jeopardized its supreme interests. it shall give notice of its decision to the other party," and that's t they're owvment three months, they're gone. is that not true? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i would say the answer is yes and no. consider citers a through they have the right to wrawrks is it not? there is no yes or no. they either have the trite withdraw or they don't? do they have the right to withdraw? mr. kyl: the answer is that while they have the right to do anything -- mr. kerry: do they have the right to withdraw? answer the question. mr. kyl: madam president, the -- senator, kerry, you've asked knee a serious question which requires more than just a yes or no answer. the answer is under the terms of the treaty, they have a right to characterize something as an extraordinary event which qualifies under the terms of the contract between the two parties

to withdraw. and it is also true that technically speaking that's not a decision which we can counterman in any way, in that serntion it's true that they can withdraw. but it is also true that this treaty, like any other contract, sets up terms of reference. one of the terms of reference is the supreme national interest clause or the extraordinary circumstance clause. we both agree that that clause has to be satisfied in order for a party to be proper in -- or to be -- to properly withdraw from the treaty. when the start treaty -- mr. kerry: well, if -- mr. kyl: when start i was ratified, we pushed back from the russians when they said well, this gives us a right to withdraw from the treavment we said no, it doesn't, and we make clear that did not allow them to withdraw. here, by being silent on it, we are tacitly agreeing with their interpretation and that's dangerous because i would assume we don't want them to withdraw from the treaty, but they have

set up a circumstance which is virtually inevitable because we plan to do the very thing that they say will give -- will give them the right to withdraw from the treaty. mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i appreciate the answer of the senator, but let me be clear, there is no language in here, none whatsoever in the treaty, that suggests any measurement or judgment as to the weight or rationale or propriety of their notice. it simply says they shall give notice, and having given notice, automatically the treaty's over in three months. there's no measure. there's no court you go to. there's no measure here. you're out. the point i'm making is that no matter what, you can get out. now, that said, there's a difference here of opinion. the senator from arizona chooses to sort of take these outside statements which are sending us

a kind of signal that obviously they're not going to take lightly some massive layer defense that they think affects their offensive capacity. i think the senator understands that. i'm convinced the senator knows that. he's too smart about this stuff and he knows too much about it not to understand that if the russians think all of a sudden we've done something that alters that balance, i believe he thinks they're going to react to that somehow. he has nodded in assent, he does believe that. and so all this nonbinding component says is recognizing the existence of the relationship, it doesn't say that they're going to get out, it doesn't say at what point it changes things. what's more, the record could not be more clear here from our unbelievably competent personnel working on this.

and when you look at the comments of -- let me just go back to them right now. i know that the senator from arizona has respect for lieutenant general patrick o'reilly. he is a retired united states air force lieutenant general, and it's his job to defend america against a missile attack. now, here's what he said. he says, "relative to the recently expired start treaty, the new start treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program. under new start, our targets will no longer be subject to start constraints." so -- so, you know, and when senators ask, well, why didn't we just extend the original start treaty? apart from the fact that the other side said they wouldn't, which is pretty significant, in addition to that, our military

didn't want to because they wanted to get out from under the constraints of start i. so when the -- when the man who's the head of missile defense tells me that this treaty, in fact, removes constraints and improves our situation, then you add it to the plethora of other significant statements from secretary bob gates, from secretary clinton, from general -- admiral mullin, from general chilton, from the various other parties, every single one of them says we're not constrained in the type of defense that we can and will build. now, all this says is, recognizing the relationship. it doesn't restrict us from changing that and, in fact, we've stated we're going to. so obviously at some point down the road, i assume the russians are going to say, whoa, you know, this may be going too far.

but it's more than ten years down the road. and so for ten years, we know we have a relationship here where we can inspect and we can improve our situation. now, i -- i'd further say to the senator, does the senator agree at least with the fundamental understanding with respect to treaties that the preamble is not, in fact, legally a part of the treaty? does the senator agree with that? mr. kyl: mr. president, in a technical legal sensible that that's the way it's interpreted. might i also make another point, just to correct something, and we can have this debate later if you want to. but it is not true that no changes qualitatively or quantitatively in u.s. missile defenses will occur until after the ten years that this treaty would be in force. in fact, one of the most critical questions is whether the g.b.i. systems that we had deployed in alaska and california will be available to

be deployed in europe or on the east coast or somewhere else in 2015 or whether that would be delayed until 2017. so, clearly, there are -- and those are the systems that would be potentially effective against a -- a russian icbm. mr. kerry: fair enough. i accept that. there are some things that we will do and it may be that we have this moment of question mark earlier. that may be, mr. president. i don't know how that will play out. i do know this, we're going to plan to do what's in our interests in the country in terms of our defense and everybody has said we're committed to proceeding forward. and i want to come to the demint language in one moment, but let me just finish this question for a sec. the senator agrees that this is not a legally binding component that he's trying to knock out. now, the next question is, does the senator agree and understand that if you change a comma in

what is deemed to be, even though it's not binding, still, nevertheless, deemed to be the instrument before the senate, if you change a word, change a comma, you then have to go back to the russians and you have to negotiate and seek their agreement? does the senator wante understad that? mr. kyl: mr. president, the answer to the question is, if the senate, which is supposed to provide its advice and scoant -- in other words --advice examinen other words, it's the other half oof the equation to the president, and it's presumed not to be a rubber stamp, then we can take responsibly our changes, if that's our judgment, if we do that, if we eliminate these words in the mccain-barrasso amendment from the preamble, then the russians would have to decide either to accept that change or they would negotiate something with the administration that would then be resubmitted, that's correct. or the -- and/or there also could be a side agreement that would be entered into. mr. kerry: i agree. but the bottom line is the

senator has agreed with my statement that we have to go back to the russians, and that means, mr. president, this treaty doesn't go into force. it also means you don't know what other parts of the negotiation come forward. so the choice before the senate is whether you want to take the language which the senator has agreed is not legally binding and you want to go back to the russians and reopen the negotiations for something that doesn't even bind you when you already have this remarkable amount of evidence saying we're going to go ahead and do what the senator is interested in doing. now, even -- mr. kyl: would my colleague yield just for one quick question? mr. kerry: i would be happy to. mr. kyl: you said then the treaty would have to go back to the russians. of course the russian duma is poised to act on the treaty after the u.s. senate does. so the treaty is going to go to the russians. and unless my colleague is suggesting that the senate has no right to change anything in it, of course if it is modified, it goes to the duma and then the duma decides, do they want to accept that change or not.

mr. kerry: well, mr. president, i -- that's a go pointed by the senator and i -- that's a good point by the senator, and i -- i absolutely agree, the duma does definitely have to ratify this. but the point i'm trying to make is, it doesn't seem worth trying to have that fight -- i mean, if this were a matter that really went to the core and essence of where we're heading and -- and -- for on the treaty, i'd say, that's different. but it's not binding. if there were something binding here that required to us do something against our will, sure, the senate. but there's no rubber stamp involved in something that has no effect on the actions that we've already guaranteed in so many different ways we're going to take. now, let me just -- mr. kyl: mr. president works my colleague just yield for one quick question? mr. kerry: sure. mr. kyl: if it is not binding,, then why does my colleague assume that the duma would have such a hard time accepting the modest change that we're proposing? mr. kerry: well, it's simple a matter that before you get to

the duma, then you have to go back and renegotiate this, the treaty doesn't enter into force, and we don't begin what our intelligence community has told us they would like to see happen sooner, quicker, the better. they want to get to this process. moreover, let me just go -- it's also important in another respect. i don't know how much more clear we can be but i'm willing to work with the senator and i'd love to see if we could sit down in the next, you know, hours and come up with something here. and we've worked pretty effectively together and i think we may be able to do this. but -- but i don't think these words that are in here are meaningless. in the resolution of ratification, we are saying a paramount obligation of the united states government is to provide for the defense of the american people, deployed members of the united states armed forces, and united states allies against nuclear attacks to the best of its ability.

policies based on mutual assured destruction or intentional vulnerability can be contrary to the safety and security of both countries. that's a pretty -- you know, that's even a new -- i was attracted to that, frankly, because senator demint proposed it and i said, yo you know, that's not an unreasonable statement for to us make. and further, he said, in a world -- we say in the resolution -- this is not unimportant -- in a world whereby logical, chemical and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them are proliferating -- this is what our colleagues have been concerned about -- strategic stability can be enhanced by strategic defensive measures. we are embracing what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are suggesting ought to be part of this. then we say -- and this is the most important paragraph -- "accordingly, the united states is and will remain free to reduce the vulnerability to

attack by constructing a layered missile defense system capable of countering missiles of all ranges." now, we're saying it. that's what we're adopting when we pass this resolution of ratification. so not only do we have all of our defense establishment, intelligence establishment, civilian command saying we're going to build this system, not only have we briefed the russians, and according to our leading general who's responsible for this who says he briefed them, he told them about the fourth phase and they've accepted it, not only do we have that, but we are going on record saying we have this purpose to change this relationship and we're going to proceed to build this system. i really think that to put the whole treaty, given what's in the resolution of ratification, on the chopping block as a result of a nonbinding resolution, frankly, it just

doesn't make sense. and particularly given what the senator agrees with me is the consequence of having to reenter negotiations and, more importantly, the senator agrees with me the thing that he doesn't like is not legally binding. so let's have a vote. thank you. mr. kyl: mr. president? i'm rather enjoying this colloquy so maybe i could extend it just a tad longer here. of course the united states is free. i mean, that's one -- we're not going to ever let another country say we're not free to do something that's in our national interest. but the point, is the administration -- but the point is, the administration was unwilling to say we were committed to doing this, and i think that makes a very important point. the whole point of what we're arguing here is that the russians would like to put whatever pressure they can on the united states not to deliv deliver -- excuse me, not to deploy missile defenses that could be effective against russian strategic systems.

that's been their goal for decades. i think we can all stipulate light to that. they would like -- i think we can all stipulate to that. they would like to bring whatever pressure they can bear against the united states to avoid us developing those kind of systems. unfortunately, in the negotiation of this treaty, we have opened ourselves up to that kind of pressure by, for the first time, not pushing back against the russians when they tried to make their usual interrelationship between the defense and offense and say that if we develop missile defenses effective against them, then that gives them a legal and binding right to withdraw from the treaty. we didn't push back on that. instead, our signing statement said, don't worry, we're not going to develop that kind system. we're only going to develop systems that deal with intermediate threats or regional threats. and so even though the secretary of defense had announced a missile defense plan on the drawing board here that would go beyond that, a, we didn't push

back, we agreed to the preamble language. we didn't push back against the signing statement that the russians made. and then recently in the briefing in lisbon, we seemed to confirm our unilateral statement that we were only dealing with unilateral -- excuse me, with regional or limited threats. and so what it appears to me -- and then you can throw in the fact that we pulled the force forces -- the proposed missile defense g.b.i.'s, ground-based missile interceptors, out of poland and the radars associated with that out of the czech republic. all of this suggests that obama administration is not as serious about missle defense as we would like it to be and that perhaps one of the reasons why is because it will anger or upset russia. so the more pressure that russia can put on the united states not to do it, the more likely the obama administration is not to do it. the whole point here is matter

of pressure -- of subtle pressure, of bull which aring pressure, which the russians are pretty good at too. and if this achievement of the start treaty is so important to president obama, and i think it is, the question is whether he's willing to jeopardize that or to risk that treaty if the russians come to him at a later date and say, you're developing something on missle defense that bothers us, if you do that, we're withdrawing from the treaty. there's a lot of concern that president obama would say, oh, don't do that. don't do that. we'll back off. we won't go that far. the evidence so far suggests that that's exactly the approach that this administration may be taking and it's worrisome as dr. rice pointed out. that's why she suggested to us that we fix that problem in the preamble in the ratification process of the treaty. mr. kerry: mr. president, let me ask my friend -- first of all, i just want to point out. i forgot, actually to include in

my comments with what we included with the demint language in the resolution, which i think you twice ought to be jumping up and down about which is the following, "the united states is committed to improving united states stratigic defensive capabilities both quantitatively and qualitatively during the period that the new start treaty is in effect and such improvements are consistent with the treaty. now i -- i -- you know, that's -- that's about as bold face a statement as we could make about where we're heading here. now i'd ask the distinguished senator from arizona whether -- if the president clarified that in the next 48 hours or 72 hours and he were to, you know, make more clear to you to try to address that question particularly for you and senator mccain and others, would you vote for the treaty? mr. kyl: mr. president, that -- that is a good question, and i think the answer is, first of

