united states would have to be de forces too in order to be able to justify a provision that said that we to exchange tell elm trip. maybe the united states -- exchange telemetry. maybe the united states ought to get on with the modernization of our missile force so that we could then go back to the russians and say, okay, we're modernizing, you're modernizing, now how about the exchange? but to me, that's not an argument for not requiring the russians to provide us information. and, in fact, when the shoe is on the other foot, that argument falls by the wayside and we end up putting limitations in the treatyhere's an example. the russians are not developing and don't seem to have any intention of developing something called conventional prompt global strike, which is a fancy way of saying put a conventional warhead on top of an icbm so that you don't have to send a nuclear warhead halfway around the world to destroy a target. we c we -- we can wee can see in today's conflict we're not going

to engage in multiple nuclear -- well, a nuclear exchange with another country but might well have a need based upon verha doa very long shelf life that we might want to send a conventional warhead to a specific target and that's something we'd like to develop. but the russians aren't interested in doing that. so did we say to the russians, so because you're not doing it and we are, therefore, we're not going to have any limitation on this? no. we agreed, in fact, to a very important limitation. any missles that we use in that regard have to be counted as if there was a nuclear warhead on top of it. so there's a 700-vehicle limit that all the number of missles that we can have and, yet, any missles that we put a conventional warhead on that have this icbm range have to be counted against that limit it so why did we have to agree to something that they're not

doing? party -- parity.l. it's okay to say to the russians if you're doing something that we're not doing, we're not going to be bound, you're doing something that we're not doing, we're going to hold you accountable and bind you with a very important limitation to the mr. president, doesn't hold water. russia and the united states are not exacting exactly the same with regard to our weapons. to argue anything we're doing differently from the other shn' species. in any event, what's good for the goose is good for the grander if we put a limitation on the united states on something they're notopin it's only fair to put a limitation on them with something we're not developing. mr. kerry: do we have any time remaining? the presiding officer: 1 minute and 40 seconds. i yield that time to the senator

from the armed services committee. mr. levin: i thank my good friends from massachusetts. there's reference made to a side agreement entered into at the time of start i. that's major difference between what happened then and what is proposed by senator kyl now. that side agreement, first of all, was in front of the senate but there was no effort at that time to do what senator kyl's amendment does, which is to say prior to the entry into force of that treaty the president shall certify to the president that there was a legally binding side agreement. that was minority of start i and it would seem to me would absolutely derail this new start agreement. secondly, that agreement was a political agreement that was entered into, that side agreement, which would last as long as the two -- the presidents of both countries who were in office, but would not necessarily last beyond that because it was not a legally binding agreement in that sense. so there are two major

differences between what happened at the time of start i and what is being proposed here by senator kyl and so i would hope that we could defeat the kyl amendment 4860. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: if any time remains, we yield it back. the presiding officer: time is yielded back. mr. kerry: what is the parliamentary situation, mr. president? the presiding officer: there's still remaining on the wicker amendment. and kyl 4860. mr. kyl: i'd like to speak briefly to that right now in direct response to my colleague from michigan. mr. kerry: do we have time remaining on either of those amendments? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts has time remaining on both amendments. the senator from arizona. kyl climate me quote from the start i treaty, text resolution of advice and consent of ratification as approved by the

senate. the senate advice and consent to subject to the following conditions which shall be binding on -- upon the president. legal and political obligations of ussr, the obligations of the union of soviet socialist republics reflected in the four related separate agreements, seven legally binding letters, four areas of correspondence, two politically binding declarations, 13 point statements and so on and the two politically binding declarations are precisely the reference to the limitation of numbers -- slcm numbers for both countries. i mean, there's a dispute about whether it is legally binding in the same sense that treaty itself is, but the heading of this is legal and political obligations of the the start treaty and so on and on so -- and so on and so

binding agreement whether you call it binding legally or binding politically, in any event, i'd like to see it done. there's no limitations on the slcms that the russians are planning to develop and the submarine under development to carry them and they could be -- they could have a stratigic value as well as a tactical value. they were a subject of the previous start i agreement and i think they should be a sub subjt of this agreement as well. let me summarize the first amendment our colleagues will be voting on is the wick earmd and the second amendment -- amendment, and the second amendment is the amendment that will provide a site limitations on the russian slcm's, and the their vote will be on the kyl amendment relative to verification relating to covers on the icbms and telemetry on icbm tests. the presiding officer: the

