growth." close quote. that's the goldman sachs study. half our u.s. treasury department has been manned by people who served at one time or another at goldman sachs, and they're not considered a right-wing group. but that's what their analyst has said to us. so the senate, i believe, should heed the large body of research showing that spending cuts on basic economic level work better than trying to drain more out of the economy by way of taxes. in other words, the senate should produce a budget based on facts. they should produce a budget that grows the economy, that imposes real spending discipline on washington. they should produce a budget without gimmicks and empty promises. they should produce this budget must bmustpublicly, openly and e

american public to review it before the committee considers it. they should produce a budget that the american people deserve, a an honest budget that spares our children from both the growing burden of debt and the growing budget of an intrusive big government. i hope that we can continue to have the opportunity to talk about this issue. it's the right thing that the american people be engaged in it, and i have to say, i feel like we've failed in our responsibility to conduct open here, and hark -- hearings and markups on the budget. i yield the floor.

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i have ten unanimous requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, recently the national labor relations board general counsel issued a complaint against the boeing company alleging that the company had violated the national labor relations act. well, this routine administrative procedure has set off what i call a melodramatic outcry from boeing, the business community, the editorial writers at the "wall street journal," the national chamber of commerce, and, of course, our friends on the republican side of the aisle.

the headline in "the wall street journal's" editorial page called it -- quote -- "the death of right-to-work." end quote. so carolina governor nick can i haley declared that it was "government dick talletted economic larceny." end quote. at a press conference held at the chamber of commerce yesterday morning, senator demint from south carolina referred to it as thuddery. the senior senator from utah warned that foot soldiers of a vast and permanent bureaucracy were trying to implement a -- quote -- "leftist agenda." you would think that this one decision by an administrative arm of an independent agency was surely going to bring about the death of capitalism, as in the world today. i mean, this has taken on incredible proportions in terms of the outcry and the

mischaracterization of what's happened. so instead of talking about how we get americans working again, get the middle class on its feet, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are taking their time on the senate floor and in press conferences downtown attacking the handling of a routine affair -- unfair labor practice charge. now, again, i don't really think it's worth of the time of the senate to debate this. however, because of this huge outcry and the fact that "the wall street journal" has chosen to editorialize on this, and because of the disturbing misinformation that has distorted public discussion of this case, i'm going to take some time on the senate floor to try to, as they say, set the

record straight. i've said before that this boeing case is a classic example of the old saying that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth laces up its boots. well, in this case, i would say senate misinformation travels even faster than that. so it is time to set the record straight. here are the facts in the case: it's undisputed, boeing recently decided to locate a production facility for the new greenliner planes in south carolina. they decided to do that. many statements were made by executives of boeing, publicly stated, that the decision to move there was based in whole or in large part on the fact that there had been work stoppages,

strikes in the last few years at the boeing plant in everett, washington. the nlrb's complaint alleges that this decision was unlawful retaliation against the boeing workers in washington state. now, this has been put into a political context, but let's again be clear about how this happens. the national labor relations board is an independent agency, set up under the wagner act 75 years ago. there's like two branches of the nlrb. one is the board, the nlrb, the national board. it is a five-member board appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. on the other hand, there is the career service people, the civil service, who are not a

appointed, they are nonpolitical, they carry out the day-to-day functions of the national labor relations afnlgt if i might say, it is similar to the food and drug administration. the food and drug administration has an administrator, appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the senate, as does a lot of other independent agencies. but then there is a civil service side of it that is professional -- professional people, not appointed by the president. they have career civil service status. the general counsel of the national labor relations board is in that area, in the area of the career civil service. that person is in career civil service. the acting -- the acting attorney, the acting general counsel now has been a civil servant for 30 years, 30 years. so, what happens is that a

business or a union -- it wouldn't have to be them; it can be anybody -- can file a complaint with the nlrb alleging that certain actions were in violation of the national labor relations act. one of the provisions of the national labor relations act says that it is unlawful, unlawful for a company to retaliate against workers for a protected activity conducted by those workers. protected activity. one of the protected activities under the national labor relations act is, of course, the right to organize, the right to join a union, and of course under the taft-hartley bill some years later, the right not to join a union, if you zoo want to. so-called right-to-work states.