all, i don't think that at this moment in time he can clarify it to that -- in that regard because he can't predict what -- what concerns the russians will bring to him and what his response at that point will need to be. if, for example, we -- mr. kerry: with all due respect -- mr. kyl: let me make my point here. if we are developing a system which the russians come to him and say, look, that will bother us because you could actually use that against us, we want you to change it in some way. my guess is he's going to be inclined to change it even though he writes a letter to us saying, rest assured, i am committed to developing good, strong, missle defense for the united states. i think the russians are trying to bully future -- this administration or future administrations into a position where we will be less certain to do the kind of things that are just in our best interest because we'll have to be concerned about what the russian response will be. i'll be happy to yield for another question. mr. kerry: i say to you, mr. president, if the senator

wants every eventuality of the future covered, that's a hard one. i think the president, you know, when the president of the united states speaks and puts something in writing in whatever form or -- or tells the senator to his face and gives him his word, that's pretty meaningful where we come from. mr. kyl: i -- i'm not questioning the president's sincerity or his honesty or his current intentions, but no one can predict the future. president obama is smart, but he can't predict out into the future the kind of things that could be implicated as -- as a result of the agreements that are reached here. and that -- it -- let me finish my point here and i'll be happy to take another question. the whole problem with this is that the russians are attempting to create a ground for claiming

the legal right as both of us interpret the term in the treaty to withdraw from the treaty. now, why are they trying to do that? for only one reason. it's not to create flexibility, as the senator said, they've got the flexibiliticy. it's to create the pressure to apply to this president or a future president not to do what we may want to do because of the concern by the russians as to how that will affect him. and i don't think one can deny the significance and importance of that kind of diplomatic pressure when we're asking the russians to help us with the iranians, for example, on the north koreans, or some other situation, and they say, that's fine, you're trying to do something we don't like in missle defenses and the president at the time doesn't want them to withdraw from the treaty. he would like the cooperation of something else. these things matter. in the area of diplomacy here, you can't ignore words in a preamble although it may not be legally binding especially if, as my colleague says, they are

so important they can be a treaty killer. can i correct something else and if my colleague would like to correct me about it, i think i'd be happy to receive that. but i think i'm right. if we modify the treaty in this regard, i think that the question is to the duma, do you want to accept this or not. it's not we have to go back to negotiations. as a practical matter we might well do that in order to smooth the relationships, but i think the treaty is sent to the duma with whatever understandings or amendments that we attach to it. i'd be happy to yield for another question. mr. kerry: mr. president? mr. president, let me say to the senator that for better or worse, are the way it works, and i think the senator acknowledged this in answer to my question, you do have to go back to the russians and you have to have negotiation, there has to be an agreement on that. if it was changed further or if there was something further, we would then have to come back and go through the process again,

the entire process again in order to review the -- the -- a new treaty because it would have been changed, be a different treaty that would be submitted to us, no matter what the changes, however irrelevant. now, let me say to the -- to the chair and to my friend that that said, i want to clarify, it's not the weight of the words that makes this complicated and -- and it's not -- you know, i'm not trying to have it both ways and say that words are irrelevant, but, you know, therefore he's saying, why don't you change them? it's the process. it's what happens as a consequence in terms of when we ratify a treaty, if we ever ratify a treaty. and because they're not binding and, therefore, don't affect what we're obligated to do, and

every bit of our obligations have been defined by the generals, admirals, various agency heads, et cetera, that's all been defined, we have a clarity about where we're going here. moreover, and here's what's really important, i say this to the senator from alabama and the other senators on the floor, this is part of our advice and consent because we've made it clear -- we've done something different. we've gone beyond what they did we're adding our stamp to this in the resolution of ratification. where we have accepted the demint language, which is as forward leaning as you can be in sending the russians and the world a notice regardless of what the administration may or may not have said, we've said and we control the purse strings and we make that policy about what we're prepared to spend for

and develop and that's a robust missle defense system. now, that said, let me come back to one other point that the senator raised about the -- the -- the meaning of what happened in the polish -- with the pols and the switch and the phased adaptive system. the fact is -- and this is very important, the obama administration did not come up with this idea for this change. this was not motivated by some different world view of -- of the president or the obama administration. this is our military as -- as the chairman of the armed services committee laid out fairly clearly and in detailed fashion the military came to us. they're the ones who came up and said, this is a better way to do this system. and, in fact, i have a letter here from admiral mullen, which i would ask to be placed in record, in which admiral mullen

says -- admiral mullen says, we believe that the phased adaptive approach will adequately protect our european al, provide the best long-term approach to ballistic mift defense -- adaptive approaches in other key regions as outlined in the ballistic missle defense review report. and they're the ones who requested from carl levin and others, the joint chiefs, combatant commanders and i concur with the phased adaptive approach as outlined in the review report. as with the nuclear posture review, the joint chiefs and combatant commanders were deeply involved throughout eat view process. mr. kyl: mr. president, do i have the time or does my colleague? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kerry: i thought i had been recognized. i apologize. mr. kyl: i'm happy to have a colloquy. let me jump in on a couple of

points. first of all, it is, in my opinion, incorrect to suggest that the phased adaptive approach is superior to the ground-based or g.b.i. approach. i know there are people in the military who came up here and testified that it was a good idea to do that and secretary gates, himself, said that. i believe, however, if one understood the debate fully, one would appreciate that this was also a political decision made by the president and influenced by other considerations. this administration has never liked the g.b.i. that the bush administration developed, and it's my opinion that the g.b.i. is more effective than the phased adaptive approach. especially since the administration is not talking about deploying, but merely having available the fourth stage. but g.b.i. is a more effective system. we could have that debate and i'd be happy to have that debate at another time. all i was trying to suggest is that the decision to remove

b.b.i. from the planned -- g.b.i. from the plan for poland and substitute this other approach which is available at a later time and, in my view, less effective and also not have the g.b.i. as a contingent backup until 2017 later than 2015, were mistakes on our part at least and at worst were decisions made to placate the russians. that would not be a good thing. and i'm simply trying to illustrate the fact that some believe that already in an effort to try to -- to placate the russians, maybe that's not right word, to -- to act in concert with their wishes, choose to characterize it however you wish, the united states has pulled its punches on missle defense. i don't want that to happen. i'm afraid with this construct that's the kind of influence they would bring to bear. i would like to ask my colleague a question, and that is, do i understand you to say that if

the united states, for example, attaches understandings and conditions to this treaty when we -- if the united states senate were to ratify it, and if we make a change in the preamble, that the treaty does not go to the russian duma with thoses conditions and understandings and the change in the preamble but rather has to go back to some negotiating process? i thought the process was that the russian tomba could add its -- duma could add its own conditions or understandings and to either accept or reject the treaty as it came to them from the united states senate. mr. kerry: mr. president, the process is that it -- it goes from us underany circumstances if we have acted on it to the government of russia. the government of russia makes the decision as to whether or not they need -- they're going to negotiate that and it's a

substantive kind of change, which they object to and, therefore, they refuse to put it to the duma or they want to renegotiate it. it opens it up to renegotiation. it is not mawtic. they -- automatic. they don't have to send it to the duma. they can sit on it. in fact -- i'm sorry. mr. kyl: i appreciate that clarification. but i hope my colleague's not suggesting that under no circumstances should the united states senate ever change a treaty so that the other party to the treaty would have to, in effect, well -- the u.s. senate would never be able to change the treaty. mr. kerry: i agree with the senator. absolutely not. i already spoke to that. i said if it's in the four corners of the treaty and it has some fundamental operative impact on it, i would agree with you, i would say, okay, we've got to go back and do it. that's not the case here.

we're talking about a nonbinding, very minor recognition of an existing, that both sides have acknowledged and henry kissinger said, ignore the language, it's a statement of a truth. mr. kyl: my point exactly. if it is no more than that, i cannot imagine that it would be a treaty killer for the russians unless there were something else afoot here. and that something else is, they deem it very important. why? this is the legal grounds for them to withdraw from the treaty. that's the point. this is precisely what lavrov, the foreign minister, said. "linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out under the accord and is legally binding." and they talked about their ability to withdraw under article 14. based upon the u.s. improvement of our missile defense qualitatively or quantitatively.

that's why it's so important to the russians. that's why -- i don't know if it is a treaty killer because i think there's so much else in this treaty that the russians want, that they're not likely to walk away from this if that language is eliminated. but i do think it's important to them, because they're trying -- this is the first time they've been able to get their foot in the door and establish that linkage, even though in the preamble, not in the body of the treaty, although they did put article 5 in there, which also confirms the linkage. and it is so important for them, it may be a problem for ratification on the that are side because then they would not have established this binding legal right for withdrawing from the treaty. as senator kerry as pointed out, either side can make up a reason to withdraw from the treaty. but it is dirvetion i thicks for either side not to have a legal pretext. that's what tear a creating here, the legal pretext is the united states developing a missile defense system that goes

beyond what the russians think it should, vis-a-vis their strategic offensive capability. that's the whole point here. that's the reason for the amendment of. mr. kerry: mr. president -- mr. kyl: i've taken the time here. i would yield the floor to senator sessions and senator kerry, if they'd like to -- mr. kerry: i'm going to yield, too. senator sessions has been very patient. let me say in clotsin closing to things. number one, the point that the senator just made about the legal pretext for withdrawing from the treaty, let's go back to the colloquy we had a few minutes ago. you don't need a legal pretext. you don't need anything except a judgment on your part that there is an extraordinary circumstance that says, you want to get out. the extraordinary circumstance is that you see that your offensive weapons have been dramatically reduced in their impact by our defense. so they don't need a legal pretext. that has nothing to do with what

the senator has just suggested. the final comment i'd make is perhaps the senator and i can as i invite this one more time, i think we've moved enormously with the language that we have in our resolution of ratification from senator demint. we worked on it together. i embraced it. i think it is an important statement. perhaps the senator and i can find some further way to includes dlaw in here see -- include that in here so that we're not taking the risk of what they might or might not dovment neither of us have the ability to predict what their reaction will be, although i think some people would be pretty clear about the fact that it would not be well-received and it could be a serious issue for a lot of different reasons. so, if we can avoid that, i think we have a good responsibility to do that in the next day or two. i look forward to working with my colleague and i thank him for the colloquy. thank you very much. i yield the floor. oh, tweendz get a little procedure here. mr. president, as if in legislative session and morning

business, i ask unanimous consent that senator durbin be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions during today session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: and, as if in legislative session, and in morning business, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.j. res. 105 received from the house and at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 105, a joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. mr. kerry: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: will the senator suspend? is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. i ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements appear at this point in the record as if read with no intervening action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: mr. president, i now would like to inquire -- i

think -- i think senator sessions is is going to be the last speaker. am i correct? mr. sessions: i think senator barrasso is here and he may want to speak also. i assume he does. mr. kerry: well, i knowes does -- i don't think we have anymore speakers on our sievmentd i think senator mccain informed me he did not want to speak further, so i think we're reaching perhaps the end of business on the -- on this, although i think senator durbin wanted to speak as if in morning business when we have completed everything, as he requested earlier. so i'd ask unanimous consent that senator durbin be recognized to wrap up. mr. sessions: mr. president, i see senator barrasso is here. would you want to follow me? so i would -- mr. kerry: i would ask unanimous consent is that when senator sessions concludes, senator barrasso be recognized for ten minutes, senator durbin be recognized as if in morning business after senator barrasso.

mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. senator sessions, how long do you expect to speak in. mr. sessions: i think about 10-12 minutes. mr. durbin: thank you very much. no objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. consider kir thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: it's been a very, very fine discussion between senator kerry and senator kyl, two of our most able members, and senator kerry is an able advocate for the treaty, but i do agree with senator kyl's view that there's really more than a misunderstanding concerning missile defense in this treaty. there's really a conflict of views about it. it's not an ambiguity. it's more of a misunderstanding or a conflict of views, and in a serious contract, agreement,

treaty that has a misunderstanding among the parties about a serious matter shouldn't go forward until it's clarified. that would be my view of that. if it goes back to the duma and they say, well, we really don't think that your missile defense system that you say you might want to build by 2020 will confliblght with our -- conflict with our treaty reading, go ahead, and that'll be one thing. if they say, no, we firmly disagree that you -- that we don't think that you should be able to build a missile defense shield in europe, then we know we've got a problem. so that would be how i would feel about it fundamentally at this point. i just don't feel that if the russians are serious about a treaty, they would be any how

trembling or afraid or upset if theyenthey sent the treaty backo them and said we have a disagreement. and this is particularly true when the -- when mr. putin and larry king just made the statement he did that if countermissiles will be deployed in the year 2012 or 2015 on our border, they will work against our nuclear potential and we're obligated to take action in response, and mr. medvedev in his december statement to the duma makes a similar threat, really, about it. so i think we have a serious problem. the missile defense issue, mr. president, is very important. i know the presiding officer is knowledgeable about these issues, from colorado. it's a key issue. been going on for years, really decades, in the congress of the

united states. there's always been a hard group on the left that have opposed missile defense. they called it "star wars" and mocked it and denigrated it, but the truth is that those -- those treaties -- those proposals worked and we now have deployed in alaska and california, we have deployed there missile defense systems capable of knocking down north korean missiles and probably iranian missiles, although iranians coming from the other side of the globe and there are some -- there is some need to have some redundancy there and that's why the missile defense site was selected in europe. president bush and his team spent some years, invest add lot of time working with the czechs and the poles. the czechs agreed to sign -- signinged and agreement that they would accept a radar site

and the poles signed an disagreement that they would accept a -- signed an agreement that they would accept a missile site and the russians have objected. they have objected to our missile defense system for years, for reasons that strike me as under the circumstancesserly -- as utterly inexplicable. the russians would see ten missiles in poland as somehow being a destabilizing event that would neutralize their thousands of nuclear warheads that they could launch against the united states. it's just not thinkable. they've got hundreds of missiles they can launch and other ways to deliver nuclear weapons. so this does not risk. but they did not -- they've always opposed it and they have they've particularred opposed the european site. one reason, i think it's pretty clear, is that they've been in a

mode -- mr. president, may i have a little i'm having a little difficulty hearing myself think here. i know it is late at the desk. i apologize for keeping the staff awake. so this has been a contentious issue and and ranking member and chairman of the armed services strategic subcommittee -- and i believe the ranking member is a member of that subcommittee -- we've wrestled with it. so there's been a fight over it. i thought in 2006 when our democratic colleagues took a majority in the senate and fully funded the -- moved forward with our missile defense system we'd reached a bipartisan accord on that and made a speech in london to that effect and said we had aide reached that accord. so -- in the course of this negotiation over this treaty and in the course of their

relationship with russia, the obama administration has made very, very serious errors. i am convinced of it. i know president obama is only in the senate a few years. he was a state senator, community activist, he hadn't been used to dealing with the russians, and maybe he didn't understand the significance of it. but a series of events has transpired since his election that have resulted in the great embarrassment to our allies, the czechs and the poles, that have greatly and significantly delayed the deployment of an effective missile defense system in europe, and it's been replaced by some pie-in-the-sky prop that by 2020 we're going to develop a completely new missile system to deploy five years later when the intelligence estimate of the national intelligence agency is that the

iranians will have an ability to hit the united states with an icbm by 2015. actually, we could have had our missile site in europe sooner than 2016. we could have had it there by 2013, experts told you but because of delays and other things, we were on track to do it by 2016, which would have been a pretty good safety valve to neutralize this growing threat from iran, who's determined to have nuclear weapons. iran that is a rogue state, that rejects united nations resolutions ands, inspectors, and any decent importuning by the world community to constrict their dangerous activities. that's what it is. now, my friend and colleague, as was sited before, senator levin came down after i spoke earlier

and made some reference to my remarks, and he quoted general chilton, who i know the presiding officer remembers testifying before our committee and subcommittee. he is a strategic commander. been there a whievment and -- been there a while. and senator levin said that this is what general chilton said. quote -- "i can say with confidence that this treaty does not contain any current or future missile defense plans." well, that descrints strike me write -- that didn't strike me quite right. so i had my staff pull the testimony of the witness, and he said -- this is the quote that he gave at the committee. and i think senator levin missed it or his staff didn't produce it in the correct fashion. he said this. quote -- "this treaty does not constrain any current defense

plans." not "future," -- "future defense plans" because it does provide a basis for legal objections in the future and there is an ambiguity about the russian understanding of whether or not we'ring about to go forward with missile defense systems in the future. there just s it's not a itty-bitty matter. there is a confusion and real lay misunderstanding. the russians are saying one thing and we're saying another. so i think that's very, very significant. why did i make a difference between "future" and "current?" well, at the time, general chilton gave this testimony on june 16, 2010, mr. president, president obama had already canceled the g.b.i. two-stage site in europe. so that's off the table.

the g.b.i. site, the one we planned to do, is not there. the only thing that's left is a promise that we're going to develop from scratch an sm-3 block 2-b. we've got a smb-3. it's an entirely different missile. it's bigger around, it's taller, it's really an entirely new development process to develop this sm-3 block 2. the guidance system on the sm-3's that we use on ships has proven to be very capable, as has our g.b.i. guidance systems. and so that -- that's where we went. now, how did it come about that the president of the united states unilaterally reneged on the united states policy to

deploy in poland and the czech republic? well, essentially this happened. the day after his election, the russians announced they were moving missiles near polish border. cables other documents and testimony indicates that very early in the presidency of president obama, the russians were pushing back hard again about missile defense. the bush administration just refused to be taken in. they knew what they were doing in europe didn't threaten the russians and they weren't going to give in to their bluster and did not give in to their bluster. and when they stood up in 2002 on the sort treaty, it was -- the russians eventually signed it without any of this language that constrained our missile

defense. so by march of 2009, we were undergoing discussions on the -- on the new start treaty, by march. even before that, the russians had made clear they were firm this time on missile defense. and as the negotiations for the treaty went on, by september -- in september, president obama dropped the bombshell, told the russians that he was going to stop building the third site in poland, as had been planned, and then told the pols later after it made news and it was quite an embarrassing scene because our allies, sovereign, independent nations on the border of the russian power, committed to us, stood firm with us to work with

us to develop a national missile defense system, had been greatly embarrassed. so we canceled that. that was the plan that we were going forward with. it was on plan to be deployed by 2015 or 2016 and it took the missile system that we were using in alaska and converted it from a three-stage to a two-stage system. that took a little work, but the guidance system and the concept of it was really simpler than the one we'd already deployed in alaska. and the generals told us it's not any -- in any way a complex problem to convert their system to a two-stage. so we were on track to deploy a proven system that would work and protect the united states and virtually all of europe from an iranian missile attack. so i -- this is all a big

mistake. and the russians kept pushing. one expert said that the -- it's odd that the obama administration is being criticized for going soft on missile defense when they took great care to make sure that it was not a part of the treaty. now, you know, i'm kind of a former lawyer, tried cases and prosecute. what did that mean? senator kerry is too. what did that mean? that meant to me exactly what they did. they wanted to come into this senate and to say this treaty had very little to do with missile defense but at the same time they didn't really believe much in missile defense anyway. that hadn't been president obama's strongest belief about how to defend america. and they wanted to placate the

russians who were giving them a hard time. he politically was getting the nobel peace prize, he was wanting to have a signature treaty with the russians to show how much harmony there could be in the world and reset our relationship. and i can understand that. it's a noble goal. but when you go eyeball to eyeball with our russian friends -- but they're tough negotiators -- you've got to defend your interests or they'll take you to the cleaners. i don't believe the president legitimately defended our issue -- our issue -- our interest. i believe that the -- the whole weakness in the negotiating situation arose from the fact that they wanted a treaty too bad. they wanted this treaty really,

really bad, and the russians sensed it and they held out and they got a number of things that a good, tough negotiating authority wouldn't have given. so i think it's transparent that while there's not a lot of language in the treaty that directly constricts missile defense, i believe it's transparent that the cancellation of the two-stage site in europe -- in europe, in poland, was to gain the support of the russians for this treaty. and the russians are now in a position where, well, they stopped it. they had a big political win and it reinforced the view that

russia is a powerful, powerful nation, that they backed down the united states, and those nations, those former soviet states that are now independent, sovereign nations, those guys are -- better watch out, because when the chips are down, the united states is going to choose to be with the big boy, russia, and they're not going to defend you. so this was a psychological, political, strategic error of major proportions. and it's why it's part of the concern about that this administration is weak on defense. actually, it's one of the mos most -- one of the larger errors that i think they've made, maybe the largest, and i just feel really strong about it. so i'm just not happy and do not think it's correct to argue that

this treaty has nothing to do with national missile defense. it was all about -- it was in the center of the negotiations. it's quite obvious from the very beginning. and they worked hard to try to put as little as possible in the treaty because they didn't want to come to congress and say they sold out national missile defense to get this treaty, but they sold it out when they canceled the two-stage site, in my opinion. you know, maybe they thought -- i'm sure they thought that was the right thing for america. sure they didn't think it was so important, but it was important. they made a mistake. and now ratifying this treaty without getting a clear understanding about the missile defense question places our

security at more jeopardy rather than less. and i know the argument is that signing this treaty will make us more secure. but signing documents don't make you more secure. talk does not make you more secure. it's really actions that what count and motives what count, and the russians are just inplacable. they'll push and push till you say no, and then they'll make a decision whether they can accept your position or not. but they're never going to stop pushing until you say no with clarity and firmness, as doug feith testified he did in 2002 dealing with these very same issues. they said we had to agree to this kind of language, this kind of action to limit our missile defense system, you had to agree to it or we wouldn't sign the treaty. and mr. feith said the truth, which i've always believed -- he

just wrote this recently -- but i raised it with our negotiators when they seemed so anxious for the treaty. he said, you don't have to have a treaty with russia. we don't have a treaty with china. we don't have a treaty with india, pakistan, england or france, nuclear powers. this -- this is -- it would be nice, but if we don't have an agreement, not. and he told the russians, he said, look, president bush has decided we don't need this many nuclear weapons, we're going to reduce our nuclear weapons whether you reduce them or not. we think you're silly not to reduce them because you've got more than you need and you're wasting money on them. so we won't have a treaty, we're just going to reduce our weapons. and the russians, mr. feith sa said, said okay, well, we won't -- we'll take missile defense off the table and they wanted a treaty for other

reasons. they wanted to have the prestige of signing a major treaty with the premier military power in the world, the united states at the time, and they signed the treaty. but soon as they saw a new president, they came right back at it and the president blinked. so now we've got a difficult decision. i don't want to be negative about rejecting every treaty. i, frankly, don't think except -- i don't think that the numbers in the treaty are that dangerous to us. i think we can reduce it to the 1,550 nuclear weapons. that's probably an acceptable number. although the president has a goal, repeatedly stated, to eliminate all nuclear weapons. and so presumably this is the beginning of his long march, as he would see it, to eliminate all nuclear weapons, which is not only fantastical, it's

dangerous. the world's not going to eliminate nuclear weapons if we eliminate ours and set an example next week. that's beyond the lookingglass thought. not good idea. so i'm worried about this whole process and whether the administration gets the nuclear strategic issues. we've had nuclear weapons for a long time. everybody's been careful about it. we've been very careful about it. we've been very concerned about dangers, wars, and accidental launches and that sort of thing. but we've had -- we haven't used them. it's provided a certain degree of stability. the american nuclear umbrella, it is undisputed, provides comfort and security to a host

of free, progressive, independent nations all over the world. does not -- let's say, take asia, south korea, philippines, japan, singapore. these are nations that feel if they are unjusted attacked, the united states umbrella will be there to help them. so do european nations and other nations around the world with whom we are allied. if they think that we're bringing our numbers down too much, if they think that we have a goal to go to zero, if they think that we're not committed to utilizing the power we have, what will they do? i suggest that they will -- they will develop their own program. do you think japan or south

korea can't develop a nuclear weapon, if iran can? they can do it in short order. they've got -- they're worried right now, i suggest, as are other nations in the world. so we would have the -- if we do this improperly, if we do this reduction with russia improperly, we could actually cause proliferation to occur. and if we do as mr. hogland said in "the washington post" we should go to 500 nuclear weapons or lower, a lot of nations around the world could see their way to develop 200, 300, 400, 500 nuclear weapons and actually be in a position to be a pure competitor of the united states. so we could actually be encouraging other nations to think they could be on a par with us as nuclear powers. that's a dangerous philosophy. so i just say we need to be careful about all of that.

i don't have confidence that this administration understands those issues. i think this treaty constricts our missle defense and places it at risk and that's my -- one of my biggest concerns about this treaty. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, tomorrow we're going to have two important votes. i would go so far as to say they're historic. in the history of the united states of america, i don't know how many people have lived in this great nation. today there are more than

300 million. but if you add it up all those who lived in this great nation since we became a nation, the number would probably be in the billions. in that period of time only 2,000 men and women have had the honor of being united states senators. it's a humbling statistic for you, for me for all of us to think we join with so few of our own fellow citizens who have had this great opportunity and responsibility. in the desk drawers and the senate are the names of senators who served. some of them are amazing. daniel webster, ted kennedy, robert kennedy, mike mansfield. the list goes on. but there are also many names that have faded into obscurity. you pull open the desk drawer and you say, i don't recognize that name. i wonder who it was. one of the 2,000 who i'm going

to presume served their state an nation well, but left no indelible mark on history. they did their job and that says something for each and every one of them who served here. but precious few of those 2,000 had a moment in history to do something historic. and when you look back in the course of our history, there were opportunities to vote on whether to go to war, to vote on a constitutional amendment, to approve a supreme court justice. all of these things rank in the highest order of the business of the senate. but i would say at that top level it the opportunity to vote to extend civil rights and human rights in our nation. the opportunity to vote for justice. those are the stories that are told and retold. the civil rights battles of the 1960's.