senator's time has expired. mr. kerry: how much time remains? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts has three minutes on the kyl amendment and five minutes on the wicker amendment. mr. kerry: and i ask, is senator wicker here, senator kyl? i wonder senator kyl if we can yield back time. i know colleagues are waiting to vote. by consent i think we yield back all time on both sides and go t. under the previous order the question is on amendment 4895 offered by the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker. 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 chairman wer wishing to vote or change a? if not, the yeas are 34, the nays are 5. amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, the question is on amendment 4860, offered by the senator from arizona, mr. kyl. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? a senator: regularrd secd? be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, the yeas are 31, the nays are 62, the kyl amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection.

the majority leader's recognized. mr. reid: if i could have the attention -- the presiding officer: the majority leader has an announcement for us. mr. reid: mr. president, we're going to have one more vote tonight. senators kerry, lugar and kyl and others are working on how we're going to work tomorrow morning. debate on this evening and an amendment and we'll find out where we are after that. the reason i ask for the senate's attention, this is the last vote, but however i ask unanimous consent that senator levin, and the ranking member, senator mccain, be recognized two minutes, total of four minutes to explain something they're working on the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i this all of us have an interest in the defense authorization senator mccain and i have been working on this bill with members of committee for just about year. this is a bill that has a lot of provisions which are critically

important to our troops just to give you a few examples, it authorizes health care coverage for military children, it authorizing impact aid to local civilian schools. it authorizes so-called serpa authority which is the commanders emergency response program. it offers defense articles to the afghan army. we have removed it was our intent to do that. we missed one controversial item that came from the house hin wi. we have now reached an agreement that we would remove that provision from the bill. that's a removal. but we can't add any controversial items to this bill. done for 45 years is if we proceed to the unanimous consent agreement tonight. we haven't yet gotten there and i would please, with our colleagues, to let us get to

this unanimous consent agreement tonight. it's the only time we the house will be in tomorrow. they could take it up tomorrow if we pass it tonight. and so that's the status of it. senator mccain, i know, will speak his support for it. but it's a plea from the two of us that have worked so hard with our members and our staff on critically important bill. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona's recognized. mr. mccain: the only thing i would like to add to senator levin's comments, there are provisions of policy, of training, equipment, and readiness that cannot be just done by money and these are important policy decisions, important authorization including pay raise. not for us. and so i urge my colleagues not to object to this defense authorization act and i -- i

would argue that it is critical to sustaining this nation's security. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: we're offering it later tonight. we're not offering it at this time. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question is on amendment 4893 offered by the senator from arizona, mr. kyl. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wish to go vote or to change their vote? if none, the yeas are 30, the nays are 63, and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kerry: i move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: let me tell my colleagues here where we're going to proceed here, with the consent of the senator from arizona and senator lugar.

we're going to checking with the white house and making certain that we're all in sync on it, but assuming we are, we'll be able to have senator lemieux of florida speak for a few minutes on his amendment, and in addition, there is a kyl amendment, senator kyl's amendment which we will accept, and subsequent to that, i believe senator thune wants to raise an issue regarding an amendment. we'll do that. and then i think we'll probably be at a point where we'll have an opportunity if people want to talk on the treaty or conceivably even on something else, i imagine there may be a moment there, but i don't want to speak for the leadership on that yet until we have cleared it. i'd ask unanimous consent the senator from ohio has been trying to get the floor for most of the day, and because he wanted to give us the opportunity to move on the

amendments, he has been very patient, and i'd like to ask that he just be granted five minutes to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there an objection? the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: will you just go ahead and handle the unanimous consent agreement on the two amendments? and i don't have to be here for that. mr. kerry: mr. president, i will do that and guarantee the senator that this amendment will be passed, and i thank him. i want to thank senator kyl. he has -- actually -- i know we have all been struggling here, but the senator has been extremely helpful in processing a lot of amendments this evening, and i want to thank him for his good-faith efforts in doing that. mr. president, i yield to the senator from ohio. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the generosity of the senior senator from massachusetts and especially his leadership on one of the most important debates in the four years i have been in the senate. i thank senator kerry for that. mr. president, i hold in my hand