so the protected activity in this case was the right to striefnlg the national labor relations act protects that activity. organized workers in a union have the right to strike. it is a protected activity. a company cannot retaliate against workers for exercising that right. so if -- if -- i say "if" -- if the boeing company did in fact move a production line to another state in retaliation for the workers that exercised their right to strike in washington, that would be illegal. illegal for boeing to do that. unlawful. i said "if" because i am not here today taking a side in the case. i'm not certain where the truth

lies. this is for the tryer of fact and the tryer of law. so when a case comes to the national labor relations board, a complaint like this, they investigate it. well, the national labor relations board investigated under the general counsel's office the civil service part of this, did an investigation. they took affidavits, they talked with people to find out whether or not there was any cause to move forward. now, again, whether it is right or wrong, i don't know. but the -- this independent board decided that there was enough evidence for them to warrant taking this case to an administrative law judge. now, that's the process. so boeing then can make its case

before the administrative law judge. the general counsel's office can make its case. the administrative law judge then makes a decision. as i understand it, the administrative law judge can uphold the general counsel's provision -- or finding, it can uphold -- or it cannot uphold it or it can modify it. after that's done, either side can appeal it. and that appeal then goes from the civil service part, it goes over to the national labor relations board. after the board then reviews it, they make a decision. they either uphold when the administrative law judge said 0 or they don't uphold it. from there, either side can appeal to the circuit court of appeals, and for th from the cif appeals, they can appeal to the

supreme court of the united states. that's the process. that process has been -- has been followed now for 75 years. we follow similar processes in other independent agencies of the federal government. as i mentioned, the food and drug administration, the federal trade commission, a the although of other independent boards and agencies have that same process. so what's happened now is that many of our friends on the republican side in the business community, they have now taken up this hug hue and cry that ths process should be interfered with, that this process should somehow be stopped politically. well, i don't think it's our right, our job here to interfere in something like that politically. now, if my friends on the republican side do not like the provision of the national labor

relations act which says it's illegal to take retaliation against workers for protected activity, if my friends on the republican side want to change that law, offer a bill. offer an amendment. a law can be changed. you know, with both bodies, with the house and the senate, and the president signing it, we can change it. but it is wrong for, i believe, elected officials like me or anyone else to interfere in that process and to cast it as a political decision. but that's what's being done by so many republican senators and people in the business community. they've alleged that president obama was behind this, that

somehow because he has appointed a couple members of the national labor relations board that he is behind this. president obama had nothing to do with this. this was a complaint failed by the machinist union, the international association of machinists, with the nlrb. president obama has nothing to do with this whatsoever. and he shouldn't have anything to do with it. but, again, people on the republican side are alleging -- again, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation going out -- that somehow this is being orchestrated out of the white house. well, again, the facts -- the facts arfacts are there was a ct filed. the nlrb, the national labor relations board, is doing exactly what they've done for the last 75 years. it is going to go before an administrative law judge and then find out how it works its way through the courts at that

time. i'd ask my friends on the republican side that if, in fact -- if, in fact -- the boeing company did in fact retaliate against workers because of a protected activity, do my friends on the republican side say that that should be okay? ie saying? that a company -- that if workers exercise a legal right, that they have a legal protected right, and a company retaliates against those workers in any way, are my republican friends saying they ought to be able to do that? take all kinds of cases. let's say that a company decides to move a plant from southern

california to, oh let's just say fargo, north dakota. and the reason they stated that they moved it was because there were too many hispanics working in their plant in southern california, and they didn't like that, and they wanted to move to fargo, north dakota, because there's not that many hispanics there. guess what, folks? that's illegal. that's illegal. do my friends on the republican side say they ought to be able to do that in violation of all of our civil rights laws in this country? of course not. people say of course they can't make that kind of decision based on that. can't make a decision to move a plant where there's more men than women so they don't hire as many women or less african-americans so they don't have to hire african-americans. you can carry this on and on. i hope that what my friends on