the giants of the senate who when it looked hopeless on the issue of civil rights found a way. i worked for a man named paul douglas who was an extraordinary man and dedicated his rights to civil rights. it turned out that his stalwart support made a difference, but what made the real difference was the other senator from illinois, everett mckinley dirksen who decided that he was going to pitch in to help to pass civil rights legislation. he's remembered for that. he once said something which may be politically incorrect now, but describing his transition on the issue of civil rights, he said there's nothing more pregnant than an idea whose time has come. and in his mind the idea of civil rights had come. when you look back at the senate of those days and the votes that were cast, for the many senators casting those votes, they were painful, difficult votes. the idea of integrating america

beyond the armed force,on schools into -- beyond schools into every aspect of our life was controversial. it was controversial in the land of lincoln, my own home state of illinois. but the congressmen and senators of that day mustered the courage to do it and they're remembered for that courage. some of them are ex amounted for that -- exalted because they did it in vocal opposition to what they're about. we will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote on what looks like a two pedestrian procedural motions, but are much, much more. one of them is to eliminate a discriminatory policy in our armed services known as don't ask, don't tell. it will be a chance for members of the senate to go on record about whether or not they believe we should move beyond the practices of the past. whether they believe we should acknowledge the people of different sexual orientation can play a valuable role in

protecting america. it's a historic vote and i'm glad that we're going to have it. before that vote there's another, it's called the dream act. this is a piece of legislation which i have been working on for 10 years. whenever i'm discouraged about how long it's taking, i think of how long these other battles have taken, how many decades it took to bring us to the civil rights vote, how long it took for women to get a right to vote in america, how long it took for the disabled to finally be recognized in america, thanks to the amazing bipartisan leadership of bob dole and tom harkin in the united states senate. and whenever i feel discouraged that i've been at this for 10 years and still don't have it, i think of those battles. i say to myself, durbin, as a student of history, be patient, because some of these things take a long time but they're worth the effort and worth the wait. the good news is that the house of representatives did something historic last week. they passed the dream act.

i can't thank speaker nancy pe pelosi, the majority leader steny hoyer, howard burman and my colleague of chicago, what an extraordinary job they did in passing that legislation. it was not easy. the president of the united states, barack obama, who cosponsored the dream act as a senator was on the phone asking democrats and republicans to join this effort to move toward justice. they passed it by 216 to 198. it was bipartisan legislation. and it would give a select group of immigrant students who grew up in this country a chance to become legal. i will tell you that it wouldn't be easy if this becomes law for them to make that journey from where they are today to legal status. but last week the senate decided that we would accept this

challenge as well. after the house passed this bill, our majority leader, harry reid, who has been just an amazing a allied friend, came to the floor and said we were pursuing another version of this bill to -- we are pulling that version from the calendar. we're going to vote on the bill that passed the house of representatives. this will not be a symbolic debate. this debate is for real. if we can pass the bill passed by the house of representatives, we can send it to the president and make it the law of the land. it will be a real act. not a symbolic political act. i thank my colleague for saying that and doing that. the dream act is enjoyed partisan and majority support in the senate. the last time the senate received the dream act it had -- when the republicans last controlled the senate the dream act was reported by the judiciary committee by a vote of 16-3. this has been a strong

bipartisan issue. if some of the republicans are willing to join us in the senate, as eight republicans did in the house, we can make the dream act the law of the land. mr. president, this is simply a matter of justice. let me tell you the story behind the dream act. i've said it before, but i think it's an indication of why it's worth it to pick up the phone and call your senator or your congressman or to send that e-mail or that letter or to perhaps to draw them to the side at a public event and tell them your story or your concern. the story of the dream act goes back more than 10 years ago when a woman, a korean woman in chicago called our office. she was the -- a single mom with three kids and she ran a dry cleaning establishment. and she had a -- just an amazing young daughter. her daughter was an accomplished concert pianist. she was accepted at the school

of music. at a point where it said nationality or citizenship, the daughter turned to the mom and said, what should i put here? and the mom said, i don't know. you see, we brought you to the united states when you were 2 years old and we never filed any papers for you. so i don't know what to put there. the girl said, what are we going to do? the mom said, we're going to call durbin. they got on the fall, called my office, one of my staffers responded and looked into the law and the law was clear, this 18-year-old girl had lived in the united states for 16 years under the law of the united states was not a citizen, it had no legal status in this country whatsoever and the law said she had to go back to korea, a place she could never remember with a language she could barely speak to live her life. i thought that was fundamentally unjust. if you want to penalize the mother for failing to file papers, that's one thing. but to penalize a girl who at

the age of 2 had no voice in this decision for the rest of her life strikes me as unfair and unjust. and so i wrote up the dream act and i went to the senate judiciary committee and found an ally in senator hatch of utah. it's interesting, i'm sure the presiding officer will appreciate this. we had a little tussle of who would put the first time on it. the first version was hatch. that's ok. i wasn't as interested in having my name first as getting it passed. over the years there have been versions of this bill introduced and considered over the last 10 years, but sadly it has not been enacted into law. the dream act is right thing to do. it will make america a stronger country. it would strengthen our national security by saying to thousands of young people like that young korean girl, thousands of highly qualified young people that they could have a chance to enlist in our armed forces, and work their

way to legal status. the defense department stratigic plan says the dream act would help and here i quote -- "shape and maintain a mission-ready all-volunteer force. that's why the dream act has the support of national security leaders like defense secretary robert gates and general collin powell. here's what secretary gates and i quote him, there's a rich precedent supporting the -- military the dream act represents an opportunity to expand this pool to the advantage of military recruiting readiness. the dream act also would stimulate our economy. it gives these talented young immigrants the chance to become tomorrow's engineers and doctors and lawyers and teachers and entrepreneurs. the nonpartisan congressional budget office said, make no mistake, in gauging these young people and chap epging them to -- challenging them to serve in the military or finish at least two years of college is going to make them productive citizens and add -- add to the bounty of the united states. as they take on big jobs and

earn their paychecks and build their homes and families. they've concluded the dream act would produce $2.2 billion in net revenues over 10 years. in a recent ucla study found that the dream act would are contribute $1.3 trillion during their working lives. mayor bloomberg is a person i admire in new york city, he supports the dream act and stated succinctly, these are just the kind of immigrants we need to help solve our problems. some of them will go on to create new small businesses and hire people. it's senseless for us to chase out the homegrown talent that has the potential to contribute so significantly to our country. now, are senator sessions of alabama has left the floor and he didn't speak this evening on the dream act. he's been to the floor many times and he opposes it. jeff sessions and i are friends, we're on the judiciary committee. we do agree from time to time and had some pretty important

legislation cosponsored between the two of us. on this we disagree and i have carefully followed his complaints or items that he's brought up on the floor that he thinks are weak in this bill. last week he said on the floor, that the dream act is -- quote -- "a nearly unrestricted amnesty, a guaranteed path to citizenship." now i appreciate senator sessions' passion, he's been a strong opponent to the dream act since it was first introduced. with all due respect, that's not what the bill says. only a select group of students would really be able to earn legal status under this legislation. in fact, according to a recent study by the migration policy institute, only 30% of those potentially eligible for the dream act would ultimately become legal. think of this, mr. president, 40% to 50% of hispanic students today drop out of high school. fewer than 5% of undocumented students go on to college.

you can't make it under the dream act unless you graduate from high school. already 50% of those who are hispanic are unlikely to qualify. and then only one out of 20 enroll in high school -- pardon me, in college. that number may increase, but look at the number starts with, just a small fraction of the hispanic population. so to argue that this is going to introduce opportunities for millions or others just doesn't work with the numbs. did -- with the numbers. the dream act would give others what we call traditional nonimmigrant status. they could only qualify for conditional immigrant statistic fuss they prove -- prove -- as in a court of law -- prove by a prepreponderance of the evidence that -- the following cloosh they came to the united states under the age of 15. they are under the age of 30 on the date the bill was signed into law. they have a lived in the united states continuously for at least

five years before the bill becomes law. they've had good moral character as determined by the department of homeland security since the date they first came to the u.s. they graduated from high school or obtain add g.e.d. and registered phots the selective service. so the day the dream act is signed into law to be eligible you must have been in the united states for five years and assume for a moment the president would sign it in a week, not likely but possible -- the answer to my prayers, but possible -- that would mean that anyone who came to the united states after 2005 would be ineligible for the dream act. owe it is a select -- so it is a select group it starts w then we say to that select group, you have to meet the following requirements. you have to apply within one year when the bill becomes law or when they obtain a high school degree or g.e.d. they have to pay a $525 fee. they must submit biometric information, undergo security and law enforcement background checks and a medical

examination. these are all requirements to even be eligible for dream act status. they would be specifically excluded from becoming a conditional nonimmigrant under this bill, if they have a criminal background, they present a national security or terrorist threat, they have ever committed a felony or more than two misdemeanors, they're like you to become a public charge, they engaged in voter fraud, they committed marriage fraud, they abused a student visa or pose a public health risk. that long list of things i just read here is an obstacle course which many of these young people will never be able to clear. but we set it up this way intentionally. during the course of preparing for this, one of the senators received a notice that said that the dream act -- and i quote from it -- allows the secretary of homeland security to waive all ground of inadmissibility for illegal aliens including

terrorists and certain gang members." i called -- we had my staff call the snowsh's office that put this out. that's not in the bill. that's not what it says. they couldn't point to any source. i say to the senator from new jersey, who is here, we then called the department of homeland security and said, all right, give us an answer. under the dream act, could you waive all these things? would terrorists and criminals have a right? of course not. the department of homeland security said, no. that isn't what the law says at all. we're battling not only -- we're battling not only passing a law. i'd like to -- i see my colleague from new jersey here. i know it is late and i want to give him a chance to say a few word, of course. but if he'll stick with me, there's one thing i wanted to go through. because it's interesting when i call my senate clerks even though who are nominally against the bill, it's interesting how many of them say the following to me, mr. president.

man, durbin, why are you doing this to us? i'm rolling around in my bed at night wide awake worrying about this vote. i'm thinking about it all the time. i was just walking over to the capitol and a couple of these young people, these young kids came up to see me and i sat down and talked to them. they were very impress saifnedz i say to these young people who would be eligible for the dream act or hope they would be, you are the very best messengers for what we're trying to do. when people meet you and know who you are and what your dreams are, it's hard to believe that you are a threat to the united states. you look like the hope of the united states. and what you could bring to us. let me tell you the story of a few of them and these storks i think, tell you why i feel so strongly, as senator menendez does, about this issue and why this vote tomorrow is so important. meet gabby pacheco. gabby was brought to the united

states from ecuador at the age of seven, so she certainly has had little or no voice in her parents' decision to come here. she's pictured in her junior rotc class, which i think is the next chart -- yes. all these for gabby. her drill team class. she is in the back row on the far right. she was the highest-ranking rotc student in her high school in miami, and she received the highest score in the military aptitude test. she was unable to enlist because she is a dream act student. she has no legal statistic news the united states. let me tell you what she's done since she couldn't enries in the air force. she is earned two associate degrees in education, currently working on her b.a. in special education. she served as president of her student government, the president of florida's junior community college student government association, her dream in life is to teach autistic children.

mr. president, do we need more teachers of you a cities particular children in america? we certainly do. but, she can't do that, because she's undocumented. gabby was one of the four students -- this was amazing story, too -- one of the four students who walked all the way from miami, florida, to washington, d.c. this picture right outside the capitol. 1,500 miles. this wasn't just a little day hike. they came here because they believed in the dream act and wanted to let the people in washington how much they believed in it. along the way these four students were joined by hundreds of supporters who came out of villages and towns and walked with them for miles to show their solid dart in this effort. -- solidarity in this effort. i am going to move these charts because we've a few more and i want to give them all a chance so people watching and following this debate can get to meet them. meet benita feliz.

benita was brought to the united states by her parents in 1993 at the age of eight. she graduated as valedictorian of her high school class at the age of 16. she received a full scholarship to st. mary's university in texasment. she graduated from the honors program with a double major in biology and socialology. she wrote her thesis on the dream afnlgt i want to read what you she said. this beautiful young woman said, "i can't wait to be able to give back to the community that has given me so much. i was recently asked to single national anthem for both the united states and mexico at a cinco de mayo community assembly. without missing a beat, i quickly belted out the star spangled banner. i then realized that i had no idea how to sing the mexican national anthem. i am american. my dream is american. it is time to make our dreams a reality. it is time to pass the dream act."

benita, how can we say "no"? now meet this young man. his name is minchul sook, brought to the united states by his parents in 1991 bh he was nine years old. he graduated fro graduated grada degree in microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics. that was his major. with support from the korean-american community he was able to graduate from dental school. he has passed the national boards and will noting exam to become a dentist but can't obtain a license because he is not legal. despite coming here at the age of nine and going thriewl that education he is not legal. he sent me a letter recent i land here's what he wrote. "after spending the majority of my life here in all my friends and family here, i could not simply pack my things and go to a country i barely remember. i'm willing to accept whatever punishment is deemed fitting for that crime. let me just stay and pay for it.