500 pieces of paper, 500 testimonials from retirees who lost their pensions in health care during the g.m. bankruptcy. these are some of the 50,000 -- 500 here. these are some of the 50,000 americans who will be hurt if we do not pass an extension of the health coverage tax credit this week before the year is out. this stack of paper here, it doesn't represent delta, it doesn't represent other retirees, thousands of others who are in the same boat as the delphi/g.m. retirees. their pensions have been cut. their employee-sponsored health care has been eliminated. now if we don't pass the omnibus trade bill, which includes g.s.p., trade adjustment, the -- the andean trade agreement and the health care tax credit and some mistakenious tariffs, if we don't pass this, h.r. 6517, they will take in another economic

blow. the blood from this one will be on our hands. we must pass the omnibus trade bill before this conference ends. i want to share a handful of letters. i know the senator from massachusetts yielded for five minutes, so i will do this quickly. marianne from warren, ohio, writes she lost 40% of her pension, all her health care, all her life insurance earned from g.m./delphi. here is what she said. my husband is self-employed. he is on my health care. he suffers terribly with chronic pain due to degenerative disc disease. he forces himself to work at least part time but it's a struggle. i have a cerebral condition recently diagnosed. i spent a week in the hospital early this year and still paying on that. a 75% hike in our health care premiums -- and that's what will happen if we don't renew this which will help these 500 and another 50,000. while we try to pay these medical balances on a reduced pension would force us and many others into a downward spiral of

existence. those whom we entrust to represent us must realize that our story can be theirs if lifee treated? here are others. dan from columbus, indiana, writes -- quote -- "dear senator brown, i am a retired delta airline pilot. during my retirement, delta took my retirement money that i had spent a career of time accumulating and left me out in the cold. the health care tax credit stepped in and helped by giving my family some insurance premium help. now this is being destroyed, too." david from atlanta, georgia -- quote -- "it's very important that the health care tax credit be continued. after losing the pension income and insurance benefits i was promised when i retired from delta, i made significant adjustments to try to compensate for the losses. still, after cutting back, the cost of skyrocketing insurance premiums and two years of trying to sell my house at a substantial reduction of price while competing with foreclosures, the finances of my friends and me continue to erode. "gary from arrowhead,

california --" since delta airlines eliminated my pension and health coverage, i look forward to a kaiser permanent permanentehatc qualified health insurance policy, starting january 1. without this h.t.c. passage, my premiums will be $2,600 a national retail fed ration -- federation, the afl-cio. it's my understanding that most republicans here support it. it's just a few that are blocking the passage of it. on friday, senator sessions objected to a request that senator casey and i made to pass the trade act. i understand his objection. i believe it can be worked obstn does not interfere with the need to move -- i hope this obstruction doesn't interfere with the need to move on this omnibus trade package. these 500 letters, if my colleagues would read two or three of these each, i think they would see how important it is we pass the omnibus trade act. it's about the trade adjustment assistance language. it's about 50,000 -- 50,000 people who will not be able to

afford their health insurance come january 1. happy new year to them. and it also will help us with columbia and other -- colombia and other countries around the world in our trade policy. mr. president, this makes so much sense. we're again tomorrow, probably senator casey and i and some others, will ask for a u.c. tomorrow. i hope that my colleagues can see fit to move forward in this. it's supported by business groups, by labor groups, by the majority of people in this body. i'm hopeful that we can bring in the few people who still disagree make this work for our -- disagree and make this work for our country. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i again thank senator kerry for his indulgence. a senator: mr. president? mr. lemieux: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: mr. president, i've had the opportunity to work out with the senator from massachusetts the -- an amendment to the resolution which i will be offering in a second. but to my colleagues, what this does, we had this discussion the other day on the treaty.