the republican side, i hope they're not saying a company can retaliate and just walk away without any penalties, without even any recourse by the workers to have their case heard. that's what i'm here defending. i'm defending the rights of the workers in the plant in everett, washington, to have their complaint heard. i don't know the facts. i know a little bit of the law, but i don't know the facts. that's for the trier. that's for the administrative law judge and the nlrb and the appeals court and the supreme court. that's their jurisdiction. but for us to say it shouldn't even go there, that these workers can't even bring a case,

and i might say that there are a lot of cases that are filed with the nlrb that don't go anywhere because the nlrb investigates, they do their due diligence, they find out there's not even enough evidence there to go forward. so all i can assume is that there was enough toefd warrant going -- was enough evidence to warrant going forward. whether there's enough to actually find that boeing did retaliate, again, i don't know. that's up to the trier of fact, the administrative law judge. what i'm hearing from these dramatic outcries that somehow we're destroying right to work, this case has nothing to do with right to work. nothing. zero. nothing. nothing to do with right to work laws. the outcry that somehow this is

destroying the essence of a business to be able to decide in its best economic interest where to locate. this case has nothing to do with that. if boeing wants to open their plant in timbuktu, they can do that. if they want to open a plant in south carolina, they can do that. what they can't do is they can't open a plant someplace and retaliation -- in retaliation against the workers exercising their legal protected rights. that, they can't do. now, again, this is an evidentiary type hearing, so the evidence will have to come forward as to just what decisions were made. why were they made? quite frankly, there are executives in boeing who have publicly stated -- publicly -- that one of the reasons they moved this was because of the

work stoppages at the everett plant. work stoppages, strikes. is that enough evidence? i don't know. maybe it's enough evidence to warrant going forward. obviously the general counsel's office decided that there was. i would also point out, mr. president, that the general counsel's office in cases like this works long and hard to try to settle the case, to get both sides to settle it. i know the general counsel's office in this case did try to do that. but they were unsuccessful. and so, therefore, the case goes forward. and so, i want to point out again, just to reiterate, mr. president, this is not about doing away with right-to-work laws. nothing to do with that. nothing to do with interferences with businesses making their decisions on where to locate, things like that. nothing to do with that. it has nothing to do with destroying capitalism. what it has to do with is

whether or not workers have a right, first of all, can they exercise legal protected rights? and then can they make a case to the nlrb that they were retaliated against because they exercised their legal rights? that's what this case is about. that's what this case is about. again, i understand the -- i understand the desire of certain people to raise money for political campaigns. i understand that. and i understand how you exaggerate things a lot of times in direct mail and in the press. and i'm sure there'll be a lot of businesses gone to to say you've got to contribute to this campaign or that campaign to stop -- to stop -- president

obama or to stop the national labor relations board from taking your business decision away from you. well, that's misinformation. i know it can be used probably to raise a lot of campaign money. but it's not right, it's not right to deceive and to misinform the american people about a basic right that protects the middle class and the middle-class workers in america. americans understand fairness, and they resent it when the wealthy and the powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of working people. i have always been -- i think i've always been a pretty good friend of the boeing company. i've been a big supporter of boeing and so many things going back in my 30 years here in the congress.

it's a great company. they provide a lot of great jobs for american workers. they build great airplanes, better than airbus, i might say. but -- but -- it's wrong for them now to come in to the political system and try to get the political system to undo a legal administrative procedure that the workers at that boeing plant have instigated and have asked for the nlrb to investigate and to charge boeing with retaliation. but what's happening in this case is that the powerful and the big are trying to manipulate the political system. powerful corporate interests are pressuring members of this body

to interfere with an independent agency rather than letting it run its course. we should not tolerate this interference. we should turn our attention to the issues that really matter to american families. how we can create jobs in washington, yes in south carolina, in iowa, across the country. how we can rebuild the middle class. how we can ensure that working hard and playing by the rules will help you build a better life for your family and your children? playing by the rules. well, that's what we did. that's what the workers did. they played by the rules. they exercised their legal rights. and now there's a complaint filed, and i say it's wrong for us to interfere on that. again, if we don't like the law. if we don't like administrative procedures that undergird this,