i'm begging for a chance to prove to everyone that i'm not a waste of a human being, that i'm not a criminal set on leeching off taxpayers' money. please give me the chance to serve my community as a dentist." in rock island, illinois, in my wonderful home state, we've a great complk for poor people, and i went an visited it just a couple months ago, and i said, what do you need? they said, we need a dentist. these poor people don't have a dentist. don't we need dentists in america? you bet we do. we need him. and to think when he says, "i'm willing to accept whatever punishment is deemed fitting for my crime," what was his crime? being brought to the united states at the age of 9, graduategraduated from ucla wits in microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics, taking the boards when he knew he ultimately couldn't become a dentist? is that a crime? i don't think so.

most americans wouldn't see it as a crime. this is myra garcia. this wonderful young woman was brought to the united states at the age of two. she's 18 now. she's president of the cotto cottonwood association. she is a member of the national honors society, graduated from high school last spring with a 3.98g.p.a., i'm sure the president had a better g.p.a., but yivment myra just started her freshman year at a prestigious university in california. in an essay, here's what she wroavment "from the time i was capable of understanding its circumstance my dream was to be the first college graduate in my immediate and extended family. college means more to me than just a four-year degree. it means the breaking of a family cycle. it means progression and fulfillment of an ofntle" "according to my mom, i cried

every day in preschool because of the language barrier. by kindergarten, though, i was fluent in english. english became my way of understanding the world and myself." myra garcia grew up in america. america is her home. english is her language. she dreams in english about a future in this country. that she won't have without the dream act. want you to meet eric maldares. eric's mom brought him to the united states in mexico when he was four years old. he was valedictorian and student council president of his cy high school in san tan to enyow, texas. he just began his sophomore year at harvard. he came by my office, majoring in molecular and cellular biology. he wants to become a cancer researcher. can't do it without the dream afnlgt do we need more cancer

reachers in america? you bet we do. is there a family in america that hasn't been touched i by cancer? thea's why would we send him a way? that's what the dream act is all b here is another great story. they're all good, but they just keep getting better. this is cesar vargas. this young man is an amazing story. cesar vargas was brought to the united states by his parents when he was five years old. when he was in college cesar tried to enlist in the military after 9/11. he went into the recruiter, angry, people attack the united states and said, sign me up. i want to go into the marines. they said, what is your status? well, i'm undocumented. but i've been here since i was a little civmentd i'm willing to leave college to join the marine corps. they turned hmmm away. today he is a student at the city university of new york school of law where he has a 3.8 g.p.a. he did an internship with the brooklyn district attorney's

office. he is fluent in spanish, italian, french, and english, and he is mastering can ton ease and russian. he is a talented man. he has received lucrative offers to go to work for corporate law firms outside of the united states where his citizenship statistic will not be an issue but his dream to is stay in the united states and still enlist in the military as a member of the judge advocate general corps. without the dream act cesar vargas has no comans to enlist in the united states military and serve our nailings. this is david cho. david's parents brought him here from south korea ten years ago when he was nine years old. since thence a been a model american, 3.9 g.p.a. in high school. nigh now a senior at ucla where he is majoring with international finance with a g.p.a. of 3.6. he is the leader of the ucla marching band. might see him on television at

half time. david wants to serve in the air force. if the dream act doesn't pass, he won't get that chafnlts here's another great story. oscar vasquez. he was brought to phoenix by his parents when he was a child. spent his high school years in junior rotc. dreamed of enlisting in the military. nears his uniform. tend of his junior year, the recruiting officer told him he was ineligible for service because he was undocumented. oscar found another outlet for his tavment he entered a robot competition. oscar and three other dream act students worked for months in a storage room in their high school to try to win this robot contest. they were competing against students from m.i.t. and other top universities. oscar's team took first place. here is oscar today. last year he graduated from arizona state university with a degree in mechanical engineering.

oscar was one of only three a.s.u. students honored by president obama's commencement address. do we need a mechanical engineer who's won a national robot cometion to be part of the future of america? you bet we do. oscar needs his chance. the last person i refer to hear is tam tran. this is a lovely but sad story. tam was born in germany, was brought to be united states by her parents when she was only six years old. her parents are refugees who fled vietnam as boat people at the end of the vietnam war. they moved to germany. they came to the united states to join relatives. an immigration court ruled that tam and her family could not be deported to vietnam because they would be persecuted by the communist government. the german government refused to accept them. tam literally had no place to go, no country. so she grew up here. she graduated with honors from ucla with a degree in american literature and culture. she was studying for a ph.d. in american civilization, a

ph.d., at brown university when earlier this year she was tragically killed in an automobile accident. three years ago, tam was one of the first dreamers to speak out and testify before a house judiciary committee. this is what she said. "i was born in germany. my parents are vietnamese but i've been an american raised and educated for 18 years. without the dream act, i have no prospect of overcoming my state of immigration limbo. i'll forever be a perpetual foreigner in a country where i've always considered myself an american. in 2007, the last time the senate voted on the dream act, tam was sitting right up there in that gallery. that day, the dream act received 52 votes, a majority of the senate, but under our rules, we needed 60. after the vote, i met with her and other students. tears were in her eyes because her chances just basically hadn't been fulfilled. she was hopeful. she talked about the need to pass the dream act so she'd have a chance to contribute more

fully to this country, the home that she loved so much. she won't be here for this vote tomorrow because we lost her in that car accident. but i remember her and i remember others who are here tonight who understand the importance of this bill. it is not just another exercise in the senate of legislative authority. it really is an opportunity to give young people like those i've just introduced to you a chance. mr. president, it's going to be hard tomorrow. i've been on the phone. i can't tell you how many of my colleagues have said, i know it's the right thing to do but it's so hard politically. we know we're going to be accused of supporting amnesty. we know that our opponents will use it against us. and i understand that. i haven't always taken a courageous path in my own votes so i'm not going to hold myself out as any paragon of senate virtue. but i just ask each and every one of my colleagues to think about this for a moment. how many chances will you get in

your public life to do something like this? to right a wrong? to address an injustice? to give people a chance to be part of this great nation? i'm a lucky person. my mom was an immigrant to this country. she was brought over here when she was two years old. in her time, she might have been a dream act student. she got to be a citizen of the united states. she was naturalized at the age of 23 after she was married and had two kids. and before she died, i asked her once if i could see her naturalization certificate and she went in the other room and a minute later came out with it in a big brown envelope. and i pulled it out and there was a picture of my mom, 60 years before, and a little piece of paper fluttered to the floor and i picked it up and said, "what's this, mom?" and she said look at, it and it was a receipt that said $2.506789 she sai.50. she said that's the receipt for my filing fee that i had to file to become a citizen. and i thought if the government ever came and challenged me, i

had proof that i paid my filing fee. that was my mom. [laughter] that immigrant woman came to this country and made a life and made a family and brought a son to the senate. these stories are the same. the opportunities are there with these young lives to make this a better nation. the opportunity's there if members of the senate can summon the courage tomorrow to vote for the dream exact to make these dreams come true. i'd like to at this point yield to my colleague and friend, senator bob menendez. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, first of all, i want to give a heartfelt sent of thanks to the distinguished senator from illinois who has been spending nearly a decade trying to make the dreams of tens of thousands of students a reality.

this is really a american dream. it's an american as anyone else. and if there's a person who has fought incredibly hard to make that dream a reality, it's dick durbin. so i'm thrilled that before i came to the senate, while i was arguing for this very same passage in the house of representatives, there was a dick durbin here in the united states senate. raising the voice of all of those who have no voice, trying to call upon the conscience of the senate to do what is morally right. morally right. so i want to salute him. regardless of the vote tomorrow, i hope it's a vote that passes and makes a drem dream a realit he really deserves an enormous amount of credit. mr. president, i want to rise in what will probably be the last opportunity before the vote tomorrow -- i don't know who's watching, i don't know how many of our colleagues are tuned i

in -- i hope they are -- i'm not even speaker t speaking to a brr audience. in my mind, this is about 100 members of the united states senate who have an opportunity to cast a vote that ultimately can transform the lives of tens of thousands of young people who call america their home. for years, as young people, so many of them that senator durbin showed the picture, those are only a fraction of the stories we could tell. they have stood in classrooms in america, pledged allegiance to the flag of the united states proudly, the only "national anthem" they know is the "star-spangled banner" which they sing proud. the only way of life they have known is an american way of life. and they have understood what the rules are, and they have

lived by those rules. in an exemplary fashion. i'd be proud to call any one of those young people my son or daughter. this is an opportunity for the senate to do what is right with a vote that take place tomorrow. the house of representatives has done what is right. it has passed this legislation. it's time for us to do the same. the time has really come to harness and develop the talent that all of these young people have to offer our country and they possess some enormous skills and intellect. we've seen it. it's intellect that could be put for america at a time in which we are more globally challenged than ever before, where the boundaries of mankind have

largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital, for the delivery of a service or the production of a product, we are globally challenged. so we need to be at the apex of the curve of intel lerkt intellt highly educated group of americans the nation has he have known. these young people, valedictorians, salutorianss, engineers, scientists, doctors, all have the opportunity to help america achieve even greater greatness. that is what their dream is all about. that's what an american dream is all about. the time has come to allow thousands of young men and women who often are kept from enrolling in colleges even though they are accepted, this is not about giving anyone anything they cannot achieve. they have to obviously on their own merit be able to gain acceptance to a college or university. or on their own merit and desire, be able to serve in the armed forces of the united states.

and that passion is there. you know, mr. president, the first soldier of an american uniform to die in the war in iraq was lance corporal jose gutierrez, a guatemalan who at the time of his death, wearing the union follower of the united states -- theuniform of the uni, was not even a united states citizen at the time. he was a permanent resident. he was willing to serve his country and die for it. it's an opportunity for these young people who in many ways have lived in the darkness and who, through no choice of their own -- you know, if we said these young people came to this country of their own volition, of their own choice, of their own determination, maybe -- maybe -- we might look at it

differently. they were brought here by parents at ages in which they had no knowledge nor no choice of what their path would be. they were brought here by parents fleeing dictatorships, fleeing oppression, sometimes fleeing dire economic circumstances. but above all, they -- they made no choice that that. they did not know that they were violating any rules, regulations, or laws. they came because their parents brought them. how many times have i heard in this chamber that, you know, if we consider it a wrong, that the wrong of a parent should not be subscribed to a child? yet that's what all those who oppose the dream act are saying, the child must pay for the choices their parents made. wow, is that an american value? i think not. i think not.

we have an opportunity to have them make full contributions to the american economy through their ingenuity, through their skills, through their hard work. that's what the dream act has always been about. i'll tell you one story of the many that are here. it's a young man, 20-year-old piosh ahmed, who emigrated with his family from bangladesh to new jersey as a child. after his parents lost their bid for asylum through no fault of his own, he became an undocumented immigrant. he's been lobbying for passage of the dream act ever since. he said to me -- quote -- "new jersey" -- and this is so true, it's beyond new jersey -- all of these students -- "new jersey has already invested so much money in me and other undocumented students that are living here. we went to elementary, middle school, public high school. it doesn't really make any sense for them not to give us an opportunity to finish and

actually pay back to america and contribute more through our talent, through our taxes, through so many different ways." the dream act is for people like piosh ahmed. it's about helping him in creating the best educated american work force possible, creating the future doctors, the future teachers, the future business people, the future nurses, the inventors, the entrepreneurs. they're an economic resource we cannot afford to waste. now, i bristle when i listen to some of my colleagues who have come to the floor and right away whenever we are talking about anything that relates to immigration, slap the name "amnesty" on it and it becomes something that cannot be touch touched. it's not amnesty. amnesty is when you do something wrong and you get something for nothing.

these young people resident going to get something for nothing. they're going to have to serve the nation. they're going to have to serve the nation through their intellect, their ingenuity, their ability to produce for america, or they're going to serve the nation in the armed forces of the united states, willing to historic their lives -- their lives -- like lance corporal gutierrez was in iraq when he lost his life -- for the country they call home, for the country they believe in. they're going to have to quali qualify. they're going to have to pay tuition. they're going to have to pay taxes. they're going to have to pay fees. as a matter of fact, i'm sure the distinguished senator from illinois knows that the house version we're paying for -- i mean, we're voting on is ultimately saying you've got to pay a fee. and as a matter of fact, not only is it not a cost to the government, it is a surplus to the government, according to the congressional budget office.