this is an amendment to the resolution that would require within a year's time of ratification, that the president of the united states certify to the senate that the united states will seek to initiate with the russian federation negotiations on the disparity between nonstrategic or tactical nuclear and to make sure that we secure those weapons and reduce the number of tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner. remember, the russians have three of a 10-1 ratio of tactical nuclear weapons over us, 3,000 to 100. not talked about in this treaty. an important issue. this requires that the president will certify within a year's time that the parties are going to sit down and have a negotiation about the disparity, about verification, and about securing these weapons. it's been agreed to by all parties. and with that, mr. president, amendment 4908 has been cleared on both sides. i now ask that the amendment as

modified by the changes at the desk be offered and agreed to. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. kerry: yes, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: we just have to jump through a few hpsen this side. i'm not going to object ultimately but if i could ask the senator if we could just wait for a little longer, i will object at this time but not ultimately and we just need to get this cleared and run -- put all of the next steps together into one effort, if we can. it doesn't mean we couldn't talk about some of the other issues if you want to while we're waiting for that to be ready. i don't know if senator thune -- it might be better even just to wait until we have that. why don't i suggest the absence of a quorum and we'll get that locked up. the presiding officer: the senator from florida has the floor. mr. lemieux: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, i know the senator from florida wants to speak on this amendment but i ask unanimous consent that the following two amendments be considered and agreed to, senator kyl, 4864, and lemieux, 4908, as modified. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: mr. president, does the senator wish to --

mr. lemieux: mr. president, i just want to thank -- the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. la hugh lemieux: thank you. mr. president. i just want to thank the senator from massachusetts for working with us. this is a very important issue on tactical nuclear weapons. i want to thank my friend and colleague from massachusetts for working this out as well as many other colleagues so we could make this happen as part of the ratification. thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: mr. president, i thank the senator -- the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, this is a constructive amendment. we all agree that we need toluc. everybody who testified to us reiterated the importance of that being the next step in terms of our relationship and increased stability. the nato allies have all

suggested that it was essential to get start in place and then be able to proceed to that. so the senator's amendment helps us to be able to make it clear that's the direction we're going to go in and i thank him for his efforts. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask that amendment number 4920 be made pending. the presiding officer: is there an objection? the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i do seeect and i want to say to the delighted to have a discussion with him about this particular issue, but i think given the efforts that we've made thus far to deal with the fixed set of amendments has been affected somewhat by some of those amendments which were late filed

and also not germane really requiring colleagues at the last minute to consider a lot of issues on the floor that are not pertaining directly to the treaty itself. the subject that the senator wants to bring up to talk a rusg matter of foreign policy, and i want to join with the senator in emphasizing that. i look forward to hearing his comments about it. and i think we could have an important colloquy here that could add to the record of our discussions with respect to this treaty without negatively impacting the direction we're moving at this point in time. mr. thune: mr. president, if i might just given that speak to the amendment, and i regret the fact that the amendment can't be -- can't be voted on. i had hoped that the process has been fairly open. there have been a number of amendments that have been considered. this amendment was filed, i think, sometime this afternoon. but i think it does deal with an important subject and a subject

which is germane to the debate that we're having here with regard to the start treaty. because one of the pred cats for approving the start treaty is the s and, of course, the president as recently as november 18, 2010, made a statement that the new start treaty is also a cornerstone our relations with russia for the reason that russia has been fundamental to our efforts to put strong sanctions in place to put pressure on iran to deal with its nuclear program. end quote. accordinaccordingly advice and t is on the expectation that the russian federation will cooperation with the -- cooperate with the united stat states -- nuclear assurance thal those intentions and statements actually come to pass. and it would require the president to certify to the

senate before entry into the -- into force of the new start treaty, one, that the russian federation is in full compliance with all united nationsrussian e united states that it neither has -- that it nor any entity subject to its jurisdiction and control will transfer to s-300 r weapon systems or transfer such items to a third party which will in turn transfer such items to iran. the government of the russian federation assured the united states that neither it nor any entity subject to control will transfer to iran goods, service or technology that contribute to the advancement of the nuclear missle program of the government of iran and government of russian federation assured the united states that it will support efforts at the united nations security council to inpiece political and economic pressure for iran to abandon its

