still being capable of being a deterrent, being deployed, being used in the very worst-case circumstances. as president reagan said, "trust but verify" when you are making treaties with other countries, especially any treaty that is going to have such consequences as one that might lower our capability to defend our country from a nuclear missile, a warhead on a missile that could be delivered to our country by a rogue nation. this has nothing to do with russia. we don't expect them to launch a missile against the united states; that's for sure.

but we do know that there are other nations that are enemies of the united states that are trying to get and possibly have nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them. so, we need to assure, first and foremost, two things. that our nuclear capabilities are viable, which means we need a modernization program that we can be assured has an arsenal that can work. and, number two, we need to make sure that we have missile defense, and there is no reason to connect it to a treaty that is going to limit offenses. as long as our missiles are capable of being deployed, that is leverage that we must have. but we certainly have no reason to lower our capability to defend our country unilaterally,

which, mr. president, i cannot imagine that any administration, and certainly not a united states senate, would sign nor ratify a treaty that might take away our capability to defend our country. i would hate for it to be on our watch that we lowered the defenses of the united states because we are being rushed into ratifying a treaty without the full capability to amend it or that we don't make sure in every detail, as senator kyl has said so many times, that we have preserved our capabilities to defend our country against any

enemy and, secondly, that we have the capability to go on offense so that any country that might decide to send a nuclear warhead into our territory or into any place where our troops are on the ground fighting for freedom, that they will -- that country or that group of rogue nations would know that we could because our arsenal of weapons is viable. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: first, i would ask that the next two senators on the democratic side would be senator leahy followed by senator shaheen. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i want to

respond to the comments of my friend from texas, who was very passionate in her remarks, by saying that it interested me that she raised the name of president ronald reagan because his major -- a lot of major players in his administration support this treaty. george schultz, for one. james baker, second. and the director of national intelligence, who's responsible for verification, supports this treaty. and lieutenant general patrick o'reilly, head of u.s. missile defense agency, says that -- that the new start treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of missile defense. and so i -- i think that her comments were very articulate but they're not correct, because, again, i would place into the record the many leaders from former republican administrations who are pressing us hard to get this treaty done. as a matter of fact, we've had

no boots on the ground, nobody to verify what the russians are doing for a long time now. and this treaty will actually make sure that we can verify. and so whether it's defense secretary robert gates or, again, lieutenant general patrick o'reilly, head of u.s. missile defense, or the director of national intelligence, you have former secretary of defense james schlesinger saying he does not believe this i object hibts missile defense -- inhibits missile defense. you have former secretary of defense under clinton, william perry, being very strong on th this. secretary of state henry kissinger, and so on and so on. we have in "the washington post" this comment as signed by henry kissinger, george schultz, james baker, lawrence eager berger, e,

they say the leaders made clear that the treaty does not limit u.s. missile defense plans. i think the biggest danger to our country is not acting on this, mr. president. if we don't act, that's a danger to the national security of this nation. and i am very pleased to see the incredible bipartisan support outside this chamber, and i hope inside this chamber. i'm hopeful, i'm very hopeful. but we will find out in the next coming days. i wanted to also talk about the two very critical votes that we cast here moments ago that's so important to large segments of our community. on the dream act, which would give a path of legality to students who are outstanding in

their community, who want to join the military or go to college. this was an important bill. because of a filibuster, we needed 60 votes. we got a hefty majority, 55 votes, but the republican filibuster stopped us from passing it. so today, the dreams of young, talented students who grew up in america were crushed. were crushed. because of a filibuster. we have to make it clear to the people who follow this, the republicans stopped us from passing the dream act even though we had a few of them join us. and i say thank you to those on the other side. we got a handful. we got 55 votes. we had 90% of democrats voting for it and less than 10% of republicans. 90% of republicans voted against

it. and today dreams were crushed. but i believe in america. my mother was born in a foreign land. and by the grace of god, she was naturalized and she kissed the ground of this country. but i often think to myself, what if she had a foul-up in her papers somehow, what would happen to me? would i be a different person? no, i wouldn't be different, i'd be the same human being, america would be my country. my papers weren't, perhaps, in order. and -- and the reason i'm so passionate on this is these are young people who will make our country stronger. as a matter of fact, our military says the dream act is a recruiter's dream because we get the best and the brightest to sign up for the military. and in my state, where i'm so proud of our incredible

diversity, we have a group of young people who are ready to go to college there, start their own businesses there, get jobs there, form their families the there, work in their communities. they already are. i have shown on the floor of the senate many times the individuals who are caught in this limbo state. these are, a lot of them, presidents of their student bo body, a students, leaders in their communities. and studies show that if the dream act passes, the gross domestic product of our nation will increase. there's a very good stud di a recent study -- ' very good study, a recent study by u.s.c., a universit thy of southern california, very clear on point. so it seems to me what we did today by failing to end the filibuster, even though we had a strong majority vote, we hurt our country.