it's going to produce revenue already just by the mere act of giving them the possibility of realizing their dream. in essence, they're going to have to pay for their dream. but they're willing to do that, and it's going to create a revenue stream to the nation. that's not amnesty. it's not amnesty to wear the uniform of the united states, risk your life. it's not amnesty to give your intellect. and even then those who said, well, you're going to give them a pathway. well, that pathway has been elongated. it's incredibly long. i know that some of my colleagues like to come here and say, well, you're going to permit something that they call chain migration. you know, i used this during the last time we had immigration debates. chain migration. you know, when you want to dehumanize something, you don't talk about people, you don't talk about children, you create a sense of something that, well,

people can say, oh, it's chain migration. we don't feel too compassionate about if we can make it in a dehumanized sense. because if this person gets status then they'll be able to claim their relative and that relative will able to claim that relative and so there's this fear. these students are not going to be able to do that. certainly not under the bill that we're considering a vote for tomorrow. so there's none of that. let's dispel that too. at the end of the day the dream act is really a true test of what america's all about. an opportunity to earn your way -- to earn your way toward status, to move from being undocumented through no fault of your own to have a temporary status that i think will last a decade before you can do anything else. you've got to have a lot of

proof of your meddle during that period of time that you're worthy of becoming a permanent resident of the united states after a decade. you have to be of good more ral charkt -- moral character. you have to prove yourself even more by successfully attending college or completing honorable military service. and even in order to appease those who have raised every bar so that this won't be considered, calling the legislation as amnesty, which it's not because amnesty's something for nothing, as i said before, there are even further restrictions that have lowered the age cap as to who can qualify, keep intact the ban on in-state tuition. i don't really like that. i think if you can ultimately be accepted to a college or university that you are living in that state, but, all right, for those who said that was a

problem, well, now there's a ban on in-state tuition. going to have to pay out-of-state tuition. prohibits these students from obtaining pell or other grants and creates a conditional nonimmigrant status that doesn't grant legal permanent residency for at least a decade. at the end of the day, the dream act is an ultimate test of american values as a nation of immigrants. you know, i often think about people who served in this chamber. only people who can actually make a claim of being, you know, not the descendants of immigrants is native americans, but everybody other than that is an immigrant. there's been expansive support of the dream act and it has been bipartisan support. collin powell, former chairman

of the joint chiefs of staff of the united states, former secretary of state, he supports the dream act. defense secretary robert gate, who is the defense secretary now in this administration, but a republican held over by president obama and asked to serve because of his great leadership, he has recommended in the 2010 and 2012 strategy for the defense departments office of the undersecretary of defense and personnel readiness to help the military shape and maintain a mission-ready all-volunteer force wants to see the dream act. david chu the under secretary personnel of readiness during the bush administration said and i quote -- "many of these young people who wish to join the military have the attributes needed, education, aptitude,

fitness, moral qualification. in fact, many are fluent in bothening lish and their native -- english and their native languages and we have seen the challenges globally from faroff countries where our enemies are not armies of a country, but of individuals, the language that's could be bought to bear to help us in our national security and our defense intelligence, in our abilities to understand those entities, countries, all from an american perspective though. all of these students have that opportunity. -- opportunity to do that for america. moreover university presidents, respected education associations, leading fortunate 500 businesses like microsoft support this legislation have called upon the senate to pass the dream act. in fact, in my home state of emergency, the president -- new jersey, the president of 11 of new jersey's community college

in consultation with the board of trustees sent a letter saying, help pass the dream act. a letter signed by the presidents of community colleges in burlington, camden, cumberland, mercer middlesex, and unix counties. one of the board of trustees said in an article although the dream act is federal legislation, many of us felt it was important to the state's community colleges to take a stand as a system is often the first opt for many of these -- stop for many of these students whose eligibility limits their higher education choices. our role is to educate our students. our role is not to engage in immigration policy. they want to see the dream act become a reality. i received a letter from rutger's university president, he said, and i quote, young

people who have grown-up in new jersey, earned good grades in our high schools, taken an active part in their civic life, however because of their undocumented status cannot take the next steps toward a rewarding future. a future that would help our state and those states across the country. in fact, to my republican colleagues, i would remind them that former arkansas governor and presidential candidate mike huckabee explained the economic sense of allowing undocumented children to earn their citizenship. he says when a kid comes to this country and he's 4 years old and he had no choice in it, his parents made those choice -- quote --"he still because he is in my state it's the state's responsibility, in fact, it's the state's legal mandate to make sure that child's in school." let's say that child goes to school. he's in school from kindergarten to the 12th grade, he

graduates valedictorian because he's a smart kid. the question is, he is better off going to college and becoming a neurosurgeon or a banker or whatever he might become and become a taxpayer and in the process having to apply for and achieve citizenship or should we have him pick tomatoes? i think it's better if he goes to college and becomes a citizen. that is mike huckabee. so, mr. president, i will say this, i know that my friends and many of my colleagues, you know, not every state is like new jersey where we have a rich history of immigrant populations that have contributed enormous enormously. some of the people who are we have -- who we have serving our country today came from those backgrounds. they came from those backgrounds. as a matter of fact, some of them, their lineage comes to people who came into this

country undocumented. and, yet, they've risen to prominence and helped to contribute to america. some of them are our outstanding a little bit leaders. -- military leaders. so this is not about amnesty. you have to earn it. this is not about chain migration. won't be able to claim anyone at all. in my mind, this is all about family values. i hear a lot about that on the floor. this is about an opportunity to take these children who are part of the american family and give them their opportunity to help america succeed. help america succeed. now, i want to say we wouldn't be in the challenge we are in if our republican colleagues weren't insisting on a super majority via the filibuster.

there are enough votes in the united states senate, a majority of the united states senate, is willing to vote to make this dream come true. but since our republican colleagues have used the rules of the senate to require not a simple majority of 51 of the 100 senators, but to require a super majority of 60, we are in this predicament, otherwise this bill would pass tomorrow, be sent to the president, and i know the president would sign it. and the dreams and the aspirations, but most importantly, the intellect, the service to country, service to the armed forces would begin to become a reality all to the nation's benefit, all to the nation's benefit. so we are here in this set of circumstances because our republican colleagues have insisted on a super majority

instead of a simple majority that would clearly pass. now, i know that for some who don't have immigrant communities like illinois or new jersey, maybe their populous doesn't quite understand the value. maybe they don't have a mixture of understanding of the great vitality, the heart-felt sense of these young people being as american as anyone else. i -- i understand that. but this is about -- sometimes -- we come here by virtue of being elected from a state and we certainly advocate for the interest of our states. but we are collectively called upon to serve the interests of the nation. and this is an opportunity to serve the interests of the nation. now, the final point i'll make is those are all policy

arguments. and i hope that there will be some profiles encouraged tomorrow, individuals who may see this as a political risk, every vote can be ultimately determined as a political risk. as a matter of fact for those who believe this is a political risk and voted for the defense authorization bill to move forward, the majority leader made it very clear when we had that vote in which nearly every democrat of the senate voted in favor, he made it very clear there were going to be two amendments that were going to be offered in that bill, don't ask, don't tell and the dream act. the 30-second commercial's there already. it's there. anyone who thinks that somehow voting against the dream act tomorrow's going to save them from that 30-second commercial, they're wrong. it's there. and i have to be honest with you

as the only hispanic the united states senate at this point, although this is not uniquely a hispanic issue, as you can see, those children come from all over the world. the young man who i mentioned from new jersey is from bang bangladesh, but the hispanic community is looking at this vote. 40 million. and they're the ones who are already u.s. citizens. you may say, well, what do they care? they undersand what this vote is all about. it's not just about these children, which should be enough. they understand that this vote is about them, how they are viewed in this country, how they are perceived in this country. whether everything that they have done, you know -- you know, i bristle when i listened, which is why i wrote my book "growing american roots" because i was tired of seeing pundits on the

shows thinking that hispanics just came here yesterday, that we all just crossed the borders and that we're all takers instead of givers to this society. the oldest city in america, st. augustine, florida, founded by a a man named menendez, i'm looking at a title search to see if i have any relationship to a property in st. augustine, florida, but it's the oldest city in america, the governor of louisiana before louisiana was a state, who led and all-mexican division to help stop the british advance on george washington during the revolutionary war, admiral farabut, if you come with me, mr. president, to fargut stair, i bet most wouldn't know that it

is named after a spaniard who during the revolutionary war led the naval forces on behalf of the union and coined the famous american phrase, damn the torpe, full speed ahead. a spaniard. the names on the wall of the vietnam memorial, loaded with hispanics who gave their lives for this country. the first soldier to fall in iraq, lance corporal gutierrez, a gawwasn't a u.s. citizen. one of the most highly decorated in the history of the united states, can't field a major league baseball team without a good part of the roster being latino, can't turn on the movies and not see someone like jennifer lopez in one of its

leading roles. can't turn on music and the list goes on and on. this community understands what this vote is all about. i don't know how any party can aspire to be the majority party with the largest minority in the country growing exponentially as we will see by the next consensus and continuously take votes and cast aspersions upon a community and think that it can achieve political success. this dream act is about as much as motherhood and apple pie as you can get in the immigration debate. it's about children who didn't have a choice but have made most of the life that they were presented. they have done incredible things in the country they call "home," the one that they sing the "star spangled banner" with and the

one that they're giving it all to. this community is going to be watching tomorrow's vote. and i certainly hope -- i certainly hope -- that when they watch that vote, they're going to see one of the finest moments of the united states senate doing what is right, not just by these children, doing what is right by this country. , fulfilling your creed. that's what tomorrow's vote is all about. that's what i hope each and every senator will think about as they cast it, because that's the opportunity we have. this is not just about the dreams of these young people, this is about the dreams that have gone from generation to generation and have made america the greatest experiment in enterprise in the world. that's what tomorrow's vote saul about, mr. president. i hope we will cast a vote that will make that dream come true.

with that, i'm happy to yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i want to thank my colleague and friend, senator menendez, for that great, great speech. i know it was heartfelt, and i thank him for waiting late this evening to come and for those who've joined us because they understand that though the hour is late, our time is short before we cast this historic vote. and as i mentioned earlier, u ai called my colleagues today, some of whom were on the fence -- not sure -- they said, i toss and turn all night thinking about this -- i hope they toss and turn all night tonight and wake up tomorrow with a smile and determination on their face to do something right for america, to make sure that they'll have a good night's sleep on saturday night because they've been able to fulfill the dreams of so many young people who are counting on them tomorrow to rise above their political fears and to really join ranks with so many in this chamber throughout its history who have shown uncommon

political courage in moving this nation forward in the name of freedom and justice. mr. menendez: will my colleague yield just on that point? mr. durbin: i would be happy to. mr. menendez: i'm sure my distinguished colleague from illinois knows from his long political history, when you toss and turn, you know what's right. you don't toss and turn if you have commitment and conviction of the choirs a going to make. you toss and turn when you know what the right choice is but for other reasons you may not be willing to make that choice. mr. durbin: i thank the senator, and i think that he's correct. mr. president, i don't know what the most effective way is in washington to lobby a bill, but i will tell you that there are no more effective spokesmen and spokeswomen for the dream act than the young men and women who have been walking the halls of the united states senate over the last several weeks and months and years.

they wear caps and gowns, as if they're headed for a graduation, which is what they want to do. and they have made the case in a way that i couldn't on the floor of the united states senate, because of their determination and the dignity that they have brought to this. stick with us, i say to each one of them. don't give up on us. tomorrow we're going to try our very best to rally the votes that we need because our cause is right and our time is now. mr. president, at this point, i think there is a closing script. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed en bloc to executive calendar 937 and 1097 that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. further that on sat day,

december 18, after the cloture votes with respect to the house messages regarding h.r. 5281 and h.r. 2965 and notwithstanding rule 22, if ally cacialtion the senate resume executive session and there be two minutes of debate equally divided between senators lay heeds and sessions, or their designees prior to a vote on confirming albert diaz and allan lal ander. upon the use or yielding back of tiernlg the senate proceed to vote on the order listed. the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate praise in the record as if read, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. further that any time consumed during the votes and debate on the judges count postcloture if applicable and the senate then resume legisla legislate legisle session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:00 a.m. on saturday, december 18. following the prayer and pledge,

the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the leaders be reserved for their use later. the senate resume executive session to resume the start treaty. following leader remarks in executive session, the senate proceed to legislative seangsdz be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, that at 10:30 a.m., the senate resume the house message with respect to h.r. 5281, and proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with respect to h.r. 5281, that if cloture is not invoked, there be two minutes for debate equally divided prior to the next vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: senators should sphect a series of up to four roll call votes at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. the first will be on cloture with respect to the dream act. if cloture is not invoked, the next vote would be cloture with respect to don't ask, don't tell. the final two votes will be on confirmation of two judicial nominations f there is no further business to come before

the senate, i ask at that it adjourning under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> today in the senate a nuclear arms treaty with russia. here are some of the debate on those bills with senators daniel inouye and john mccain. witho this is just over an hour. >> mr. president, last evening the senate made a regrettable decision to defer action on completing its work on the fy 2011 appropriations bills. i shouldn't have to remind that anyone that we are in need december, one week beforehree ms christmas, nearly three monthsl into the fiscal year. yet because their republican colleagues have decided that bil they cannot supportl a bill thaw they hope to christ, we know face placing the federal government on autopilot for two

