issue to me, this is a big issue, and i have to say i think that some of these issues have been raised publicly not classified ones and i am very concerned about what we are doing to our country and the world because the rest of the world depends on what we do year. and it's serious stuff. i want to thank my colleagues for standing firm on this and hopefully we will still have a chance to have friends on the other side bring this up next year at a set time when i think probably more people will vote for it. >> it really does appear that the administration wanted the treaty so that leedy agreed to a that a treaty devotee of the reason they're trying to rush it through the end of the year in a lame-duck session when most americans aren't paying attention is because they know is a hugely consequential issue and which the date we have on the amendment offered by senators

mccain and barrasso i thought shed an important light on the linkages that exist in the treaty between the strategic arms in defense of strategic arms and how that limits our options and forward with regard to missile defense if we want to keep the russians in the treaty and we fought for the evidence and certifications on the tactical weapons and they have all been addressing the substance of this bill one of which as a senator kyl pointed out a single democrat has voted for coming and the important role the senate please in this isn't just the consent, not to rubber-stamp. it's to take these important issues on which there are substantial disagreements to try to improve and strengthen and make this treaty better and so far it seems to me at least the democrats have sort of decided they want to get this through, they don't want to consider any amendments and they certainly aren't making democrats available to vote for any of the amendments we are offering. so, it is unfortunate we would

have been better served if we had been able to get this and next year. when you have the new senators coming in who have an important i think part to play this and something to say about it so it would have been just as easily have asserts have mentioned it to push into ja year. >> "the new york times" just released the first draft of the treaty and one of the things included was the security breach occurred to get this document and it says we will not discuss the treaty until you agree to either eliminate the site, to eliminate the ground-based interceptor that you plan to place in poland come period. and of course, none of that is referred to in the treaty because long before the treaty

was finalized in september of 2009 this is administration unilaterally was shocked and dismayed and modification of our allies in poland and the czech republic and announced that we were in eliminating which would have been deployable by 2016 the armenians have been the ability to hit by 2015 according to the national intelligence estimate, and that implementation deployment of the system would have no impact on the ability of the russian missiles to hit the united states. they go over and would not affect russia but still russia objected and i believe it's become clear to me now this is the way the negotiations went down, and that was a fundamental aggregation of many years of strategic plan of the united states of america and it shouldn't have happened.

when you want a treaty to bad you get one bad. i do believe that this out a fenestration wanted the treaty to badly and the russians understood and they negotiated for more effectively than we did. i do believe when you have a fundamental philosophy that we could go to zero nuclear weapons in the world you are not going to be the kind of effective negotiators you should be and these kind of tense situations and perry schlesinger report on nuclear policy for america's legislation i sponsored bipartisan legislation and armed services committee they reported we are not going to get to zero nuclear weapons until there's a fundamental transformation of the international world order. in other words that's diplomatic language saying it is never going to happen and it is never going to happen. so anyway, i think we should have more time to discuss all of this and i've been disappointed

it's been rushed through now and we could have had a much more important data about the real strategic situation of the united states of america, with our threats are and the number one threat is not whether russia has 12,000 or 1500 nuclear weapons. it comes from iran, south korea and other places around the world. north korea, excuse me. >> we join millions of americans who are just outraged. that's something i heard from someone last week. they are tired of being outraged. for the last two years this administration and this congress is crammed down the throats of the american people bills that no one wanted that haven't kept their promises. this majority promised as well as the president that the stimulus bill would keep unemployment below 8%, that all the mortgage bailouts would get our housing market going again, that the health care bill would lower the cost of health care

and health care premiums. it's clear that with the administration is doichngcking h the promises because the promises haven't been kept. and it's clear with this treaty they are trying to cram something else down the throats of the american people under the cover ofr the conference has just been changed by the american people coming and people are rightly outraged. as has been noted this treaty was negotiated from a position of weakness. theat, but to compromise our ability to defend ourselves, to develop our own the missile defense systemas been made in this bill and it's 1i cannot accept and one might wish we could to beat in public at a time when people were paying attention. but rightly the are not looking at politics right now, they are

celebrating the christmas holiday, and the fact that we are doing this under the cover of christmas is our backstop with a lame-duck congress many have just been thrown out of office is something to be outraged about. it's a bad treaty, it is flawed, there'nent by the democrats to even listen to input because we've been told any changes would mean the treaty fails so we are being asked to rubber-stamp it and i would join everyone here today saying i want to be a part of that. >> well briefly i think you probably heard everything that needs to be said and then some, but this is not a partisan issue. the security of the people of the united states of america is and should be a concern of both political parties. we started out with this treaty, and we have made and thank center kyle very substantial progress in one of the several