it can be changed. it can be changed. but i dare say we've had 75 years of the wagner act, of this process, and sometimes -- i'll close on this. sometimes businesses file a complaint with the nlrb against a union activity. that's investigated. that goes before administrator law judges too. so both sides used this. i think it's unbecoming for us now to try to turn this into some kind of a political, political, almost a political maelstrom, a political tornado when it shouldn't be that. let's let the law and let's let the administrative procedures do its job. and then if corrective action needs to be taken, it is up to

congress to do it at that time. not now. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to express my appreciation to the leadership here in the senate of both parties for scheduling a vote today on arenda l. wright allen's confirmation for a seat on the united states district court in the eastern district of virginia. all of us in this body know how important it is to be filling the vacancies on our federal bench, particularly when we have highly qualified nominees who have no particular issues that need to be discussed in a political sense. and virginia is no exception in

this matter. the sheer volume of our federal courts' workloads demands that we appoint dedicated, qualified jurists. in that regard, senator mark warner and myself were very cleaved to have recommended -- were very pleased to have recommended arenda l. wright allen to the president in june of last year for this position on the united states district court for the eastern district of virginia. president obama nominated arenda l. wright allen last december. she was renominated this year. she was reported out of the judiciary committee without opposition on march 10 of this year. and i believe that the president has made an extraordinary choice in nominating ms. wright allen. whenever a vacancy has occurred on the virginia federal bench, senator warner and i have very

carefully conducted thorough and stepbive reviews -- extensive reviews for the candidates of this position. these reviews include in-person interviews with many of the candidates. i'm proud to say that the candidate pool from virginia from which we had to choose on this particular occasion was excellent. it was deep. it included judges, legal scholars and skilled trial attorneys. and from this very competitive field, senator warner and i moved for the nomination of ms. wright allen. she distinguished herself as the premier candidate in a very competitive field for this vacancy. she has displayed during her career the highest degree of integrity, competence and commitment to the rule of law. she exemplifies the best of the virginia bar. in fact, she saoeftd highest rank -- she received the highest ranking from the virginia state bar. as one who was privileged to

serve as secretary of the navy and also as a combat marine, i personally understand the sacrifices that veterans have made to their country. ms. writing allen is a veteran of the united states navy, served for five years as an active duty jag officer, continued her service as a reservist, a jag officer until her retirement in 2005. her record military service is excellent. given the huge military presence in the eastern district of virginia, i believe that this military experience will be valuable to her in her capacity as a federal judge. ms. writing allen has dedicate -- miswright allen dedicated her civilian career to serving her community first as a prosecutor and until 2005 as a public defender. unanimously prosecutors and defenders who have worked with or have been on the opposing side to ms. wright allen attested to her talent, dedication and above all, her exceptional character.

on -l meeting her, it was clear to me that she possesses the correct judicial temperament and dedication to make an excellent judge. i've also had the pleasure of meeting her family and a number of friends. her dedication to her family, church and her community is clearly evident. i'm proud that virginia has such an exemplary individual to put forward as a district court nominee and i sk-l sk* all of my colleagues to support ms. wright allen today. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: stphr-pt mr. kyl: mr. president, on behalf myself and senators mccain, sessions, cornyn, vitter, wicker, and inhofe and probably others before the end of the day, i'm going to introduce today legislation called the new start implementation act which i would like to describe briefly for a few minutes here. this legislation is nearly eye defnts cal to a bill introduced

in the house of representatives by mr. turn,the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, of the armed services committee. he has been a leader in the house on nuclear missile defense issues. i understand that many of the provisions have been included in the chairman's mark of the national defense authorization act in the house, and that the remainder will be introduced as amendments later today at the full committee level. and i specifically want to thank chairman turner for his leadership. nuclear deterrence issues are among the most complicated and technical issues that we in the copping are confronted withings and he in the congress deserves full credit for tackling them with vigor and for mastering them so quickly. like the house legislation, it is my hope that the senate bill will be incorporated into the senate version of the national defense act for fiscal year 2012 and let me now explain a little bit now of why i think this is necessary at this time. i voted against the new start treaty for reasons that i have made clear previously on the floor. but i recognize that the