nuclear weapons program. that, mr. president, would be a commitment, a certification thereafter at the end of the seedte pri year, december 31st, of each subsequent year a similar certification would be issued by the president. and, in fact, if -- if the president fails to certify then it would require that he consult with the senate and submit a report whether a u.s. national security interest. and, again, i say this, mr. president, because i think there is a direct connection, a direct kor radification between this treaty -- correlation and this treaty and the effort that utng pressure russians will on iran with regard to its nuclear program and not doing things that would put in jeopardy the security of the region. and i have to say obviously this has a great impact on our great ally, israel, as well as the entire region. it would be very destabilizing if the irans had a nuclear

weapon. so the effort about made by the administration to quote reset s- very clearly by the president as early as november 18 where he recognized that important relationship. and so i would simply say this amendment, i don't think, is anything that anybody here wouldn't agree with. all it simply does is it requires not just a statement russia, but it provides an assurance, a certification that relationship between -- with the administration would make to the senate before the treaty would enter into force i aues ae fairly straightforward. simply requires a condition that the russian federation's in full compliance with all united nations security councilng to i. that the government of the russian federation assures the united states that neither it nor any entity subject to its jurisdiction and control will transfer to iran the s-300 air defense or other advanced weapon systems or any parts there transfer such items to iran. while the s-300 at the -- for

the time being, russia has refrained from doing that there are concerns and reports that russia recently provided tehran with a new radar system allegedly through third party po something that i think is a great concern to america's national security interests as well as those of our allies. so, mr. president, the amendment, again, is very straightforward amendment, requires a certi the -- the entry into force of the treaty and then each year thereafter about those basic conditions that the russians would be in compliance with the u.n. security council resolutions, that they wouldn't be trying to get the s-300 to the irans either directly or indirectly and continue the live pressure on the iranians with respect to their nuclear program which, of course, by the way, mr. president, we know too that the nuclear reactor in beshar is

now producing plutonium. russia has fueled the nuclear reactor there that is now producing plutonium in iran and that is something that i think ought to be of great concern to everybody here as we look at the -- as we pass judgment on this treaty which is obviously important to our relationship with russia, but also bears on the relationship that we have with other countries around the world and i think anybody in the foreign policy community that you talk to today when you ask them what are the most dangerous threats that the united states or its allies faces around the world today, iran and nuclear weapons in the hands of iran tops that list. and so the -- the efforts that we made to persuade the russians to put pressure on the iranians and to make sure that there isn't anything going on there that would destabilize or put in peril america's national security interests is certainly an objective that we have. this would require that the president certify that those

things are taken place rather than relying on the statements an good intentions of the russians. so i wish, mr. president, again, that i could get this amendment up and pending and voted on. i think it's important to have the senate on record with regard to this issue and so i regret that the -- that the amendment has been objected to, but i -- i appreciate the opportunity to at least raise the issue and i certainly hope that it is something that the administration and our leaders here, obviously, in the senate and the entire military establishment in this country pays close attention to in the days ahead. this is an issue that is not going to go away. and i think, again, it bears heavily on this treaty, but i will, with that, conclude my remarks and simply say i wish we had an opportunity to get a vote on it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. mr. president, you know, i think

this is the first time in the course of these seven days that made an objection to anything that we tried to take up, and i'm sensitive to that because we obviously want to provide as much opportunity to go into these issues as is possible. i'd say to my friend from south dakota that i'm happy to stay here with him and do as much as we -- we could do to impress on anybody the importance of the issue that he's raising, but -- the but is this, if we stayed here and went through the process of a vote, which would conceivably take us a lot longer are in terms of the other amendments we've yet to finish tomorrow morning, as well as keep the senate in even later, all the votes i think we've got only one motion to table, almost

every vote has been a straight-up and down vote. the votes have consistently been 60, -- 60-8. and i think the reason this fundamental flaw in the approach of this particular amendment and the others that we've had, because they seek to prevent the treaty from going into force. the language says prior to the entry into force of the new erie of things.he president has now, some of those things may read in a fairly straightforward and literal way, but they're not necessarily all of them things that could be done immediately or are even subject to our control. have actually it can't go into force. and it may never go into force only partially ratified because depending on what happens with some of those things that are out of our control. there are also a lot of reports requested on one thing or