why did we hurt our country? because our children are our future, and these are young people who are very bright, very motivated, and they would be the only ones to benefit from the dream act. so i'm here today with a messa message. i will never give up, never give up until we pass the dream act. now, on the good side today, from my perspective, we made some history today. we did break a filibuster, a republican filibuster, on the issue of ending discrimination in the military against gays and lesbians. we voted to end that filibuster and take up the issue of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. and i do believe in a few hours, a couple of hours that policy will be gone.

you know, there are moments in history that come to us and for me to be here at this time -- and i know i speak for a lot of colleagues -- to cast a vote for civil rights, to pass a vote for justice, to cast a vote for equality, to cast a vote against discrimination is a high honor. and i have to say just as a point of personal privilege, i was here when that policy went into effect. it was 1993 and i was a new member of the united states senate and i thought this was the wrong policy at that time. so i said to my staff, can't we do something, can't we stop th this? and we decided the best way to try and stop it was to say, let's not codify this policy, let's not put it into law. let's just have an amendment that says it's up to the executive branch and this way

the executive branch could repeal it if it didn't work and it would be easier. now, we -- it's interesting because our thoughts were right on target because our president does not support don't ask, don't tell, and he would in a heartbeat, of course, remove to as a policy through executive order. but because we had voted it into law, we had to act. so i decided to go back to the speech i made on that day, september 9, 1993, and -- and take a look at some of the things that i said. about don't ask, don't tell. first, i said, on the question of codification -- that is, putting don't ask, don't tell into law -- i said, "there's no historic precedent for the codification of the military personnel policy that prevents a whole class of americans from serving their country in the armed forces." so i felt it was against

precedent and i said, "there's simply no compelling reason to believe we should break with history and codify such a poli policy." and i mentioned that over the past four decades, congress had declined to impose restrictive personnel policies on the military. i quoted senate -- former senate armed services committee chairman barry goldwater, who stated banning loyal americans from the armed forces because of their sexual orientation is just plain un-american. and i said that the policy is a policy of outright discrimination which flies in the face of the very american values that the military is sworn to defend. i lauded the courage of those military personnel who were willing to come forward to testify before congress way back

then, and, of course, fast forward to today the incredible, brave men and women serving in uniform, serving in iraq, serving in afghanistan, who put their careers on the line to stand up and be counted and speak truth to power about this issue. i in 1993 said, and i think this is an important point, the military has a very strict code of conduct which it must have, so everybody in the military must adhere to it, whether you're heterosexual or homosexual or whatever your orientation is. you have to live by the code of conduct. that's the question. you know, during the time 1990-1993, we had just come through this horrible scandal called tailhook. i don't know if people remember

it. it was awful. and you had a series of rapes and you had -- you had a very bad circumstance which was brought out into the public and action was taken. so, clearly, heterosexuals are in the military, when they misbehave in a sexual way, they're going to be punished. the same way for a homosexual behave. it's not going to be tolerated, and that's point. and i said, this don't ask, don't tell is a policy of discrimination based on your status instead of your behavior. and here's something else i said in 1993. "it's easy to lose sight of the impact that policies have on people's lives. it's easy to label people that are different from us as 'those

people.' we might be able to temporarily fool ourselves into thinking that those people are not really part of our social fabric." and i read into the record a -- some writing of a german philosopher who wrote about world war ii, in which he said, "when the nazis came for the jews, i didn't speak up because i was a jew. and when the nazis came for the gypsies, i didn't speak up because i wasn't a gypsy. and when the nazis came for the mentally defective, i didn't speak up because i wasn't mentally defective. when the nazis came for me, there was no one left to speak up." so i said let's not do this to gay and lesbian people. let us have a code of behavior that affects us all and does not divide us. we fool ourselves when we say

that the gay and lesbian community is not part of our social fabric, that they're not prely human, that they don't have an effect on our lives. that isn't right. we're all god's children and they are our sons and our daughters. so in a couple of hours, for me this issue comes full circle. i got 33 votes in that day in 1993 for my amendment not to codify don't ask, don't tell. i got 33 votes for that, and i was proud of that. and i remember howard metzenbaum -- may he rest in peace -- said at that time, the boxer amendment is a civil rights amendment, and i was proud. but i was so sad to lose badly 33 votes. and today, today we have come a long way, and we have come a long way because people put their fear aside and they came

forward and they told their stories and they took the light and they focused it on the truth. and we've come a long way because of their families who love them and have spoken out. and we've come a long way because the military themselves in that survey stayed doesn't matter; 70%, we don't care about sexual orientation. so this is america at its best. when we open our arms to equality and freedom and justice. in closing i would say there's more work we have to do on this, on this whole issue. there's a lot of unfairness in our laws still about partners not being able to have the same rights as married couples.