areas that is a problem with this treaty. obviously that is modernization. senator kyl has brought that issue a long way from where we started but there are other issues and this is a missed opportunity because the rush to read the second one to me and one of the most important ismii. russia is not the lead problem or concern for america when it comes to a nuclear threat. we have authority year history with these people, we didn't pull the trigger on them, they haven't pulled the trigger on the acid that is through thick and thin and bad and good, yet the world has changed dramatically since the original treaty was negotiated and put in place. we have two very, very serious concerns and some others that actually come ahead of the russian concern. we ought to be focused on a limited attack because they have limited resources for meter north korea or from iran, and

instead what we are doing is we have a treaty with the unilateral statements by the russians are said we have tested the americans again. they can't defend themselves by building or improving their missile defense system. if i lived on the eastern sea coast of the united states, i would be very, very concerned about that turn of events. my point is if we did this right and we took the time we were supposed to take i feel that we could have had the answer to that particular issue along with the tactical weapons issue and a member of the other issues and brought them substantially further along and we have a missed opportunity here. thank you. >> we can take questions if tore are any. point out the fact that we believe this process has not enabled us to consider this treaty in the serious i will be a lot of our colleagues will agree. i would note that we haven't had

a simple amendment to the resolution of ratification considered yet and we are about to have a cloture vote. i hope we can get some of the votes up. yesterday evening when i tried there was an objection so that just illustrates the fact we have not been able to work this treaty the way it should e worked. >> can you comment on the fact it appears as though your effort to push this into next year is not going to work. we know what least six republicans on record supporting ratification more than three or four more that are ready to go. >> to make in the early part of the lame-duck i joined with senator kafeel to see if we can dispose of the taxes and fund the government then move to s.t.a.r.t.. he agreed that if we started wednesday -- to wednesday's ago actually funded the government,

which we have yet to do, by the way, get taxes tongue, which happened last thursday, that we could have a serious debate about s.t.a.r.t. in the lame duck. i can't tell you how principled senator kyl has been in his concerns but how reasonable he has been with his colleagues. we are not reasonable to him. i stand here very disappointed in the fact that our lead negotiator on the republican side, who is very serious about the treaty, very willing to work with colleagues on both sides of the i always going to have his product ignored and the tre duc. republicans justify that i do not know, because i know that five weeks from now he would give the administration a date certain so there would be a debate beor to see the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, i'm trying to avoid that day. he wants to have a debate in the

way we can be proud of. i am not proud of this process or the lame duck. i am not proud of what we have e we've jeopardized the minority standing in the future congress. we are sitting in a lame-duck i think is not healthy for the future of this country, so about next year i would urge my colleagues to understand senator kyl will join with them to make sure the ihe proposed, vote on the treaty and to the and we can have an up or down new colleagues coming into this congress, some people seem to fear you that a lot of what we are doing in the lame duck is to avoid the consequences of the election. i am not of that persuasion. i believe the republicans that are coming, i know many of them well and have asked by letter don't do this until we get there. we just got elected and every one of them signed a letter saying we would like to be part of the tvd and here we are the

week before christmas about to pass potentially the treaty that will follow the country's national security for decades if we give up missile defense capabilities to lure the russian total from 201500 we will have made a strategic mistake in terms of the threats we actually face because jim is right of the real threat is a rogue state missile attacks. so what we are about to do is negotiate a way something we desperately need in h. con. res. that doesn't represent the will of the people. so to senator kyl, let it be said that you did your best to make this treaty as good for america as possible, you were willing to consider it next year

because you didn't believe we could get there this year if things fall apart and let it be said you were willing to consider it this year. everything you said you were concerned about has come true and i am just really disappointed, and to senator kyl, i want to apologize to you for the we've been treated by your colleagues. >> are you talking about the s.t.a.r.t. issue or the entire year lame-duck? >> i'm talking about the entire lame-duck, not just my party. we are at 13% in the eyes of the american people. we negotiated a tax deal that was a win-win. we had to do something about taxes because everybody's taxes were going to go up. in addition to being the s.t.a.r.t. negotiator he was the tax negotiator. there are people out of work at 9.8% unemployment they had to have relief. we provided them relief. we need to fund the government. we had a monstrosity bill he helped defeat 1.2 trillion hopefully we can find a way to