president's stated commitment to the modern disaiftion our nuclear -- modernization of our nuclear deterrent is necessary and is important and that congress needs to codify the commitments made during the debate on the new start ratification process as well as the agreements that the president has indicated through his comments and letters to us. this is important for the future, for future congresses, and future presidents because this process is going to take place over a period of at least 10-12 years. modernization of our nuclear weapons facilities and the strategic delivery systems, all will require commitments over the space of another decade or more. memories fade, people's interpretations may change over time, circumstances change, and what we want to make sure of is that over the time period involved during which this modernization process must occur, that the fnedzings that

were -- understandings that were greed to at the time of the start ratification will be member railized in statute -- memorialized in statute and complied with by the congress and with the administration as time goes on. the five key features of the legislation are these: first it would link the funding of the administration's ten-year nuclear modernization program and any force reductions during the complementation phase of the treaty what. means is that as in the later years of the treaty funding is necessary for the demobilization, dismantling of some of the weapons that are called for to be dismantled under the treaty, that that fund something coordinated with the funding for the modernization program which is going on at the time. it urges the president to stand by the time lines that he pledged on warhead modernization in the revised plan that he submitted in november of 2010.

this is key to ensuring that congress will support these modernization efforts that were deemed necessary in conjunction with the new start treaty. the second thing the bill does is to ensure that u.s. nuclear doctrine and targeting guidelines and the new start force levels a that former stratcm commander said were needed are not arbitrarily cut by the administration that seems eager now to go to even lower levels, perhaps even unilaterally than were negotiated in the start treaty. the president has indicated his desire for a world without nuclear weapons and said that he'd like to do new ning thingso reduce nuclear weapons and we want to make sure that the guidelines that are militarily necessary reference points fowsh thfor the number of weapons we have, the types deployed, and so on, are not modernified so as to

be an excuse for reducing strategic weapons thereafter. i think this is necessary because the president's national security advisor said on march 29 that even as we implement new start we're making preparations for the next start of nuclear reductions. and in developing options for further reductions he said we need to consider further factors such as potential changes in targeting and alert posture that are required or effective deterntsz. we were told that the new start force levels were h needed yet e administration may seek to alter deterrence requirements in order to justify further redictions. my view that the administration can't use one set of facts to ratify the treaty then immediately change those facts in order to suit its global zero agenda. 41 senators made clear in a letter to the president on march 22 that we expect the

administration to consult with congress before directing any changes to u.s. nuclear weapons doctrine or before proposing further strategic nuclear reductions with russia. no consultations have occurred to date. we expect that those consultations were occur before any discussions with riewsh russians take place. third, the legislation would ensure that the triad of strategic delivery systems, bombers, cruise missiles and icbm submarines, are reassessed each year. even today we're still uncertain about the administration's plans to modern disas the icbm leg, nor do we know if the new bomber will be nuclear-certified upon its deployment. for example, according toon april 22 press account in the global security news wire, the u.s. air force cannot say exactly how much it will spend or explore options for modernizing its icbm fleet, nor where the money will come from.

end of quote. well, obviously, if we are currently planning the modernization of these fleets but we dean know where the money is -- but we don't even know where the money is going to come from, we have a problem that needs to be resolved now rather than later. that's what the third requirement of the legislation would require. the bill would affirm that the new start treaty includes new limitations on forces beyond the language in article 5, section 3 and any further agreement can only be done by a treaty requiring the senate's viblght. none of this is different than what we all talked about on a bipartisan basis when the new start treaty was ratified. but we think it is important that these commitments actually be codified to ensure that they're kept. and finally, the bill would counsel against unilateral reductions or withdrawal of u.s. nonstrategic nuclear weapons in europe without the unanimous are

approval of nato members. in nato, one state should not be permitted to end nato's successful article 5 policy, a policy that an attack on one san attack on the others and will be met with resistance from the other nato allies. so, mr. president, in conclusion, i think this bill should enjoy brought congressional support, given the fact that it merely builds on what the senate agreed to with respect to nuclear modernization and our freedom of action to deploy missile defenses. it ensures that a future congresses and president understand and support the current commitment to nuclear modernization and ensures that there will be no further limitations on nuclear defense limits. it provides check checks. further strategic nuclear reductions and potential

