before the vote is supposed to start. it hasn't been shared with us. we have no idea what all it sa says. we have senator kerry's quotation of certain parts of it. it's obviously a last-ditch effort here to try to win votes or -- or preclude a -- an amendment from passing. it shows the administration is scrambling and making it up as it goes along. that is not the way to deal with a serious subject like this. does the letter commit to the g.b.i., or the ground-based missile backup, for the phased adaptive approach as was originally announced? it, i geshe guess -- i don't knw whether it does or not. does it repudiate the signing statement of the united states department of state issued by secretary tauscher? which, of course, conflicts with the letter and is the official position of the united states government? does it conflict with the briefing in lisbon where the phased adaptive approach was discussed and revealed deployment of the first three

phases but the fourth phase only being available. whether he will the deployment occur? the letter apparently says we will have effective defenses, whatever that means. what does that mean and when would those effective defenses be deployed? iran, intelligence tells us, will have an icbm by 2015. an icbm that would require something like the g.b.i. to intercept. but we're told the g.b.i. -- sa*, we're not told whether the g.b.i. is a contingent backup plan and, b, we're not told will be ready for 2017. we already have, i think it's four g.b.i.'s in alaska and california. i don't know why we can't build some more to deploy in russia -- in europe. i don't know what to make of this letter. obviously it comes at the last minute. it hasn't been sent to us. i don't see how we can base a vote on such a letter.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: i believe all time has expired. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i would like to interject, with tremendous respect for my friend from arizona, this letter is something that i've been seeking too. i know a number of us have asked for the president to send this letter. i'm glad that he sent it. i'm going to support the mccain amendment and wish that this wasn't in the preamble. but -- and i have talked to general cartwright yesterday who, by the way, reiterated what was said about the missile defense system, that the preamble in no way limits. but i want to say that this letter is something that i'm glad was sent. i've asked for this letter, as numbers of people on this side of the aisle have asked for. a senator: the president sent a copy of the letter to senator mcconnell, our leader.

both leaders got the letter. mr. lugar: i thank you. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired, and the motion to concur with amendment number 4827 is withdrawn. the question now occurs on the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to house resolution 2965. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who have not voted or wish to change their vote? hearing none, the chair will

remind the galleries that expressions of approval or disapproval are not in order. on the question before us, the yeas are 65, the nays 31. the motion to concur in house amendment -- in the house amendment to senate amendment to house resolution 2965 is adopted. without objection. rye reid mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: for the information of members, i've spoken to the republican leader. we're going to come in tomorrow about noon. i've spoken to senator are issue, who has an amendment on the start treaty. he's indicated that he would need about two hours of debate on that. so we would hope at or near 2:00 to have a series of at least three votes. and today, as we indicated earlier, we're basically through here today except for wrap-up.

the presiding officer: there will be four minutes of debate -- under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume the debate on the treaty which the clerk will report. the clerk: treaty calendar number 7, treaty with russia on measures for further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. the presiding officer: there will be four minutes of debate equally divided on the mccain amendment. cane cant senate is not -- mr. mccain: the senate is not the senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

the presiding officer: the senate will please be in order. mr. barrasso: mr. president, currently the new start treaty places limits on missile defense. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators please take your conversations to the cloakrooms. mr. barrasso: mr. president, placing constraints on future u.s. defense -- the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order, out of courtesy to the senator from wyoming. the senate will please be in order. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, placing constraints on future u.s. defense capabilities should not be up for debate and should

not be placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons. russia is trying to force the united states to choose between missile defense and the treaty. if that's the case, i choose missile defense. we cannot tie our hands behind our backs and risk the national security of our nation and our allies. this treaty is a bilateral agreement between priewsh and the united states. it is clear that there is a disagreement about the actual agreement made. russia continues to claim the treaty successful limits our ability to defend ourselves. supporters of the treaty claim the limitation on missile defense in the preamble is not binding and that it's legally insignificant and a throwaway provision. mr. president, we're talking about the preamble, like the preamble to the constitution. "we the people." this is meaningful. some things we hold dear and the safe and the smart decision would be to eliminate the disagreement by getting rid of