fund the government in the next few days. i am not proud of this congress in the sense that we have used it in a fashion that is unhealthy. when you filled the tree you make the senate to the house and when you take an important topic like immigration and you have a fault the tree rule 14 old nobody is not going to pass to make immigration more partisan, not less, i don't like that. "don't ask, don't tell" is an emotional issue with both sides of the story. whether you agree with me or disagree with me, filling up the tree and having no amendments allowed isn't a good way to make major military policies. so that is my disappointment. i know why 13% of the people in this country approve of us 87% don't like us because the way we do our business. >> there was a report yesterday offered to support the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty if the administration would delay the

mass "don't ask, don't tell" until next year is that true? >> no, let's start with s.t.a.r.t.. i've been worried about jamming the congress with a variety of things to it i didn't want to dream that vote the way we did it. we are doing the 9/11 bell apparently. i wanted to do the s.t.a.r.t. treaty first, focus on it, fund the government and then do taxes, so my concerns about the treaty are real. i really am concerned that the russians are going to make conditions that allow us never to develop missile defense. i am not making this up, i am concerned about the nuclear weapons not being counted. to all of the secretary of state's i appreciate what you're telling us. you are right we do need a treaty. but when you say to our nato to deploy three stages by you're going to develop the fourth stage, the audience commodore telling them we are never going to get in conflict with russia, don't worry about that and write us a

letter suggesting as you will go to the four stages that needs to be decided. what good are you doing the world if you pass the treaty and it comes on done? if we are serious about developing the four stages of missile defense as we should be and the russians are telling us you do that we are going to leave the treaty you will have destabilized the world. it's better to not do the treaty than it is to create a treaty that cannot stand the view of the party so that is my only concern that we are going to do a treaty in a fashion that will come back to haunt us. we will compromise the missile defense capabilities and we are setting up a conflict with the russians that would be unhealthy for the united states and the russians. ..

>> sunder lugar and i were extremely encouraged and gratified with a vote of 67 to 28 to now moved the last hours of debate on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i think what that does want to pull attention to and express our gratitude for the bipartisanship. this would not have happened without bipartisanship. and i'm very grateful to a number of senators. i'll talk and maybe a little more tomorrow, on the other side

of the aisle, who decided this was the moment to act for the national security interest of our country. at this issue did not belong in our politics, but rather in our minds in terms of how to protect the nation. i think we've listened to the advice and admiral mullen, secretary gates, our national security personnel, the nuclear security agency and all of those folks who really had day-to-day expertise on these kinds of issues. we will now go to a series of amendments. we're going to try and do as many amendments as possible. and hopefully tomorrow morning or at the latest, early tomorrow afternoon, we would have a vote on final passage of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i will comment that today we had a number of senators who were not here, who will vote for this

treaty. senator gregg, senator biden, senator wyden. so today, in many ways, you can look at it as almost 70 boats. and i would say to you that in today's washington -- at a senate commerce 70 doses yesterday's 95. i feel pretty good about that, where we've gotten to. we're continuing obviously to have a robust debate and looking forward to the senate doing what it does best, which is a really important, thoughtful debate about our national security concerns. senator lugar. >> i congratulate the chairman again on his leadership and i would emphasize the point that this was a bipartisan vote today in a bipartisan consideration. i am hopeful that republicans will contribute more votes on final passage, but i am indebted to all who voted aye today

because it was a very strong momentum factor. i would also emphasize that the chairman is mentioned about the very strong letter of tedout, s, jenna bill cartwight and others who are saying to those who would suggest that we might in fact have another year of hearings marked a with ultimate consideration, that international security interests, we need a new s.t.a.r.t. treaty now. but for well over year we have said new boot omicron in russia in russia. i take that very seriously and i am not the only one experience. i went over to russia after the last election in 2008 when the president selection. because at that point, the administration had really stopped negotiation and indicated it was the foreign secretary of russia, laphroaig,

that the united states is going to negotiate and he was pleased that was the case and i congratulate the president. they did i think a superb job with a limited treaty. but i guess it's back on the chart to talk about some other subjects that are important to talk about, including the smaller nuclear warheads and other situations in russia. i would just we are not inhibited for one moment in terms of our missile defense. not inhibited in one moment for the defense of our country. we've made very clear and we have renegotiation. so i am pleased we are at this point and the chairman is still strong. i will try to stay alert and in 30e w treaty. >> you just sort of alluded to