and that's a whole issue we will work on. but i am confident that as americans we will move forward. when we started out, only white men of property could vote. and we have struggled. all of this is a struggle. it's not easy. the struggle for freedom is not easy. people died for freedom. in all of these communities. it's in our history. but this will be a day that will go down in american history as a day that we lifted a barrier and america is stronger because of it. thank you very much. i yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. leahy: could i ask a question, mr. president, of the senator from wyoming, just for planning purposes. i'm going to be recognized next. approximately how long does he? mr. barrasso: mr. president, about 10 to 12 minutes on the start treaty. mr. leahy: i thank my friend. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i come to talk about the mccain-barrasso amendment to the new start treaty. and i appreciate hearing all of the strong and passionate support for this amendment from my colleagues on the issue of missile defense. we have debated this yesterday well into the evening, and we are going to be voting on this a little after 3:00 this afternoon. i think it's important, mr. president, that the american people are given the opportunity to hear the implications of the

new start treaty. the new start treaty significantly, significantly impacts america's national security and our nuclear deterrent. i believe this treaty places limitations on the ability of our nation tpo defend ourselves -- to defend ourselves, limitations that i believe should not be placed. the preamble to the new start treaty provides an explicit link between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. it also implies the right of russia to withdraw from the treaty based on u.s. missile defense that is beyond -- and this is in a quote -- in current strategic capabilities. well, by specifying current strategic capabilities, the intent is clear. they are signaling that future

u.s. capabilities could pose a problem. russia does not want us to improve or to expand missile defense capabilities of the united states. to me, mr. president, this is absolutely unacceptable. the administration claims that the language in the preamble has no legally binding significance. they claim it's simply a nonbinding concession to russia. a nonbinding concession to russia. well, it's important to note that the new start treaty is not the first attempt by russia to limit our national defense. russia has wanted language limiting u.s. missile defense for a long time. they are looking for grounds, grounds to claim that the united states missile defense program

violates an international agreement. russian threats have had an impact on our own missile defense decisions in the past. this administration abandoned previous plans to deploy missile defense systems in poland and the czech republic. it is evident that the administration already receives considerable pressure, pressure from russia to limit our nation's missile defense activities. i believe that the language in the treatyy will only further add, further add to that pressure and will impact united states decision making on our own missile defense. i want to emphasize again, mr. president, that the united states must always remain in charge of our own missile defense capabilities. not russia, not any other country. it is unacceptable for the united states to make any concessions on missile defense.

defending our nation should be a top priority. now, many of my colleagues have come to the floor over and over and over again to highlight this very point. we share a deep concern about the concessions that the new start treaty provides to russia, especially the limitations of our missile defense. there is no legitimate reason for the inclusion of limitations to our national security in this treaty. the new start treaty is just the first step in allowing greater concessions on u.s. missile defense in future agreements. now, i think, mr. president, it's also important to point out the continual change in this story by the administration, the one that they have provided this senate regarding the inclusion of missile defense language in the treaty. originally the senate was told that the new start treaty would

not contain anything, would not contain anything on missile defense. then the senate was informed that there would be no reference to missile defense other than in the preamble of the treaty. but certainly no limitations. then we found that article 5 of the treaty contains a limitation on the conversion of icbm and slbm launchers into launchers for missile defense. now the senate has a treaty before it on nuclear strategic offensive weapons with several limitations on missile defense. we are now being told not to worry about these limitations on our ability to defend ourselves in the new start treaty. the administration says, well, it's only a statement of fact. they say it isn't legally binding. or that this administration doesn't plan to use it. or it's only an insignificant

concession to the russians. i do not find any of these arguments comforting. this treaty sets a terrible precedent. the united states should not be placing any constraints, any constraints on our ability tpo defend ourselves, no matter the type, the size or the length of time. significant disagreements exist between the united states and russia on missile defense provisions in the new start treaty. some argue it doesn't matter what russia says about the issue. well, i believe it's vie talg that we -- vital that we examine what russia has said. when two companies come to a bilateral agreement, there needs to be an agreement of what is said and what it means. it is imperative and part of