activities with possibly concessions to russia with regard to missile defense and tactical missile weapons in europe, all of which might be counter to u.s. security. i would be pleased to add other colleagues as cosponsors to the legislation. as i said, i intend to actually introduce this toward of the end of the day. i'm sure we will have additional cosponsors at that time. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask -- the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. a senator: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with and i ask to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ayotte: thank you. nearly ten years after the september 11 terrorist attacks, our country remains at war with violent extremists who want to kill americans, and yet the administration has not designated a secure location for detaining, interrogating and trying current and future terrorist detainees. rather than seeking to address this problem, the administration continues to insist on closing guantanamo bay. earlier this week, attorney general holder in paris reiterated the administration's determination to ultimately

close the guantanamo bay facility. this determination to close gitmo represented a misguided view that treats terrorism like everyday crime, hesitates to call this war on terrorism what it is, and places the perceptions of others over the safety of americans. i believe this desire to close guantanamo represents an unacceptable abrogation of the federal government's most important responsibility: providing for the common defense. therefore, today i rise to introduce and to urge my colleagues to support senate bill 944, the detaining terrorists to secure america act of 2011. our diligent intelligence professionals and our brave special operations forces who brought bin laden to justice don't need to be reminded that the united states and our international partners remain

engaged in a war with violent islamist partners, extremist groups including al qaeda and associated terrorist groups that are committed to killing americans and our allies. indeed, in the treasure-trove of information, our forces gathered at bin laden's compound. we have learned that the terrorist groups are actively plotting new attacks against our country. this is the latest in a long string of attacks or planned attacks against our country in the last two years alone. just some of the examples of what we have seen. in september 2009, the plot to conduct a suicide bomb attack on the new york subway system. to the november 2009 attack on fort hood that killed 13 people and wounded 32. to the christmas day 2009 attempted bombing on an

international flight to detroit. to the may 2010 attempt to bomb times square. to the october 2010 attempt to send explosives to jewish centers in chicago. to a february 2011 plot to manufacture explosives and to conduct attacks in texas and in new york. al qaeda and their fellow terrorists continue to threaten our country. bin laden's death is a significant blow to al qaeda and associated terrorist organizations and a great accomplishment for our country, but the threat continues and our detention policies must reflect that reality. since 2009, we have captured and detained thousands of terrorists who have planned and conducted attacks and who have served as terrorist trainers, financiers,

bomb makers, bodyguards, recruiters, and facilitators. interrogations of these terrorists, including those at guantanamo, have provided valuable intelligence that has prevented attacks, saved lives, and helped locate other terrorists. and we're not talking about just protecting americans, which, of course, the core function of our government, but we're also talking about protecting our allies and others around the world by detaining and making sure we gather valuable intelligence at guantanamo bay. of course, the most recent and noteworthy example that demonstrates the value of excellence gleaned from detainee interrogations is the case of osama bin laden. our intelligence community would never have found bin laden if it weren't for the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation of terrorist detainees. not only have interrogations of

detainees helped us track down other terrorists, but detaining terrorists have helped us prevent the intelligence gathered from detainee terrorists have helped us prevent future attacks. unfortunately, as secretary gates confirmed, in response to my question during an armed services hearing in february, detainees who have left guantanamo bay that have been released, approximately one out of four, or 25% of the detainees that have been released, have actually reengaged, gotten back in the fight against us and are committing attacks against us and our allies. i can tell you, as a former prosecutor, that is an unacceptable recidivism rate. we shouldn't be allowing those individuals and terrorists out of guantanamo to get back in the theatre nobody a position to once again harm us and our allies.

former guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training them to kill americans and our allies. said al shahiri, and abdul zakir represent two examples of former guantanamo detainees who have returned to the fight and siewmentd leadership -- and assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations who are dedicated to killing americans and our allies. said al shahiri is now work as the number two in al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. after a recent promotion, abdul zakir now serves as a top taliban military commander and a senior leader in the taliban's queda shura. in the world of terrorists, it has become a badge of honor to have served at guantanamo and then to have been released and then to get back into the fight

against us. it is unacceptable for even one released detainee to reengage in the fight against our country. as a military spouse and as a member of the senate armed services committee, i find it sickening that our country has released dangerous prisoners who are now actively plotting to kill americans, soldiers and americans who just want to go about their way of life, and also our allies who work closely with us. some have expressed concerns regarding the legality of long-term detention for these terrorists or expressed concerns about the conditions at guantanamo. i'd like to address both of those concerns. first, as the former attorney general of the state of new hampshire, i'm as eager as anyone to ensure that our detention policies conform to