win a vote on ratification might happen. the third agreement on how many and honesty are aware be allowed? >> is not a formal agreement, but the senator has submitted a understanding. we do have an agreement to have a fairly collegiate loose net approach to the next hours. and i think both sides are acting in good faith on that debate, so we'll take the amendments as they come alo sup? >> i don't like any of them. i don't want to amend this treaty. there are a couple of things we are prepared to accept. we had a few changes and were working on them. i am currently talking to senator mccain about the missile defense and senator corker about a piece on missile defense. i don't want to say to like any of them. that's too easy a dismissal of legitimate efforts here and i don't want us to do that. i think that there are words

here or there that unfortunately can create unintended consequences that we need to try to deal with. if we do with those appropriately, i think we can get over to the russians into the world the message that some people are trying to send. so i look forward to working with them. >> when you expect to move to the next arms-control agenda items? >> there is no -- there's been no talk about that right now. none whatsoever. in fact, there is another treaties on the agenda. folks, we've got to pass this treaty. we haven't finished our work yet. we've got to get the job done. [inaudible] >> there's a lot of the mccain amendment were prepared to accept. it's a reaffirmation of some of the things we think are out in the resolution of ratification. but i understand the need to try to frame the message in the way

the president, secretary of state on this date. i think there is something we can certainly say to senator mccain, who is a reasonable way to do this. it's going to be attuned to decide whether he thinks this will accomplish his goal and his reasonable. [inaudible] >> -- and then has an impact with other countries to start demanding -- [inaudible] >> if i were the case, would he happy, but that's not the understand of the treaty. we get to understand her to go most places that we notify them some 32 hours out and everything freezes that that's easily get to go to the base and make the inspection. we can tell whether or not there is a free spirit not to mention the fact that i assume long ahead of time we will be focused on where we want to go and notr. so if there is language in a

couple of the amendments, which i haven't seen yet, will consider that. but that's not an issue in terms of the treaty. we declare where we want to go and win. any other questions? >> senator mcconnell obviously on sunday came out in opposition to this treaty with the expectation that kind of reversed the momentum. do you think that was a strategic mistake but what does it say about leadership? >> first of all, i don't make choices or comment on the leadership of the party. that is their decision. i would say this. mitch mcconnell is accepted by us by a very smart and favorable leader. he has told his caucus together on many number of difficult votes over the course of the year and i certainly have respect for his leadership ability. i think he was just announcing his opposition to the treaty.

i wouldn't read any larger thing into it. senator luker may have a comment on that, but int that several of us had opportunities to talk about the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i had the privilege of being the third chairman on one of those shows. both indicated were in favor of it and the reasons for that. we are hopeful that all of our members -- [inaudible] >> not to my knowledge, but any event, let me just say thaone oe with our colleagues. we have not been idle in terms of visitations, any of us. and so, the vote today stands as the days come as people have made up their minds. >> senator lugar, you have been mum on train for months calling about. [inaudible] do you feel vindicated that impact turnout to be the case

and you now feel that the months to month negotiation is senator kyl, you know, probably went on to launch? >> you know, i'm not going to let that sort of question poison the well. whatever i might have estimated or advised, it is just simply does that we have moved as we have diplomatically and people have had their say and we are where we are. >> let me just say, we came here today simply to inform you over the process is. this is not over. and you know, we have to count every vote and stay on this and continue to deal with the amendments appropriately. and they sent me on the senate in its this treaty, it's a victory for the country, not a victory for anyone else. a victory for the country and that's what we're looking for. thank you all. [inaudible conversations]

>> members of congress and a group of 9/11 responders held a news conference to support pa bill that would compensate people suffering from illnesses contracted while working near ground zero after the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. will hear first from new that would compensate people suffering from illnesses contracted while working near ground zero after the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. will hear first from new that would compensate people suffering from illnesses contracted while working near ground zero after the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. will hear first from new that would compensate people suffering from illnesses contracted while working near ground zero after the september 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks. will hear first from new his 50 minutes. [applause] >> thank you for joining us. before we hear from our first responders who have called this press conference to hear from coming here their stories, to hear their personal pleased to her senate. i want to correct some of the misinformation that is out there about this bill. first, the method that this bill has been rushed. let me assure you, we've been working on this bill for nine years. my predecessor, secretary hillary clinton started working on this bill in the senate in 2006. i introduced the first bill in the senate 18 months ago. we've had a hearing in the senate. i've worked with republican colleagues. i've witnessed they are concerned and make changes in response to those concerns. some have said we haven't had enough hearing to examine this bill. in fact, there have been 22 hearings on this bill. twenty-one in the house. every committee jurisdiction is passed out the bill with many republican amendment.