another. i think the mo at this, persona. -- personally that doesn't wind up with a negative impact on treaty that we're hearing from enceeaders they wouldonal like to see ratified and put into effect as rapidly as possible. the effect of this is clearly not to let that happen as rapidly as possible. but the senator is 100% correct about our concern about iran. and we need russian cooperation in to ever have a chance of enforcing the sanctions that have been put in place as well as finding the other tiers of cooperation that are going to be critical as we go forward absent iranian shift in policy. the fact is that what happened through russian cooperation right now is the most significant sanctions that we've been able to put in place

to date have been put in place. and they were largely achieved because of the relationship that president obama has achieved with president medvedev and the reset button and the sense that we are coming together, not going apart. now, it's easy for us in the united states senate to stand here and kind of say, well, we've got to require this and we've got to require that, but a lot of these things i have found increasingly, particularly in this time that i've been chairman of this committee, a lot of the things that we'll sometimes do with good intention in the senate actually very significantly complicate the life and work of our diplomats who spend as to meet some kind of certification as they do during the diplomacy that they're meant to do. so i -- i am happy to work with the senator as chairman of this committee. we will have hearings early next

year on this topic of iran and where we stand with respect to that nuclear program. we will look at this issue of russian cooperation, and we'll look at it hopefully within the context of a start treaty that is going to be ratified by the duma and implemented, and that can only strengthen our resolve, both of our countries, to be able to focus on the challenges of iran. so i -- i thank my colleague. i know -- i have been in that position before where we haven't been able to get an amendment in. i might add, the amendment was filed a day and a half after cloture, in fact, was filed, but that shouldn't -- and i said to jon kyl very clearly, we were going to try to be as flexible as we could, but i think that flexibility needed to be mostly focused on those amendments that directly affect the treaty or are to the treaty in its most

direct sense. this -- if we raised a point of order, this would be an amendment that would be found to be not germane because it is outside of those direct treaty issues. and so with that in mind, i've taken the position that i have taken, but i look forward to working with my colleague if we can as we go forward from here. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would say to my friend from massachusetts that if he would allow me to vote on this, i would try to break that 35-vote threshold that we have seen to yet blow through that cap. and i appreciate the fact that the senator, i think, shares the concerns i have about iran. again, all i would say is i think what this provides is an additional safeguard as we move into this process and we have this treaty and a clearly established connection between what is a great threat, a regional threat and i would

argue threat beyond the region, certainly to our national security as well, the iranian threat and the way that the relationship that we have with russia and this treaty and the good-faith effort that we are making through this treaty with the russians to reset, that this would provide an additional level of assurance that they are, in fact, cooperating and that they are following through on the commitments that they're making to the administration and to -- to us in the -- as we debate this treaty. so, again, i won't blaib -- belabor the point, i think the point has been made. i think this is a germane amendment. i would take issue with the chairman's contention that it's not, but at this particular late hour, i know that in his objection to this, that i'm probably not going to get an opportunity to have this amendment voted on, but i certainly hope that the issue will continue to stay front and center, in front of this body and in front of the armed

services committee on which i serve. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i would say to the senator from south dakota, let's commit to make sure that happens. i certainly do from my part, and i look forward to those hearings next year. perhaps the senator would even want to find a way to take part in them. i thank the chair. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, senator reid asked me a few minutes ago if i would just sort of communicate where we are with respect to the start treaty, and i will do so.

as it stands now, we have two amendments that remain, one is amendment by senator kyl on modernization, which i believe it is the intention, although not yet locked in of the majority leader, to try to take up around 9:00 in the morning. we expect to spend somewhere in the vicinity of about an hour on it, maybe a little bit longer than that to accommodate the speakers for senator kyl. and then there will be one other amendment after that on missile defense. i believe an amendment that will be introduced by senator corker and senator lieberman together, and so that amend will be the last barrier remaining before we can get to the final vote ontrey on the negotiations going on and discussions with respect