the rule of law and reflect our core values. some have questioned the legality of detaining terroris terrorists, yet we should be very clear. according to the law of war, detention is a matter of national security and military necessity and has long been recognized as legitimate under international law. second, some have expressed concerns about the conditions at guantanamo. in march, i visited the guantanamo bay detention facility. gitmo now represents the most professionally run detention facility in the world. international human rights activists, reporters, members of the u.s. congress and the senate constantly stream through guantanamo checking on the conditions, holding the department of defense accountable for the conditions there. guantanamo is no abu ghraib.

detainees are treated in a matter that i don' conforms to international law and honors our values. guantanamo detainees receive three meals a day tailored to their preferences of each detainee. they also have access to top-notch health care faciliti facilities. their religion is respected. they have television, newspapers, books, english and art classes. in fact, the officials at guantanamo bend over backwards to respect the cultural and religious preferences of the detainees that are held there. don't get me wrong, guantanamo is no club med, but the terrorists who are detained there, most of who would undoubtedly kill americans if they were given the chance, are getting much better treatment than they deserve. and as a former prosecutor, i've been in a few prisons in my time and i can tell you that the

facility at guantanamo bay, the detention facility there is much nicer than some that our common criminals are in, in the united states of america. as a former prosecutor, i was also impressed with the state-of-the-art courtroom at guantanamo, which would rival any federal courtroom in the united states of america. however, unlike your average courtroom, it is set up to address the special security concerns associated with trying terrorists and it is also specially designed to enable the judge to ensure that classified information will not be compromised, won't be leaked and that it is protected on behalf of our country. this courtroom is the appropriate courtroom and venue for khalid sheikh mohammed and other 9/11 conspirators to be held accountable for the horrific attacks and their role in attacking our country on september 11th.

and after almost ten years, the victims of september 11th have waited much too long for justi justice. i believe our country stands on a solid legal framework in detaining terrorists according to the law of war, and i also believe that guantanamo represents the ideal facility for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. some may ask, why introduce this legislation now, why is it needed? in february, during a senate armed services committee, i asked secretary gates where we would detain high-value terrorists that we capture in future if the president goes forward with his plan to close guantanamo. secretary gates candidly said to me, "i think the honest answer

to that question is we do not know." i was encouraged by president obama's decision to resume military commissions on guantanamo -- at guantanamo, yet the administration was careful to reiterate its determination to ultimately close guantanamo. unfortunately, as i previously mentioned, on monday, attorney general holder in paris reiterated the administration's desire to close guantanamo. but we now know, we know that guantanamo was instrumental in providing a facility to gather intelligence to ultimately capture and kill osama bin lad laden. we know that there are other terrorists out there who want to do us harm and we need to keep this facility open to make sure that their -- that secretary gates is not forced to answer, i don't know where we would keep the next high-value terrorist

target that we capture in order to gather valuable intelligence. for this reason, i believe congress must pass this legislation without delay. before concluding, let me briefly summarize what senate bill 944 will do. this legislation reaffirms the authority to maintain gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future terrorists. it directs the secretary of defense to take actions to maintain gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents. it extends permanently the limitation of transfer of detainees to foreign enemies and their prohibition of construction or modification of facilities in the united states of america for detaining terrorists. we have heard loud and clear from the american people they do

not want terrorists detained on american soil. and finally, it supersedes the section of president obama's executive order that he issued shortly after he got into office on january 22 of 2009. he issued an executive order saying that guantanamo would be closed, and this legislation will supersede that executive order relating to the closure of git mow, the determination of transfer, the prosecution of trivialities in article 3 courts and military tribunals. in short, this legislation would establish gitmo at permanent location for detaining, infair debating and trying unprivileged enemy belligerents or terrorists. to accomplish this, we will prmtly limit the transfer of detainees to foreign enemies because what has happened is they are transferred there and they have been released and that's why they are back in the