the summit said they haven't had enough to propose the changes to legislation. this is false. i've worked with republicans on the other side of the aisle who are interested in this bill and it taken their concerns. and the only request they have made to me is to change how we pay for the bill and that's why we offer changes that we have now seen to reach agreement on. some have suggested that the new ways we are going to pay for this bill are controversial. first of all, unlike so many pieces of legislation here in washington, this bill is fully paid for. second, two thirds of this bill are ways to pay for the bill that has been voted on what the vast majority of the senate supporting a way to pay for the bill. so this is a pay for the bill has passed support by republicans. it has taken us nine years to get to this point.

and my hope is that these men and women who stand with me today and although satire here to represent her at the finish line. the men and women here today are the voices for the thousands who are our first responders. thousands were picked comes and thousands of men and women who answered the call to duty when they were asked. when senators hear their stories and learn of what is happening to them, their horrific diseases, the n have, the terrie sacrifices they have made, i know that they will come together for this bill whose moral obligation we have to our first responders and to all those who hurt the nation call and answer that call on 9/11 and thereafter. now i'm going to ask my colleagues each to speak very briefly from their hearts about this bill. senator schumer.

[applause] >> thank you, everybody. and we are here together with a plea to every senator and house member. keep the call, don't delay, pass the bill. the bottom line is very simple. i believe we now have the votes to prevail. the only thing standing in our way is people who might want to run out the clock. they can't succeed with the vote, so they are going to try to delay and delay and delay until time runs out. we plead with them. please do not do that. that is not very. that is not right. and that lies in the face of america, an america that says, when you risk your life for us, we will be there for you when you get injured. that has been our tradition.

we say to those who want to run out the clock on the don't break the grand tradition on the backs of the police and firefighters and construction workers and first responders who rushed to those powers bravely. i would plead with my colleague from oklahoma, tom coburn. he's a friend. he's a good man. he is very meticulous about legislation. please don't stop this bill. we all know what it is and what it stands for. we all know if it doesn't happen now, but it's very unlikely to ever happen again. it is all too easy to say i'd like to start the idea and let's start over. but when you have cancer, you can't start over. and so, all these heroes are asking for is an up or down vote before christmas waiting until next year would be

a lump of coal and we will not stand for it. enough, enough, enough with the delays. these are american heroes. this is a matter of life and death. they didn't wait a minute before rushing to ground zero, but their government has been waiting nine years and they cannot wait any longer. again, a plea to every member of the house and senate, democrats and republican, please don't delay. don't put obstacles on the track to derail know the votes are there and the american people are behind us. thank you. [applause] now i'd like to introduce my colleague, frank lautenberg, who has been a knee-jerk, new jersey an american issue and our colleagues from across the river

has been brave. >> thank you very much, senator gillibrand and senator schumer for the work you've done and i wanted the others to face up to the truth of their responsibilities. it is just past nine years since the greatest tragedy on american soil since the civil war took place. it took place in new york city, but it was a national tragedy. it was a national, therefore, responsibility. you know, in order to confirm what has been said by my colleagues, i would just look at what people at ground zero. for example, taxes, nearly 270,000 workers are being monitored. in florida, nearly 870 people of

workers are being monitored. workers are visitors. arizona -- arizona where we have a national hero. john mccain. he knows what war is like and he knows what rules are like. arizona, 120 workers are people. georgia, 260. the story, almost 200 are being monitored for health problems that they acquired at ground zero. so i asked the senators, friends, tommy that he would say to those who died, whose families were last at pearl harbor, do you say sorry, we can't treat you. or at the belgian bulge or normandie, i was a soldier at that time. say to them, no, sorry.