that provision entirely. so i urge all of my colleagues to support the mccain-barrasso amendment and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. i'm sorry. we have -- yes, the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: how much time do we have? the presiding officer: two minutes. mr. kerry: well, let me just say that this amendment is unnecessary. a senator: mr. president, the national is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order out of courtesy to the senator from massachusetts. please come to order. mr. kerry: well, i think it's a courtesy to the senate, i hope. the presiding officer: and to the senate. mr. kerry: mr. president, this amendment is not only unnecessary, i say "unnecessary" because as general chilton, who is the commander of u.s. strategic command says, he says, "i can say with confidence that this treaty does not constrain any current or future missile defense." in addition, secretary gates has said that what the russias wants to achieve was a restraint. he said "this treaty doesn't

accomplish that for them. "quhation this amendment would do, however, even though the language is completely nonbinding, has no requirement in it whatsoever, this amendment requires us to go back to russia, renegotiate the treaty, open up whatever advantages or disadvantages they may perceive since the negotiation exist, and we would go through a prolonged negotiation. we have no verification whatsoever today because that ceased on december 5 of last year. we need to hold this treaty intact and pass it. i'd yield whatever time i have to the chairman of the armed services committee. mr. levin: mr. president snr. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: every one of our military leaders has said to the armed services comeetd and i believe they've reiterated to the foreign reamses committee, there are no constraints in this treaty on missile defense. period, end of quote. these are our top military leaders. they are in charge of missile defense. and they say there are no constraints.

the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered. is there further debate? hearing none, the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the ayes are 37, the nays are 59. the mccain amendment number 4814 to the treaty document 111-5 is not adopted. without objection.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, is amendment 4839 at the desk? the presiding officer: it is. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from idaho, mr. risch, proposes amendment numbered 4839 to treaty document 111-5. in the preamble to the new start treaty, insert after strategic offensive arms of the parties the following: acknowledging there is an interrelationship between nonstrategic and strategic -- mr. risch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: i ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: thank you, mr. president. mr. president and fellow senators, what we are going to do is tomorrow at noon when we take up, we're going to start with amendment number 4839. now, amendment number 4839 deals with the relationship between strategic versus -- strategic

weapons, which this treaty deals with and technical weapons which this treaty does not deal with but should, and that is essentially the purpose of this. i think virtually everyone who is involved in this debate has an opinion on this, number one, but almost everyone agrees that the issue of tactical weapons, namely short-range weapons, is a very, very serious issue and rises to at least the level of the discussion on the strategic weapons and perhaps even more so. so tomorrow, we're going to have a spirited discussion about those, and there is -- there has actually been quite a bit of debate already on this. for those of you who are like me and you take the congressional record home and read it in the evening, if you go back and look at the debates on the various treaties that dealt with nuclear

weapons treaties, you will see that -- that some very bright people, some of whom are still members of this body, have already spoken on this issue. so i'm looking forward to having this discussion tomorrow, and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i ask consent to go into morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. before i talk about the forest jobs and recreation act, i just want to say you have never looked better, mr. president. i appreciate you being in the chair today. i want to talk a little bit about the omnibus bill that was pulled off two nights ago because there were not the votes from across the aisle to get the bill moving. in that omnibus bill, there was -- there was a number of

very, very important projects i think for every state in the union. there were a lot of very important projects for the state of montana in that bill that i'm afraid now will be put on the back burner. nonetheless, there was also some very important language in that bill, in the omnibus bill. in my particular case, there was language in that bill that is going to help put people back to work, and that language was contained in a bill that we called the forest jobs and recreation act. what this bill did was create 660,000 acres of new wilderness. it created 370,000 permanent acres in new recreation areas, and it required forest restoration, logging of 100,000 acres over 15 years. now, it's important in montana for several reasons. the first reason is we have been attacked by beatles -- beetles,

bark beatle that have killed a large percentage of our forest, and we need to give the forest service tools that they need to be able to treat that. the second thing is that in the western part of montana, the economy has been hurt pretty bad. i mean, the unemployment rate there is -- is the highest in our state, and this bill will create jobs. and let me give you an example. over the last year in montana, 1,700 jobs were lost in the wood products industry alone. this bill would help get those folks back to work. how? well, the folks running chain saws, cutting in the woods, the mills that create dimension lumber and plywood, those kind of things back up running, employing people, the -- the opportunity for biofuels with these trees to be able to get a dependable supply, to be able to put the investment in to