this body, this senate's constitutional obligation. i am talking about the two parties to this treaty: the united states and russia. we need to know how both parties will be acting and how they will both be interpreting the new start treaty. we cannot ignore the differences. some proponents of the treaty have argued that passing the mccain-barrasso amendment will complicate ratification. i reject that idea i reject the idea that the senate's advice and consent duty is to take it or leave it. i believe the senate's advise and consent role is either to accept the treaty or improve the treaty. and that's what this amendment does. it improves the treaty. we as a senate cannot simply be a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp to treaties due to fears of

fixing flaws and improving important provisions. the congressional research service published a study on the role of the senate in the treaty process. it's titled "treaties and other international agreements. the role of the united states senate." on page 125 the study takes amendments are proposed changes in the text of the actual treaty. they amount, therefore, to senate counteroffers that alter the original deal agreed to by the united states and the other country. so should the senate agree to strike the missile defense section of the preamble, we are simply asking the russians to accept it. the ball is in the russians' court. the russians can either accept or reject the senate's counter offer. if text to the preamble is just a nonbinding statement of fact, then russia should not have any problem in eliminating that portion of the preamble.

but if russia does have a problem with eliminating a so-called nonbinding statement of fact and russia is willing to jeopardize the entire treaty over it, then every member of the united states senate, every member of the united states senate should be concerned about the provision' impact. the treaty's preamble, the russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior russian officials all, all show an attempt by russia to limit or to constrain future u.s. missile defense capabilities. well, let's take a look at the russian unilateral statement. it shows how the russians will act under the treaty. it states -- quote -- "the treaty between the russian federation and the united states of america on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms signed in prague

on april 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the united states of america refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. that, mr. president, is the russian unilateral statement. russian foreign minister lavrov stated that the treaty contained -- quote -- "legally binding linkage." "legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons." then he went on, the treaty and all qualifications it contains are valid only upon the levels which are now present in the sphere of strategic defensive systems. to me, those statements seem very clear. the negotiators have given in and they have allowed

limitations on our missile defense capabilities. i have no doubt that russia will threaten to withdraw from the treaty should the united states expand its current nuclear capabilities. there should be no problem in removing the language in the preamble when treaty proponents believe that it has no legal little binding significance. mr. president, i've been sitting here and visiting and discussing this treaty with members on both sides, and this amendment only strikes a portion of the treaty that people who support the treaty have called nonbinding, legally insignificant, and one senator called it a throwaway provision. then they should throw it away. this senate can ensure that there is no limit on u.s. missile defense by simply passing the mccain-barrasso amendment. our missile defense is worth the

effort and the time to get it right. the mccain-barrasso amendment significantly improves the treaty and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, thank you. i know in a couple hours we'll be voting on a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i know we've been able to go past the filibuster of it, and i'd like to speak about that just for a few minutes. partisan rancor seems to seize the senate on so many issues this year, but i want to at least this one count, i'm encouraged and i'm hopeful.

there is yet sufficient bipartisan agreement to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell policy before this congress ends. and i commend the senators who havhave pledged to support the repeal. of course, i renew my own commitment to this worthy effort. it is well past time to put an end to this discriminatory and harmful policy. today in the united states senate, the stage is set again for one of the major civil rights victories of our lifetimes. and years from now, i hope that historians will give good cause to remember this day as the day when the two parties overcame superficial differences to advance the pursuit of equal rights for all americans. after much effort and just as much study and discussion, the senate will finally proceed to an up-or-down vote on repealing this counterproductive policy. for too long, we have said let's

vote maybe. it's not quite ready for a vote. let's get the filibuster going. well, mr. president, i think most americans expect united states senators -- after all, there's only a hundred of us -- they expect us to come here and either vote yes or vote no, not vote maybe. a filibuster is voting maybe. so senators who keep saying i want to think about it more, i want to go longer, we've had years of study. this afternoon, mr. president, it's time for every man and woman in this body to step forward and vote either yes or no. and for those who still harbor concerns that enacting this repeal would somehow harm readiness, one simple fact is the clearest answer -- gay and lesbian americans already serve honorably in the u.s. armed forces and they've always done. so there's no doubt that they've

served in the military since the earliest days of the republic. the only reason they could do so then and now, even under today's discriminatory policy, is because they displayed the same conduct and professionalism that we would expect from all our men and women in uniform. they are no different than anyone else. they should be treated no differently. as one combat veteran said, i don't care whether the soldier next to me is straight or not. i care whether he can shoot straight or not. and ending this policy will bring to an end years of force discriminatory and secrecy. giving these troops the right to serve openly, allowing them to be honest about who they are, will not cause disciplined service members to suddenly become distracted on the battlefield. it is pandering to suggest that they would be.