months under a continuing resolution of the cr period first, the cr does virtually cos nothing to accommodate the priorities of the congress anded adapt the responsibility for providing resources of the executive branch.ations each year, the senate appropriations subcommittees connect hundreds of hearings ans reviews of budgets and government agencies. our committee members and staffe conduct thousands of meetings with officials of the executive, branch, our states, leaders ands workers from american corporations and the generaleavn

public. the committee relies heavily on the work of the government of ad the gao, the congressional budget office and outside experts to determine spendingtet needs. tens of thousands of questions a afford it each year to officialy in the executive branch asking them to justify funding requested for each respect to the agency mr. president, this is detailed painstaking detailed work. it requires great knowledge of each of her federal agencies,he desire to dig into the nitty-gritty details of agency budgets or questions of programs and functions that matter. this annual review is conducted, mr. president, in a bipartisannd fashion, but democratic and republican members working in

close cooperation to determine our taxpayers fund the best allocated. meetis, questions of deliberations together the two formulation ofr bills. and each bill is drafted by the in subcommittee chairman anded up ranking member concert, marked up by subcommittee and then reviewed, debated and amended by the full committee. mr. president, a years worth of the senate providing a bare-bones approach to governino what insists upon allocating funding by agencies andncy programs, but thousands of resul adjustments that are results of appr the good work of the house and senate appropriations committees mr. president, to me the answera

was obvious. nothing good comes from the cr.l congress owes it to the american people for the amount of programs funded, but the harder program will be the best purposes we can recommend basedo on countless hours of work ofard our committees and the staff. s ilme will point out that an w continuing resolution willspent result in fewer dollars being spent. mr. president, that is c.r. w technicallyil correct. a cr will less spending than was included in the omnibus, but as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for it. the savings in the cr are primarily, but a shortcoming shortchanging national defense and security. tot under the cr, the total allocated to the defense subcommittee for discretionary

spending is $508 billion. bil under thel omnibus bill, the is total is $520.6 billion. more than half of the so-called savings is really additional cuts to the defense department.0 for homeland security, this yeas would cut nearly 800 million from the omnibus bill. in fact, if we look at the funding for all security $15 b programs, more than $15 billion. cut come from this it to. surely we could have all agreedg that we should determining our t oatural defense and security t funding on the fact that congress was unable to finish ry its work.ld base who among us really believes we should base our recommendations for defense of homeland security

and veterans on whatever was needed last year. to mr. president, this is no way b run the government. in the united states of americae is not a second great nation and we should not govern ourselves cke second grade. the continuing resolution by he design mandates that programs are to be held at the amounts provided last year, regardless of marital need.eft to moreover, in a vacuum this creates, it is left to the bureaucrats to determine how tax funds are allocated, not electet representatives. we and at this juncture the success that we who represent our states i believe no more about our states in the sphere kratz. and mr. president, i don't

believe the people of hawaii elected me to serve in theubber senate as a rubber stamp. the alternatives that i offer was a product of my problems and corporations. it represented the good faith efforts for authorities for ensuring and as the congress who determines how the people's money will be spent.e mr. president, will the amended bill that that we trust is provided full funding in cr, it is by no means the amount sought by the administration. earlier this year, more than ths half of the department voted to limit the question are spending to the so-called sessions level, which in total is $29 billion ct below the cost of budget requested by the administratione

the appropriations committee responded to the will of the majority of the senate and adopted the ceiling on spendingi moreover, mr. president, we in or hit this target. instead, each of ouro subcommittees was directed to take another look at the funds that were recommended andrecommg provide additional cuts. each was asked to identify those unneeded funds and use those toi achieve thiss reduced level andt it was night easy, sir. many worthwhile programs wereede cut, but we reduced the bills reported from the committee by $15 billion, enough to reach the sessions because gullible, whill stille fully funding and paying for pell grants and covering all

cbo scoring changes. the administration's top priorities have received funding, but not always of the level thought.riorit professional priorities were cut back and special needs were mete but there were no frills. many for many members, this debate focused on what we calledhere, earmarks. here too, the congress tightens at belt. defined as defined by senate rules, we reduce their spending that was f provided in fy 2010 by nearly 35%.8 billion less than $8 billion was recommended in the omnibus billl for congressionally direct its spending programs as compared to more than 12 billion last year.

my colleagues should be advised that since 2006, the congress has reduced spending on earmarks by just about 75%. bill in total, the omnibus billn recommended less than three quarters of 1% of discretionary funding on the so called earmarks.unds a tiny fraction of funds arethes provided to all of you can support the needs of youred constituents, which are notdminr funded by theat administration. we have all heard those who sain this election was abouteaarks earmarks. mr. president, nothing could be further from the truth. this election is not about homed earmarks. my colleagues who went home and reminded the voters what we have done for them, just with returni earmarks of returning tong the senate. in this election -- at this

election was about public distae distaste for earmarks, waited to of of party who have encoded? why is it that virtually all of my c colleagues who took credit for earmarks would be coming back next year? mr. president, this election wan about gridlock partisan games pu mention. and what we saw in the past 24 hours was more of the same. ends a mostly intact takes followed ur decision-making, bipartisan o support, rather than what is good for a nation. our mr. president, some of our colleagues have suggested that since this bill is 2000 pages long, it is obviously too big. they mr. president, as we all nt know, this is not one bill.

it is 12 bills, funding all government agencies.,000 of course it is 2000 pages long. it is simply not rational to object to the bill because it's, funding. and that, mr. president, is sen nonsense. mr. president, too often our debates in the senate focus on d mindnumbing budget totals that are hard to grapple with. when the cr is 50 to $20 billion below the omnibus, it is not just a number.. it is specific programs that will be cut or eliminated. when we point out the cong congressional priorities were curtailed, these are real programs that impact the life of millions of americans. the when we are talking about astalt

large as the omnibus, we are talking about thousands of suchp programs.the mr. president, for example, in the defense subcommittee, we prioritized the purchase of more helicopters to move above the rough terrain in afghanistan. keep in mind there are thousands of menom and women -- american n and women in uniform, putting themselves in harms way, sometimes been injured or kied. killed.ds these funds were not requested in the pentagon's budget, butdee wered identified as the need to field commanders. and so the committee justifiable $900 million to buy newew helicopters.e and this will be lost from the

bill when we voted for cr instead of the omnibus. we added $228 million as a tester for care the new double freehold movements to strike our armored vehicles, which will whh dramatically improve soldiers protections these weren't included in the presidents request. to support our wounded warriorsl we added $100 million for and lifesaving medical research andl psychological health and shamanic brain injury.r t under cr, funding for the corporate is reduction program,i which secures nuclear programssi would be reduced by $10 $100 million. there are hundreds of additional examples, which could be describing defense allowed two

additional f-18 jets for the navy which they are declared to be essential.tial, but it is not just defense thatb will be impact did. f similar issues will be found in every age and he.of it is evident, for example and the threat to the security of thelv united states evolves evey day as evidenced by a growth of homegrown terrorism such as the times square bomber, the new york subway bomb, the fort hoodt shooting in the recent effortsut to blow up aircraft over the, united states, whether the christmas day bombing attemptw for the recent attempt to blow up all cargo planes.it it is critical to careful decisions be made on the allocation of resources to the department of homeland security.

the mr. president, our res continuing resolution would notn provide security administration, which the research is necessary to enhance on defense against sc terrorist attacks, such aswest northwest flight to 53 and the recent attempts against cargoibs aircraft. this omnibus bill provided $375 billion above the continuing resolution for tsa te acquire 800 explosive trace detection units, 275 additional canine teams, higher 31 additional intelligence officerr and strength under international aviation security. this omnibus bill will provide t $52 billion above the continuiny resolution to deploy radiation

portal monitors, were such airport and seaport and forectin radiation detection pages used to detect never found nuclear cn materials. because we have chosen not toact enact an omnibus, we will miss ep opportunity to address the d cybersecurity at the department of transportation. the department recently assesses the security of its computer fou system and found it sorelysecuri lacking.are security gaps at the department are putting at risk computer o systems that manage our airur traffic and monitor our nationar infrastructure. but her request it $30 billion by 2011 to fix this problem as soon as possible.

an omnibus appropriations bill would have provided the spendini , but the cr will do nothing to address this urgent passing this omnibus would holdn detional securityat enhancements intended to improve fbi security, cybersecurity, weapons of mass destruction and counterterrorism capabilities as and assist in litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases. the fbi will not be able to ages higher 160 agents and 32 intelligence analysts tostreng strengthen the nationalmr. prese security. mr. president, the omnibus was for a great men and women who enforcement to make our streets and everyday lives for her

constituents safer. without the omnibus, the department of justice will not be able to higher 143 new fbi fr agents, 163 new attorneys and target mortgage and financial fraud skimmers and schemers andi prey on america's hard-working middle-class families and comm devastated our communities and m economy. mr. president, when it comes tor the health and well-being of the constituents, it is clear that passing an omnibus has just bee. a promise. again, we are talking about redirecting our resources to address today's needs, not last year's needs. t specifically, the omnibus bill l included $142 million in vitalnn program increases for the indiah health service that are not inne

the cr, whichs includes 44 million will end in health care improvement fund that provides additional assistance to immediate stripes, additional $46 million for contract healtht service than 400 million for support, as well as support for new initiatives in drugg prevention chronic disease prevd prevention and assistance to urban indian clinics. this omnibus bill would continud to strive that have been made over in the recent to significantly increase funding for the indian health service and thereby provide more and better medical care for our nativeve americans and alaskal i natives and the cr will bring up to a close. mr. president, there are hundreds more examples of what

will not be done because the congress will not pass this bill. er however, because the cr turns executive branch, we can't evens tell this body all the thingson that the bureaucrats won't do cs that are important to the members of congress into herat u constituents. the bill that i would've broughn to the senate represented a naear and far superior alter alternatives. and better protected our national security. it ensured that the congress determines all our citizens funds will be allocated in stipulated in our constitution. it was written in coordination with senate republican members. it was not a perfect document, a compromises.e $2 it9 made $29 billion reduction

from the president's program. but mr. president, it was a good though, which ensured that the programs important to american people will be funded. it assumed responsibility fore e spending decisions that i believe are rightfully the duty of the congress. mr. president, we find ourselves where we are today because wehis were unable to get this message across. in many respects, it was a failure of communications. we were never able to adequately explain to everyone what the good things in this bill would have accomplished. and so instead, we are now faced with placing the government oncn autopilot. our republican colleagues willil allow the administration to determine how to spend funds over the next two

than letting the congress defamed. and in the two months, we wille very likely find ourselves withl another 2000 page bill that will cost more than a trillionn o dollars and once again a advocating our authorities to the administration to determine how the funds are spent.there mr. president, i wish there were a better way, but the decisions by our colleagues on the other s side, we all crafted this bill and left us with no choice.e prd mr. president, i yield thehe floor.situation >> mr. president. >> senator from arizona. >> i have axi rudimentary issue. what is the situation as it exists on the floor at this time? >> the treaty is pending. >> is there not under business . before the senate at this time?e

>> no, there is not, sir. what i >> what about the filing of petitions for cloture on what is known as don't ask, don't tell and what is known as the dreams, act? so >> that's in the legislative section and we are in executivei session, sir. >> so that is part of the is underside of session and we are in executive session. matte >> correct. >> but time isrs still pending n the matters in the legislative session, is that correct? >> the time for cloture motion, mr but we are in executive session, sir. >> i understand.riday, so here we are today it's february -- excuse me, friday, december 17 mbr on theaty

s.t. sa.r.t. treaty, that anytms treaty is serious matter before the senate. meanwhile, there is a cloture motion. rd may it please correct me, these are both at the time is running o mn are both privileged messages, which means that there is no votes on the motion to proceed. es that correct? m >> there is no need for a motion to proceed with the houseso message, sir. >> so really what we are, about y,x weeks after the lastsing tht election, in a now discussing il the s.t.a.r.t. treaty do not have an amendment that i'll be proposing in a moment that i think is important. meanwhile, two other issues, both of which are veryhreats

controversial, coulter has been found on and the clock is running. there also threats that we may have began under votes on things like the relief of the new york 9/11 people, the firefighters issue. ntioned an online gambling has been mentioned in the media as the majority leader's proposals. so, again, here we are. w the people spoke clearly on the november the second and it was, in the words of the president of the united states so what areha we doing on december 17?, we are in one session at the united states senate, thenwhile executive session. meanwhile, the legislative- session will go on. and who knows.r

who knows what issue the majority leader will bring another issue before the senate, and maybe get a couple more, privileged f messages from the other side, file it and run the clock and then force the memberv of this committee of which there will be five additional members beginning january the fifth. and at the same time, my friend from massachusetts and the president of the united states cd the proponents of the treatr are saying, put partisanship us aside. becau put your concernsse aside. trust us because this is a very. important for the nation. what possible good does it docoo continues to bring up issues and force us to have those comments, which are clearly in keeping

with the majority and the other side's political agenda. situat. it's really kind of a remarkabls situation. i've been around this body for quite some years and then not io seeing an intensity of statesen. partnership that i see today in the united states senate. all of us want to do what is right for the country. so that's why the s.t.a.r.t.s treaty deserves serious consideration. and it deserves serious consideration by both. an but this body operates in an environment of cooperation and istenc comity. after a match is not in existence today. so we will end tomorrow, i take it, on saturday we will go off the executive council onto the legislative council, force votes

on these two very controversials issues and then maybe it's a nuisance of the majority leadero will bring up another issue i see is in the past to forcenot votes, most of which those 13 is very clearly will not succeed, but wille give him and the other side some kind of political that wasn't the message of the last election.f this so i think that a number of uset are growing weary of this undecided cio. we're just growing weary.ve and we believe that the people of this country spoke in the united words of the president of the united states, in shellacking. and werh ought to perhaps keep o

government in operation, go home and in less than two weeks or a little over two weeks, but thehl new members of congress on both many of a these issues. now, i don't know if we'll get through all of the amendments and all of the debate that the e solemn treaty observes before the united states senate.ld i really hope that we can.emind i w mould also remind my friend from massachusetts that my colleague from arizona,de of the certainly the most respected person on this issue undecided cio has offered a date certain for january 25, with a final vote on february 3rd to theat ov other side.acceptle that obviously has not been the, acceptable to them.