9/11 first responders, those are discussions taking place now, depending on that, we will have a better sense of when final vote will be able to take place. trying to figure that out in the context of flights and family and other things. our hope is that will become clearer in the next minutes, hours, senate. so, mr. president, that's the lay of the land, and i believe believe -- i know the chairman of the armed services committee and the ranking member have made their request to the senate regarding the defense authorization bill. so our hope is that tomorrow morning, we can move rapidly through the remaining two amendments. it may even be possible for us to accept the amendment on the missile defense, and we're working on that language now. if that happens, obviously, it

will clear t of a finalo vote t anarlier again, dependent on this discussion regarding the 9/11 first responders. so that's the state of play for the time being. we will -- i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. madam president, i rise this evening to talk about a program that's of great importance to our citizens across america who are struggling to access legal services. there is a program that is called the interest on lawyer trust accounts, interest on lawyer trust accounts, or iolta. and this is a very interesting

arrangement that i wasn't familiar with until i came to the u.s. senate. but essentially iolta, this interest on lawyer trust accounts, works like this. when lawyers need to put money into a trust account so they're putting it in on behalf of a -- of a client or on behalf of an estate, it is not allow under the law for the client to earn interest. however, there is an arrangement that has been made over the years in which agree to pay interest on their accounts since they are accessing that -- those deposits, those funds, but that the interest gets donated to legal services for poor americans across the united states of america. so it's a win-win. the -- the client isn't allowed

to get interest, the banks pay interest to benefit low-income americans across our nation. that is the structure of the iolta accounts. now, all 50 states have these programs. 42 states require lawyers to deposit client funds that cannot earn net interest for the client into these iolta accounts so that they will earn interest pay for civil legal services for the poor. and during the financial crisis, the fdic created a program to guarantee that business and trust checking accounts that do not pay interest are insured, they're guaranteed, and iolta was included in this because they do not pay interest to the client. now, the dodd-frank reform bill that we had extended these arrangements for two years for

accounts that do not pay interest to the clients. but they forgot to include the iolta accounts that do not pay interest to the clients but do pay interest that goes to fund civil legal services for poor americans in all 50 states. so we are seeking to fix this glitch, and i that hundreds of thousands of americans who don't otherwise have access to legal services are in a position to benefit when they need such services across our nation. now, in oregon, we have the oregon law foundation, the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that administers legal aid for the poor. they benefited to the tune of over a million dollars in revenue in 2009. when interest was a little better, they had more revenue in

2008, $2.2 million, and that was a decrease from 2007, $3.6 million. so as interest rates have declined, the amount of funds that have gone to fund legal service to the poor have declined, but still, a few million dollars is better than none in terms of providing assistance. now, in a case like this oregon law foundatio, iolta funding makes up 95% of their total revenue, so if the guarantee is not extended for two more years, we have a real problem and it works like this. a lawyer has a fiduciary responsibility to a client to put the funds into an account that protects the client, so they won't be able to put the funds into an iolta account if it's not guaranteed if they have the option of putting it into a

non-interest bearing fund that is guaranteedhis, the banks' willingness to pay interest and the funding that goes for legal services across our nation will disappear. now, i riseonig to talk about this because the deadline for this is december 31 and so we have a bill to fix this before the senate. but we have, as you are familiar with the abilities to put on holds, we have a situation where a senator has put a hold on. and i want to -- i think in general this hasn't gotten much attention, the fact that -- that assistance to low-income americans across this country will be deeply damaged even if 99 senators support this because we don't have 100 senators. so i'm rising to make a --

basically an appeal to my colleagues to take and look at the legal programs in your state that are funded and the legal education programs that are funded and recognize that what we have here is a lose-lose if we don't change this law. and that lose-lose is legal education and legal services. now, the banks will actually make more money because they won't have to pay interest, so you have a lose-lose and a win; a loss for the poor, a loss for the students on legal education, and a win with greater profits for banks. now, in this situation, the banks have been stellar, absolutely stellar citizens of our communities. we have in oregon a host of banks that not only pay interest on these lawyer trust funds but they have agreed to maintain a florida of -- a floor