but that's not only my view. the chairman of the joint chie chiefs, admiral mullen, has said time and time again that this is the right thing to do, it will not harm our military readiness. mr. president, gay soldiers and straight soldiers have fought and died for our country throughout the history of this country. gay soldiers and straight soldiers have fought and died for our country in iraq and afghanistan. i think of one of the editorial cartoons showing parents at a military graveyard, and they're looking at the grave of their son. and one says, "they didn't ask." and the other said, "and he didn't tell." look at this.

look at this, mr. president. look at this. three coffins draped in flags. and the caption is: "which is the gay one?" mr. leahy: mr. president, like so many other senators, i've walked on a quiet day through the graveyard at arlington national cemetery i've seen dates going back long before i was born. i see people who died in world wars, died in korea ago, died in vietnam, who died now in -- in iraq and afghanistan. and i look at the names, some from my own state, and like everybody else who walks through there, i think of the sacrifice of these people, the sacrifice

of their families, the life that would not be led, the children who might not know a parent, the brother who might not know his sister, or a sister who might not know a bro a brother, pareno are burying their child. of course, in the natural order, children bury their parents. here, parents have buried their child. does anybody look at those graves and say, "move this one because we just found out that soldier die who died in battle s gay"? mr. president, if anybody asked to do that, there would be an uproar in this country. so i ask, why any question about them serving? every member of our armed

services should be judged solely on his or her contribution to the mission. repealing don't ask, don't tell would ensure that we stay true to the principles on which our great nation was founded. we ask our troops to protect freedom around the globe. isn't it time, mr. president, that we protect their basic freedoms and equal rights here at home. throughout our history, the senate has shown its ability to reflect and illuminate the nation's deepest ideals and the nation's conscience. it is my hope that the senate will rise to this occasion by breaking through the partisan din to proceed to debate, as we have, and now vote on repealing this discriminatory and counterproductive policy. mr. president, i see my good friend and neighbor from across the connecticut river, senator

shaheen, and i see the good -- my friend and colleague -- and i apologize, i did not see him -- the senator from north dakota, and i know he's waiting. i'll yield to him. and it's my understanding senator shaheen will be recognized after senator thune. i yield the floor. mr. thune: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i would like to speak to the start treaty, more specific the to the mccain-barrasso amendment, which is the amendment that's currently under consideration and which we will have a vote on late this afternoon. and i want to point out i guess, mr. president, at the outset that you don't have to watch the news very often in this country to realize that we live in a dangerous world. there are lots of countries around the world that are run by regimes that not only mistreat their own populations but would love to do harm to countries that are allies of ours as well as to the united states.

and that's why a debate about an issue like missile defense is so important, and that's why this particular provision in the start treaty is -- has drawn so much attention, drawn so much concern, so many of us who are concerned about the link it establishes between offensive strategic arms and defensive strategic arms. now, the senate made it abundantly clear at the outset of the negotiations on the new start treaty and specifically in section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 national defense authorization bill, that there should be no limitations on u.s. ballistic missile defense systems. the new start treaty not only contains specific limitations on those systems but also reestablishes an unwise linkage between off dispense defense that was broken when the a.b.m. treaty came to an end. we were told, mr. president, as recently as march 29 by under secretary tauscher -- and i

quote -- that "the treaty does nothing to constraint strategic defense." i was told, "there is no limit to what the united states can do with its missile defense systems." and the quote again, "there are no constraints to missile defense." those were all quotes that were made by secretary tauscher on march 29. but these assertions, mr. president, are incorrect in two ways. one, not only are there specific limits on some missile defense options, and i would note article 5, paragraph 3, of the treaty text itself, but secondly, when viewed together with the treaty's preamble, russia's unilateral statement, and statements by senior russian officials, it all provides the potential for russia to intimidate the united states by threatening to withdraw from the treaty if the united states seeks to increase its me feel defense capabilities. now, the treaty supporters are going to argue that the limit on converting offensive silos for

missile defense is meaningless because we don't have any such plans. but the question i would come back to, mr. president, is simply this, why is there a limitation at all on missile defense in a treaty that was meant to deal with nuclear weapons? why did we concede to the russians on this important point? and can we be sure we'll never have such plans? after all, we've converted offensive silos to defensive silos -- defensive purposes in the past. my own view, mr. president, is that that particular provision in the treaty text is -- a direct linkage between offensive and defensive arms, but then you have the preamble and unilateral signing statements that i think are even more telling when it comes to that connection that is drawn between that interrelationship between offense and defense. far more pernicious is the treaty's preamble and the two unilateral signing statements by the russians and by the united states.