and by the way, that would be to withuld the input of the newly elected senators, notna of those who are leaving. so i look forward to continuing this debate and discussion. and who knows -- who knows what other issue the majority leader may bring before the senate. again, which had only been require one cloture vote. --ke and in otheran politically impacted -- impactful vote. mr.p so, mr. president, i tell my grw colleagues that we are getting tired of it. we've grown weary. and it's not that we want to quote, be home for christmas. - i- spent six christmases in a rw away from home. but what it is about is

responding to the american people. the american people yesterday in resounding victory for those who voted november 2nd rejectedlievf the omnibus appropriations bill. i believe that some of theen issues beforeat the senate electe deserved the participation of the newly elected members of th, united states senate and house., so mr. president, at this time t on behalf of myself and the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, i'd like to call it >> clerk will report.n >> the senate from arizona mr. mccain opposes a minute 4814. in the preamble to the newhip bt treaty strike recognize instratc existence between strategic offensive arms and strategicen offensive arms and this interrelationship will becomes more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced and tht

current strategic defense arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offense -- offensive arms of the parties.r from >> senator from. arizona. wyomi >> i would like to thank my friend and colleague from wyoming, senator barrasso -- a dr. barrasso. it's been a great privilege for me since he has been a member on the united states senate to be with him side by side in aattle. omber of battles. proud i am particularly proud of the work that senator barrasso continues to do on the issue ofb obamacare. dat if anyone wants to really be brought up to date, i would, s commend his website secondopn, opinion. continu dr. barrasso haas -- and he continues to be incredibly bod knowledgeable and effective, not cly here init this body, but wt the american people appeared as

a member of the foreign relations committee, dr. barrasso has taken on this issue as well. and i'm pleased to be joined with him. and i say to my colleague from f massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the foreign relationse committee. t i know there are a number of senators who want to speak.p i will try to get those lined ut in agreements that we don't take an inordinate amount of time oni this issue. any think we can do that stay within the next hour or so. but this is an important amendment. this is really one of two major of this issues that concern many members of the body and many americans. one is the modernization of oura nuclear inventory, which i think agreement, but it is important that my colleague from arizona,s senator kyl of course has beenie

following that issue since the h 1980s. invol in i know of no one who is been more heavily involved in thatthe side of the issue. the other, of course, if this whole issue of defensiveow weapons. and how the traditions of thefft treaty in effect the entire ability of the united statess unconstrained by this treaty, to move forward where it deems fecessary to put defensive o missile systems to protect the security of this country. i'd like to remind you how vital this is.here we are living in a world, where the north koreans have nuclearas weapons and missiles, the iranians have missiles and the c ability to deliver nuclearweaps. weapons. throu the pakistanis have nuclear weapons. other countries throughout theer

world are developing nuclear weapons and the means to delives them. so, our concern is not so much what the russians will do in the weaponry. and i would be caught to discuss about russian media reports about a russians building a new missile and moving icbms to the borders of europe and all te that.roblem but the main h problem here is, can the united states under this treaty have the ability to putee into place defensive missiles, whichwi will protect the securiy of the united states of america? we all know that proliferation of weapons of mass destructionhr one of the major challenges of i the 21st century. so i think it is vital.clear tha it is vital that we make it perfectly clear that there is nothing in history that

constrains our ability to pursue am that aspect of america's m defense. and so, it is deeply disturbing to so many of us, when the preamble of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty says, recognizing the existence of thestrate interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defense of arms, that this interrelationship will becomete more important and strategic as the arms are reduced in the current -- i'm going to emphasize that word, do current strategic defensive armf do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of thisoperat strategic offensive arms of the party. operative word there my friendsn is current. i've been around long enough to have lived through history of missile defense. it's not that old ab initio.eply and that the last century, the

idea that we could develop in tt play strategic defense weapons sounded like science fiction and wishful thinking. and for the most part it was.f a few decades later, it was witm this deal of missile defenses fantasy, the opponents of the idea much president ronaldbeforo reagan's, who was more committed deloping than any american president before him to the prospect of developing viable missileystems, defense systems. but president reagan called the strategic defense initiative, which became known to all of usv as sdi. you know, this idea through the soviet leaders -- because they realize how serious he was about it and because the idea threat represented a threat to the very balance of terror that threatens all of mankind during the cold war. arms-control theorists all this terrorist stabilizing. mutual assured destruction itrsl stabilizing and believe that missile defenses could therefore be destabilizing.

pro-armstw control with the established interrelationship between strategic offensiveat weapons and strategic defensive weapons. this linkage was codified in the anti-ballistic treaty among other treaties and agreements. it established an effective dev missile defense if developed, to track the strategic offensives d capabilities of the united states and the soviet union. for that reason, ltd. to develoe and deployment of such defensivs weapons.. that ronald reagan believed that viable missile defense systems in particular, sdi, how about the opportunity -- this. >> senator from texas. >> i think the senator from arizona for his extremenator

courtesy. to interrupt just for one b minute, so that the senator fro- new mexico can be recognized on a matter.aman: mr.resi >> mr. president. >> senator from new mexico. >> as if in legislation and be winning business, ask that the be discharged from h.r. 3116 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. >> h.r. 5116, not to invest in innovation through research and development to improve theit competitiveness of the united states and for other purposes.ee >> without objection, the committee is discharged in thee. senate proceeds to the manager. >> mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the be ed rockefeller amendment he agreed

to with the bill as amended payo theoretic third time, that the budget pecos statement be read. >> without objection. >> does seem that will be read. >> is a statement of budgetary effects ofde take a legislations for h.r. 5116 is amended. total budgetary effects of h.r.o 5116 for the five-year statutory pecos scorecard, $0. the total budgetary effects of h.r.d 5116 -- dispensed ldispensed with tiered >> without objection.e l >> s. ability past, motions to reconsider be laid upon theai table with no intervening actioe or debate.at t any hestatements relate to the bill be placed on the record ati the appropriate placesce afraid. >> without objection. and ask >> i join my colleague for his courtesy announced that the site

could redeem not interrupt hisjo comments in the official recordi >> mr. president. >> senator from arizona. i - i'l >> mr. president, i guess i'll just start all over. [laughter]e >> mr. present, we ask unanimous consent to please spare us. lieved paughter] >> president reagan believed that viable missile defense systems in particularen is hel strategic defense initiative, home of the o opportunity to eliminate the threat of a nuclear holocaust and thereby render nuclear weapons of a development. president reagan was one of theh leading proponents of a world nuclear weapons. and he believed that it was arms missile defense, not just armsd control agreements that would make that world possible.

and my friends, i may take you the debate on that subject wasaa spirndited. it was passionate and there was a fundamental debate that took place in this country during ths 1980s. and that's why -- that's why th6 summit of 1986, when soviet gorbache premier, because gorbachev cited the abm treaty is legal groundst for opposing the president reagan believed was a critical e limitation on the strategic defense initiative thatnetiation president broke off the negotiation of a doubt.emarkable one of the most remarkable actst in recent history.nitial and you can imagine the initial response of the media and others to president reagan walking out of arms control talks.ollapse of by the end of the cold war andsd the collapse of the evil empire, the united states and russia were no longer mortal enemies,xe

with the minister threatened one another's very existence. but if a proponent of missile dh defense, this was an isopportuny to break once an long accepted linkage, the interrelationship betweenve strategic offense and defense of weapons. d in "the wallconsent tha street journal" and mr. president, i asked him as consent that article entitledav" new s.t.a.r.t. treaty by condoleezza rice be included ini the record at this time. >> without objection. >> in a recent op-ed dated state december 7, 2010, former secretary of state, condoleezza rice explains why trickiness between missile defense was so important in the post-cold war e post-september 11th world. i quote, from condoleezza rice's article appeared with u.s. putin president bush and russian president putin signed the moscow treaty in 2002, they

address the nuclear threat by reducing offensive weapons as their predecessors have. but the moscow treaty was different.it it came in the wake of america's 2001 withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. and for the first time, thegreet united states and russia, reduce their offensive nuclear weapons with no agreement in place, that anstrains missile defenses. res breaking the link between officm of force reductions and limits on defense marked a key mobile and the establishment of a new w nuclear agenda no longer focused on the cold war face-off betweer the warsaw pact and nato. the real threat is that the world's most dangerous weapons could end up in the hands of the world's most dangerous regimesr or terrorist would launch devas attacks more devastating thansie 9/11. stas since the story broke stateslisc also pursued ballistic missiles,

defenses, would alongside offense of weapons, be integral to the security of the united states and our allies. this brief background helps explain a key concern i have with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty as it relates to missile one defense, that because of one the cause agreed to by the parties in the treaty preamble, the russian government could use a treaty in its present form as at tool of political pressure to me limit u.s. decisions about her missile defense systems. i have followed this issue of missile defense pretty closely while the treaty was being negotiated. a and as i've said before, i am concerned that a series of events that led to the treaty'sd handling of missile defense.is first, the senate was told that this treaty would in no way reference the development and deployment of u.s. missile defense systems.der secret

here is what undersecretary ofn state, alan kocher said on i march 29, 2010. and i quote, the treaty does nothing to constrain missile apons. defense. this treaty is about strategic weapons. there is no limit on what the is united states can do with its missile defense systems, unquote. but then, for some reason, aftee being told that this treaty was found about missile defense, the senate was then told that there would be a reference to missile defense after all, but that it f would only be in the preamble oy the treaty, which of course is not legally binding. that was worrisome enough. was but then we saw the treaty. and not only was there a reference to missile defense in the preamble, but there is also a limitation for missile defenst to claimants and the body of the treaty itself in article v. now this may not eat them

meaningful limitation, but it ig a limitation nonetheless and a legally binding one at that.pred this sets a very, very troubling precedent. but what i want to focus on this the morning is the reference to missile defense that appears in the preamble this afternoon. but i want to focus on this afternoon is a reference to missile defense that appears in the preamble. significa because that language carries a lot of historical significance and strategic way.and oer and it has been the root of mine and other senators concernederao about how the russian federation could use this treaty as a veto defect or veto against u.s. is t missile defense systems. pream this is what the eight cause ofe the preamble says. p and i quote fromre the preamblen recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and

strategic defensive arms, thatbo this interrelationship will imp become more important as a strategic arms -- nuclear arms are reduced and that current strategic offensive arms to note undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the party. there are many problems with fr. -his statement and more thatshe- stem from it. hrst, it reestablishes -- it reestablishes, after what i told an you what happened during the reagan at this duration, it hare reestablishes becauser we worked mean thvee bush administration reestablishes because we worked very hard over the past decade s to decouple these two concepts. our offensive nuclear weaponst and our missile defenses. during the cold war come the soviet union was always the u.s. missile defense. ever since president reagan

proposed that strategic defensee initiative, the russians soughto to limit the development and deployment of our strategicse offensive arms because they kned they could never compete.egal they sought to find directions on missile defense or legal obligationsd in treaty.ical and when that didn't work through political commitments ot agreement, they decided to confer future obligations and thus transformed into as ahort,h political threat. in short, the russians have always understood the u.s. any d missile defenses would be superior to any defense sys ofod system the russian federation and the soviet union before it could deploy. so they have been relentless in trying to block it. bh it's for this reason and because the bush administration worked so hard to break the linkage between strategic offense and sa defense of weapons, former secretary of state, condoleezzat rice, concluded in a recentited op-ed which i c