we can't afford to take care of you. we can afford to give a of a lot of money to rich people who don't eat it and many who are willing to forget about it. we can't do that. but to say to the people, many of whom who rushed in there knowing very well out to take tr responsibilities for their national -- for their friends at the nation. the friends they never knew, but they still felt a responsibility for her. the sin, to the senators who are willing to stand up there and say no. say no. when you say no, say i am going to say no to every war veteran who was hurt and i don't give a about your health care. don't let them do that. [applause]e of passage. there could be no greater gift to america this holiday season and helping to save the lives of the first veterans of the war

against terror. it's the right thing to do. it's the right time to do it. it's even great season to do it and it may be our last chance. the brave men and women who rushed into burning buildings to save the lives of others, who worked on toxic piles. they should not be forced to wait any longer. or worse yet, so this important outcome of this life saving bill for them and their families split with her fingers. it's been nearly seven years since jerry and i introduced the first version of the health of compensation act. we have held 21 hearings. we have held many meetings in washington. we have worked with our leadership. they are supporting us. we have a simple message today. congress cannot leave until this bill is passed. we have the votes we believe now to pass the bill. the only question we have is, do

we have the time and the political will to get this bill done? said today, we are asking our congressional leaders and president obama, to speak out and use the bully pulpit to urge the senate republican leadership not to try to run out the clock on this bill. it is the ninth inning and we need a good closure to win the game. mr. president, please step up to the mound for those who worked on the pio. we need to work together to rescue the 9/11 rescuers. let's do the right thing. let's do the patriotic thing. with this bill, we enshrined in the our sacred pledge to never forget. there could be no greater gift for america this holiday season, for heroes and our heroines and to pass this important bill. they were there for us. we need to be there for them. it's the humanitarian thing to

do and it is the right public policy. thank you. [applause] >> well, i just wanted to join with my say, i remember when president bush went to the world trade center site and in response to sun he says i hear you. ll, i ur individuals who sacrificed and in essence give up their health in order to respond to the nation. a grateful nation not only goes to a 11th commemoration and takes pictures with the first responders. a grateful nation honors their service by how we take care of them in their health care, how we take care of their disabilities and ultimately for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, how we take care of those who are the loved ones left behind.

to me, i believe that the men and women who responded on that day in the days afterwards, they wore a uniform. we pride ourselves on how we take care of the men and women who wear the uniform of the unitta firefighters, urgency management personnel. as much as i want to be with my family during this holiday, i want my family to be protected by men and women like this who responded to the call and didn't think about the consequences to weeverlves. chintzy drug, a new jersey and for this bill is named after was the new york police officer. he spent 450 hours at the world trade center site. his only protection against the papa sends the were being emitted was a paper mask aired he didn't think about himself. he didn't think about the consequences. he answered the call to his country. and his country, he passed away two years ago.

this country needs to answer the call today to all of those who served just like him. [applause] >> it's been nine years since the united states, not new york, the united states was attacked by al qaeda. it's been nine years since the first responders and police officers and firefighters, to emt technicians, volunteers ran into the buildings. it's been nine years since the secretary of health -- the secretary -- head of the epa falsely assured everybody that the aiwa to breathe. it's been nine years since all the first responders worked for hours and days and weeks with the respiratory protection and not toxic soup, relying on the incorrect assurances from the

federal government. been nine years since we all incurred a double moral obligation to these people. when moral obligation because they are americans who responded to their countries need in more many of them would not be sick if the federal government hadn't wrongly assured that the air was safe to breathe and have the federal government to enforce the law that said that they should have been wearing respirators as the law was enforced at the pentagon but not in new york. so we have a heavy moral obligation. it'sn years since caroline and the wedding night introduced the first version of this year. it's been 22 hearings ago that we introduced the bill. it burns me up when i hear someone say, we have no time. we shouldn't rush it. nine years is not rushing it. twenty-two hearings is not rushing to.

we had here in the server a fewo died of rare cancers among diseases at the average age of 46 because of what they did and what we haven't done. it is time to pass this legislation. if this is a decent moral country must pass this legislation. i saw on fox news this morning someone say well, it may be a good idea or find legislation, but why don't you reduce the cost? well, we have reduced the cost. we inched reduce the built-in $.4 billion. then it became 7.4. not 6.2. we oppose the bill, narrow the bill. we have focused the bill, as chuck has said in another context, we have focused in holland and narrowed the bill so it can be focused and honed and neared no more. there was no specific objection

that i've heard from anybody. i have heard we shouldn't rush the bill and so forth. well, let's be moral. and we appealed to senator coburn. but the vote occur. if you want to vote against it but against a pupil at the occur. let not these men and women, these hundreds of thousands of men and women who put their lives on the line suffer further because you don't want to let a vote occur. this vote mustrge our leadershie an house to keep in session as long as necessary. we urge the president to do what he can offend sure he will. , let this vote occurr all [applause] >> president of the uniformed fire officers to believe that when the 343 fire officers and

firefighters died on 9/11 and, domestic annoyance, each and every one, but that was the end of it. let's not even getting to the thousands of civilians that were killed that day. and if that were true, then we could move on. we would grieve, as we do, and the fun. but the truth of the matter is we deal with the sick and dying and the grief of that on a daily basis. we were assured by the medical expert that we might find some illnesses to our members, maybe 10 to 20 years time. and what happened? respiratory elements began almost immediately, which was kind of shocking. because of congressman mackler said, we were sure the air was safe to breathe by a federal agency. the cancers begin maybe a couple years later. cancer. have we no more scary word in e.

the uniformed fire officers association in just the last year has lost six heroic offices entre officers. lieutenant tommy roberts, who teeter sold, esophageal cancer. prior to 9/11, and history of the fire department, we had only lost one member to esophageal cancer. post 9/11, we have lost eight. world trade center related? i ask you. married with two daughters. captain kevin cassidy, a personal close friend of mine. we studied together. we went up through the ranks. he died as a captain. should bee wearing the uniform of a deputy chief of plan. he died of pancreatic cancer. two daughters. i speak to his wife almost every other day. our conversations almost never end without tears. lieutenant bobby has, 46 years

old, also another colleague to work for me. worked for me.the trade center. for weeks as we looked, searching, but wise people and the weeks after during the recovery. he was unyielding in his work of that. he was there for six months. when he let the trade units. i can assure you, he was an extremely competent and incompetent officer. forty-six who sold, the father of four young children, not with us today. lieutenant peter fahrenkopf, brain cancer. battalion chief on john, married, two daughters, cancer. lieutenant kerry harry wanamaker, married, four children, cancer. i have two members. i won't use their last name because they are alive. they will be alive at the conclusion of 2011.

lieutenant john, esophageal cancer. he will be number nine. battalion chief tom, pancreatic cancer. so cancer is a scary word. bumy biggestr will town and thas unconscionable. and contrary to their sworn out by the very people that elected them. i urge them to stay in town, to get the deal done and protect these heroes standing behind me. thank you and god bless. [applause] >> next speaker is bill ramaca. >> thank you, senator. what you think our senators, senator gillibrand, senator schumer for their steadfast support of this. that's what you think the international association of firefighters and the afl-cio.

the want to bring everybody's attention to just a couple days ago. we lost this story gains age 40 who passed away due to the world trade center service. before he became a firefighter, in the early 2001, he spent six years in the marines. he was the type of guy that she wanted to be working next to. he is going to be missed and was loved by everybody. i was asked to join personal story. i'm not going to tell a personal story for the fact that her too many people. what are my lieutenant's widow and the other people i work with. so i could just tell you that on that day we lost a lieutenant for my company and we also went for the people who are now on disability. a 29-year-old firefighter who only had two or three years on. and a 32-year-old firefighter who had two kids and a 35-year-old firefighter with three kids. a 48 euros chauffeur who i found out that today was covered head

to don the dust of 9/11. i didn't let them out of my sight that day. stop fooling around at these numbers will need a lifetime of benefit the drug of buildings life or death to them and the quality of life. since 9/11, we have over 1800 fire fighters and fire officers who have been forced to retire on disability and the struggle in the future to maintain the quality of life were being hampered by their assorted disabilities. as you know, firefighters cannot do their job correctly with severe pulmonary problems, nor could they be put in harms way to put it there conditions worse. currently, the ft what and why pension fund has certified 26 members of dying from the world trade center related diseases. i'm here to tell you that since 9/11 there've been over 120 firefighters who have passed away, who served that day. of that number, with high

probability, there are 42 to 48 firefighters and fire up the stairs who are no longer with us. now members keep reliving the nightmares of 9/11 is helping to perpetuate the problseake this s again, but it's the rest of the world. mr. president, is that to you. make it happen. thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker is the john [applause] >> what is john going to say now? no soundbite, no today. i import senator coburn and correct me if i'm wrong. the senator is a doctor. as i'm not the smartest guy lee white house, you can't play games anymore.

we've got things to pay for. you cannot hide behind euros. you have no more excuses with me. he will not go home early. the bus that i brought down here will block the airport, will that the roads out. the people behind me that traveled with the, they will get arrested with me. i am not going away. we are talking about human life. what happened to this country in the