the preamble states -- and i quote -- "that the current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and the effectiveness of the strategic arms of the parties." now, the statement suggests that moving beyond current systems might undermine the viability and effectiveness of strategic systems and could provide grounds for withdrawal. the administration says that either sides -- either side can withdraw anyway. that's only partially true. the withdraw clause in the treaty, as it has been in previous treaties, deals with extraordinary events. and the preamble and unilateral statements make withdrawal more likely by building in an inevitable pretext. so you have the preamble, the language in the preamble, mr. president, you have the direct linkage in the treaty text itself, and then i also want to mention the other point which i think is equally important and that is the russian unilateral signing statement makes clear russia's

legal opinion. and here's what it says -- and i quote again -- "the treaty between the russian federation and the united states of america on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms signed in prague on april 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the united states of america refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitativel qualitatively." it further states -- andity quote -- "the exceptional circumstances referred to in article 14, the withdraw clause of the treat treaty, including increasing the capabilities of the united states of america's missile defense system in such a way that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the russian federation." so the russians have built into the treaty record their threat that improvement of u.s. missile defense creates the legal pretext for their withdrawal from the treaty. it can only be read,

mr. president, as an attempt to exert political pressure to forestall continued development and deploit of u.s. -- deployment of u.s. missile defenses. an hour, was our response to that a firm rebuttal? the answer is no. unlike the start i agreement where the united states said clearly that it did not agree with the russian's treaty of the united states status in the a.b.m. treaty, we did not do that this time. the state department said in response to the russian unilateral statement and i quote -- "the united states of america takes note of the statement on missle defense by the russian federation. the united states missle defense systems would be employed to defend the united states against limited missle launches and to defend its deployed forces allies and parters in against regional trets. the united states intends to continue improving and deploying its missle defense system in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part of our collaborative approach to

strengthening stability in key regions." end quote. so it would appear, mr. president, that the u.s. position does not contradict the russian position in the slightest. and what then to make of the u.s. missle defense plans previously announced by secretary gates, which talked about the deployment of land-base missles, poland in 2018 and in 2020 the deployment in europe of the smm-32-b missles against icbm is this still our position or is it the position set forth in the signing statement and recently briefed to the nato russian council in lisbon where it is available rather than deployed in the year 2020. mr. president, it's -- it's clear to me that the administration is already coming under considerable pressure by the russians to limit it was

missle defense activities in the very near future. past experience would suggest that this administration may be willing to alter its plans to accommodate the russians. as it did in the case of previous plans to deploy missle defense systems in poland and the czech republic. how will it respond if the president's prized accomplishment, the start treaty, is at risk? i think it's very clear from what the -- the language in the preamble, the direct linkage in the treaty itself and what the signing statements say that the russians' intentions are with regard to particular issue which is why it is so important, mr. president, that this amendment he get adopted. this amendment that the senators from arizona and wyoming have offered simply would strike the language in the preamble that is causing so much concern. now, we've heard arguments on the floor of the senate since we started debate on the start

treaty, that the preamble is not binding. in other words, it doesn't mean anything. in fact, it was said yesay on te that it's -- it's throwaway language. and, yet, at the same time it's been argued by others on the other side that it is a treaty killer. it cannot be both. it cannot be a throwaway that's not legally binding and a treaty killer at the same time. essentially what they are saying is it means nothing and it means everything. that is a direct contradiction. and that is why it is so important that this amendment be adopted i would clarify once and for -- which would clarify once and for the treaty between offensive and defensive arms. mr. president, i think that the -- the -- the amendment that is before us right now gets at the very heart of the matter. and we all know that the

russians and americans have different views on missle defense. but the attempt to paper over or even ignore these differences in this treaty sets the stage for future misunderstandings or confrontations as the united states continues its missle defense activities, particularly in europe. confusion about u.s. plans is equally dangerous. now, this is not an issue, mr. president, on which there should be ambiguity, on which there should be confusion and on which there should be this kind of a difference of opinion. and so i would simply say, mr. president, as we come up here and -- in an hour or so to a final vote on the mccain-barrasso amendment, that it is really important, i think, for the united states senate in our important role when it comes to treaty ratification to make sure that we are doing everything that is in the national security interest of the united states and allows us in the best way

possible to defend this country and our allies and if we are limiting in any way our ability when it comes to the issue of missle defense we are putting in jeopardy and at risk america's national security interest. and so this -- this treaty, mr. president, should not be approved. it should not be approved certainly until these -- some of these changes are made. and we can start today by eliminating the linkage and the connection that exists today in the preamble by striking and deleting that language from the preamble of this treaty and making very clear that the united states intends to preserve all options available to us when it comes to missle defense. and this was, as i said before, this is something -- this linkage was broken years ago under the bush administration. we should not establish now the precedent of allowing these issues to be link and to give the russians an opportunity and

excuse to withdraw from this treaty if the united states died to proceed -- died to proceed in its -- decides to proceed in its own best national security interest. i would urge my colleagues, mr. president on this amendment -- this is an important amendment. we will hopefully have debate on other amendments. i have a couple of amendments on the issue of delivery vehicles, which i think is also a very important part of this treaty, but there probably is no more important part of this treaty than the issue of missle defense when it comes to the vital national security interest of the united states. so i hope members will when this vote comes up later today vote in favor of the mccain-barrasso amendment and make it clear that there -- there is to be no linkage, no nexus between stratigic offensive arms and stratigic defensive arms so we limit the ambiguity with regard to this issue and allow us to proceed to other amendments on treaty.

mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm here today to express my strong support for repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. we took a significant step toward that repeal earlier today and i want to congratulate senators lieberman and collins for their strong bipartisan leadership on this issue. i was proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and i hope we will very soon send it to the president for his signature. as a number of my colleagues have already said today, it's not often that the senate gets this kind of an opportunity with a single to vote right a wrong, but we have that opportunity here today. this vote that we're going to be taking this afternoon is a historic vote. it is one for which this senate will be remembered for a very long time.

this is our opportunity to fix an outdated, discriminatory and broken policy. and to strengthen america's security. the united states, our military, and our security will be better off because of this legislation. now, i completely agree with defense secretary robert gates who strongly endorsed the repeal and urged the senate to pass this legislation before the end of the year. secretary gates and america's military leadership understand that this discriminatory policy undermines our national security and diminishes our military readiness. a nation is at war -- a nation at war is a nation that needs the best, most qualified service members we can find regardless of sexual orientation. at a time when nearly 150,000 american men and women are

serving in combat overseas and at a time when our military is stretched thin across the globe, we simply cannot afford to lose some of our finest soldiers. since the policy was instituted in 1993, don't ask, don't tell has meant that more than 14,000 service members have been expelled from the military with an estimated 4,000 members per year who leave voluntarily because of this discriminatory policy. and 1,000 of those who have been expelled were badly needed specialist with mission-critical skills like arabic speakers and other technical experts. don't ask, don't tell also ignores the realities of today's combat environment where american soldiers are the fighting next to allied troops from around the world. at least 28 countries, including

our closest allies, great britain, australia, canada and israel already allow open service. not only is this policy costing us critical capabilities, it's also unnecessarily costing us a lot of money. the military spends as much a as $43,000 to replace each individual charged under the don't ask, don't tell policy. and at a time of extremely tight budgets with little money to go around, it just doesn't make sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars to investigate, try, and replace american soldiers based only on their sexual orientation. repeal of this policy has earned the backing of an overwhelming majority of america's iraq and afganistan veterans and countless military leaders

including retired general collin powell who says that attitudes and circumstances have changed since the policy was first instituted 17 years ago. we also now have a good understanding of what our own military men and women feel about repeal of this poll polic. the military undertook one of the largest and most comprehensive reviews in its history to make sure that those affected by this change had their views heard and incorporated into potential action. the in-depth nine-month review included a comprehensive survey that was sent to nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component service members as well as 150,000 military spouses. and the review's final report released several weeks ago found that repealing this could be accomplished without undermining military readiness and it could be initiated immediately.

the report found that more than two-thirds of those questioned found that appeal would have no affect on cohesion, unit readiness or moral. mr. president, we used to say to young americans, don't ask what are you country can do for you. ask what you can do for you country. now we tell those very young people who want to serve this country, don't ask, don't tell. this is a civil rights issue. it's a moral issue, and it is a national security issue. and today the senate has a historic opportunity to fix this broken and outdated policy. and i look forward to voting with the majority of my colleagues in support of changing don't ask, don't tell. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise to echo the words of the

distinguished senator from new hampshire, senator shaheen in her support of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. it's an important -- it's important for our military. it's important for our values. it's important for human rights. it's important for our country. as we know for nearly 17 years federal laws dictated that gay and lesbian americans hoping to serve in the military must be silent about their sexual orientation. if that silence were broken, they would face the grim consequences of an almost certain discharge. the don't ask, don't tell policy has -- is commonly known as inconsistent with our american values. it's robbed the military of valuable personnel who can contribute to military readiness. that's why i opposed this policy in the mid-1990's and advocated for its repeal ever since. throughout this debate i heard

from many ohioans including members of our military expressing profound opposition to the policy of don't ask, don't tell. ohioans like cadet katherine miller, lieutenant colonel victor fairbock who spoke with me at an early morning coffee at the capitol. many service members have worked in their communities, walked the halls of congress to explain why don't ask, don't tell should be overturned. their experience and that of those they represent are reminders that important battles remain in the fight for human rights and justice in our country. but we know for sure that history is on their side. today's vote will affirm what military leaders from defense secretary gates to general collin powell, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, michael mullen, have been saying for some time. repeal of don't ask, don't tell will make our military stronger.

with our nation at war it's especially important that our policies promote the recruitment and retention of the best soldiers regardless of their race, regardless of their religion, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender. president obama and secretary gates have conducted a year-long review which many in this party, a year-long review of the impact of the fully and openly integrating lesbian and gay americans into the military. it's no surprise that the report concluded that open service poses no threat to our military readiness or effectiveness. it's estimated that don't ask, don't tell policy has cost the american people somewhere between $300 million and $500 million to implement. it has resulted in 14,000 soldiers who were trained, who were discharged not for

performance but were discharged because of their sexual orientation. these 14,000 americans include, we think, hundreds of ohioans who offered to lay down their lives for this country. they deserve better than investigations and discharge. they deserve acceptance. they deserve affirmation. they most importantly deserve the right to serve openly and honestly in america's military. the strength of our nation is measured not just by the size of our economy or the might of our military. it's measured by acts consistent with our values, the very values our service members defend and that define our nation's greatness. the repeal of don't ask, don't tell is a long overdue victory for our military, a victory for our american values, a victory for human rights and, most importantly, a victory for the american people. i ask support of the measure, a resounding vote ou out of this senate to go along with the

house so the president can sign this bill and end this policy hathis that hasnot served in co. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask that the time elapsed is evenly divided between the two parties -- during the quorum call dween th- between the two parties. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: now i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask unanimous consent -- i ask that the proceedings your honor the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, it is my understanding that the senator from pennsylvania is here and wants to speak and then i think the senator from new jersey i think, is on his way over to speak. i would shall because there have been a number of speeches on the start treaty against it and a number of arguments laid out that i want to have an opportunity to speak to, i would ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 i be permitted to speak for about 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i you ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to -- this afternoon to discuss the vote that will occur in a little more than an hour on the don't ask, don't tell policy. i just have some basic thoughts about this. coming from a state where we contributed probably as many or

more soldiers to almost any every conflict we've had over the last 100 years, we've -- we have a state that has over a million veterans. we've lost soldiers most recently in the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. in iraq our killed-in-action number was just below 200. last count it was about 197. in afghanistan more than 60 now, up to 61, 62 have been killed in action. so people in pennsylvania know what the war is about, what sacrifice is about because so many families have contributed to that service and that sacrifice. and when it comes to the -- to this change in policy that we're advocating, i want to focus, i guess, on two very basic considerations. one is basic integrity and the

other is valu valor. we've had a number of statements made by senior military leaders, part of this administration and others, who have called for repeal of the policy. secretary gates, secretary of defense for the obama administration and for an extensive period of time under president bush, said -- and i quote -- "i fully support the president's decision-to-. the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change but how we must -- we best prepare for it." end quote. so said secretary gates. admiral mullen, chairman of our joint chiefs of staff, saying -- and i'm quoting in per in the event parkt part -- "it is my pl belief that allowing gays angz

lesbians to serve openly is the right thing to do. i cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. for me personally, it comes down to integrity." unquote. his statement goes on from there. former secretary of state powell fully supports the change. we could go on from there, and i know folks have cited military leaders in this debate. but i keep coming back to this question. secretary mullen talked about integrity and a policy that forces young men and women to lie. former national security advisor jim jones said -- and i'm quoting in pertnant part -- "the don't ask, don't tell policy has to evolve with the social norms. i think times have changed. the young men and women who wish to serve their country should

not have to lie in order to do that." so i focus on that part of it. how can a policy long endure in this country, especially as it relates to the military, that asks people to lie? every day they have to get up and prepare themselves for service and sometimes literally for battle, life and death battle. and every day this policy says to them, but you have to lie about it. you have to keep it a secret. you can't let anyone noi. you have to -- you can't let anyone noavment you have to lie. how can a policy endure in this country that's based upon lying and not telling the truth? is that the core of our -- it's at core of our republic, whether you talk about the rule of law or no man or woman is above the law. all of those statements, all of that philosophy, is underguarded by basic integrity that we'll all try to live by the same

rules. if we're not telling the truth and we're forcing folks who are willing to serve they are country, put themselves -- to put themselves in harm's way doesn't begin to describe the sacrifice. and some of these soldiers have not only served but been gravely, grievously wounded. and some of course have been killed in action. in the current conflict -- conflicts, really -- plural -- and many before that. so this is a basic question about integrity. are we going to continue to support a policy that calls upon people to lie? i don't think the american people support that. and secondly the basic and related question of valor. we have public officials across the country, members of congress, public officials in