leadership banks recognized by the oregon law foundation -- and i believe that this is a year-end 2009 -- included -- and so i'm basically saying thank you to these banks for -- for being involved in this program. the albina community bank, the bank of the cascades, the bank of the west, capital pacific bank, century bank, columbia river bank, key bank, northwest bank, people's bank o cmerce, the pioneer trust bank, premier west bank, sousla bank, south valley bank and trust, the bank of auswego, the commerce bank of oregon, umpqua bank -- a bank that originated in southern oregon in timber county, douglas county, where i come from -- u.s. bank, washington trust ba

bank, and wells fargo. so all of these banks have been willing to pay interest on these trust -- lawyer trust accounts knowing thatht ey are doi work in the community by assisting legal programs. now, i mentioned one of those programs in oregon. let me mention a couple more. juvenile rights project -- it provides legal services to children and families who do not otherwise have the means to retain counsel. through individual representation in juvenile court and school proceedings and through classwide advocacy. the legislature and public agencies. it has the only help line offering legal advice for children and teenagers in oregon. so that's the juvenile rights project. disability rights oregon, the oregon advocacy center of the disability rights oregon, also is assisted.

it provides statewide legal services to oregonians with disabilities who are victims of abuse or neglect or have problems obtaining health care or special education, housing, employment, public benefits, access to public and private services. oregonians with disabilities look to o.a.c. -- that is, the oregon advocacy center of the disabilities rights oregon -- to protect and advocate for their rights in court with public agencies and with the state legislature. the classroom law project promotes understanding of the law and legal process for 15,000 elementary and secondary students in the state of oregon by incorporating the lessons and principles of democracy into school curriculum. their programs include the high school mock trial competition -- that's an extraordinary competition. if anyone has seen how a high school student can blossom when preparing for a mock trial, when preparing to argue before his or

her peers the facts of a case and the legal principles of a case, it's an enormous educati education. the summer institute training for teachers that then enables those teachers to better aress issues of law and legal process in their classrooms. and the "we, the people" program on the constitution and bill of rights. a lot of us often carry the constitution. a lot of us understand that it is the foundation for government of, by and for the people. and we want our children to get an education in the constituti constitution, and this is funded in this -- in this fashion. and then we have citizens who are trying to pursue their ability to get into a hom mortgagmommymortgage modificati,

such as the hamp program, home modification program, famil of domestic violence. so here is the situation. families addressing domestic violence, families addressing wrongful home foreclosures, children, juveniles seeking legal assistance, the disabled seeking issues regarding access to health care or special education or housing or employment, the classroom law project that educates -- helps educate our children about the constitution, about the bill of rights, that funds mock trial competitions, that funds you remember summer e training for teachers. these are the type of tremendous programs that are funded through the interest on lawyer trust accounts. that line of funding due to a technical oversight ends on

december 31. so i am rising tonight to appeal to my colleagues, if yo you aree senator who is holding this up, encourage you to get the facts 0 states participate, and let this funding provided by a wonderful arrangement between the banks and our lawyers on these trust accounts, let this go forward. who knows the thousands, the mutt timemultiples of thousandsl be assisted in challenging situations if we fix this before we adjourn? thank you, madam president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in legislative session and as if in morning business to process some cleared legislative items. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5470 received from the house and at theexclude an extey for certain security or life safety alarm and surveillance system components from the application of certain energy efficiency standards under the energy policy and conservation act. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a their time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements relating to the measure appear at the place -- at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection.

er kerr madam president -- mr. kerry: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 720, h.r. 4445. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 720, h.r. 4445, an act to as indian country certain lands held in trust for indian publos. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, i ask that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate. the presiding officer: without objection.sete proceed to the ie consideration of calendar number 701, s. 3903. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 701, s. 3903, a bill to authorize leases for up to 99 years for

lands held in tstcer:s there objection to proceeding to the measure. without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: madam president, i further ask that the committee reported amendments be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time andmotion to reconn the table with no intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that senator webb, be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills and direct resolutions beginning december 27th through 11:59 a.m., monday, january 3, 2011. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: call:

quorum call: