is so cade that is all i will tell. >> would the senator yield for a question? ye >> i will deal for a question. >> mr. president, i would ask the senator to yield to a if question. >> the senator from washington. >> i would ask the leaderf through the chair if he is aware that the bill that is before us and that apparently we do not a have enough votes for now has gone through a very, very longkd the committee process. the transportation housing bills

but i worked with, i worked with my republican colleagues. our i didn't agree with all of hisf requests, but i gave him a lot e in this bill. we worked our way through a and passed it out of the that ar thbcommittee, passed a vote ofi the full committee, a committeef that the minority leader is a member of, all of the bills thae are involved in this omnibus mau bill, every one of them when it through a long, long process ofs committee hearings, subcommittee markups and passage and full committee markups and passage. g the changes to this bill that bt have come to the floor have come as a result not of changes in olicy, but because we all weret told in order to get in on this past, we had to reduce the the - amount of the bill that passed out of the committee each ofnd t those bills a significant