battle against us. so we have to stop that. and this legislation will prohibit the construction or modification of facilities in the united states of america for detaining terrorists, to make sure that we do not detain terrorists here, we keep them at gitmo and off united states soil. i am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation called "detaining terrorists to secure america act of 2011." senate bill 944. i am especially proud that many friends and colleagues have decided to support this legislation, including senators graham, lieberman, chambliss, brown, and rube dwroa, all of whom have been -- rubio, all of whom roadblock leaders when it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting americans. everything that we must do we do in this chamber, is guided by our constitution and the federal government must fulfill its most important constitutional duty of

protecting the american people. pretending we are not at war with terrorists will not change the fact that terrorists continue to plot against us and to attack americans. consistent with our values and the rule of law, we must establish the guantanamo detention facility as the permanent location for detaining, ingarretting, and trying -- interrogating and trying terrorists. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i thank very much the president for hearing hey today. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of the nomination of arenda l. wright allen to serve as the next united states district court judge for the eastern district of virginia. i'm very pleased to see that our leadership came together to move this nomination forward, and i would like to recognize chairman leahy and ranking member grassley for holding the nomination hearing and reporting ms. wright allen's nomination by unanimous consent. senator webb and i had the privilege of interviewing several candidates to fill this vacancy on the bench. ms. wright allen stood out for her exceptional qualifications and her impressive record.

she spent her entire legal career in public service, beginning with her service as a jag officer in the navy. she also has the unique perspective of having served as both a prosecutor and a public defender. she spent 14 years serving as an assistant u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia and one year in the western district of virginia. today ms. wright allen is a federal public defender in another -- in norfolk. her extensive trial experience will go a long way on the bench. while i was considering ms. wright allen's record, i read several letters of support for her nomination. in addition, the state bar ranked ms. wright allen as highly qualified, and the same highly qualified recommendation came by the virginia bar association and the virginia women's attorney association. i would also be remiss not to mention the historic nature of

this nomination. ms. wright allen would be the first african-american woman to serve as a federal district court judge in virginia. i know she will serve with distinction and make all virginians proud. mr. president, president obama nominated ms. wright allen in january of this year. the time is now to confirm her nomination so that she can begin to serve the people in the eastern district of virginia. i look forward to casting my vote in support of ms. wright allen's nomination and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. i know the presiding officer, who has spent extensive time as a great attorney general and lawyer and attorney of great repute and respect, i hope that he will be able to join us in this effort. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: will the senator withdraw his request? warn in terms of the absence of a quorum? the presiding officer: yes. mr. warner: i will be happy to withdraw my request. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator from virginia. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. it is my understanding we're in morning business until 2:00. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. inhofe: yesterday i spent some time on the floor talking about the recoverable reserves that we have in the united states of america. i was shocked at some senators afterwards -- first of all, i was shocked so many listened but more shocked they came up and said we were not aware that we have this opportunity here. you -- you know, we have -- and i've got from the congressional research service a breakdown of where all of this is. i'd like to share that and get that into the record, because right now -- and i applaud senator murkowski and others for trying to open up and fully

develop the resources that we have in the gulf of mexico. that is very significant. i applaud their effort and i join them in that effort. i would like to say we need to go further than that, because in the gulf of mexico, we have in the -- and these are figures, mr. president, of the congressional research servic service -- under the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources. now, our resources, according to c.r.s., are greater than any other country in the world in oil, gas, and coal. i'm just going to talk about gas right now because one of the big issues, of course, not just with my wife, with others, is the price of gas at the bumps. -- at the pumps. if you look at the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in -- just on the onshore in the united states -- this is -- some of this would actually be public land -- is 37.8 billion barrels of oil. throw in alaska, that would be 26.6 billion barrels.

the atlantic ocean, 3.8 billion. pacific ocean, 10.5 billion. the gulf of mexico, as i already said, 44.9 billion. now, the total that they have of u.s. endowment of -- our endowment of technically recoverable oil is 162. 162.9 billion. we've talked about this before and talked about the fact that we have all these resources but our problem is a political problem because the people -- the politics won't let us reach these. now, we're talking about they're not able to get hardly any on the atlantic and pacific. and you know what's happened up in the north slop, anwr, we've talked about that for a long time. people don't realize it on public lands that about 90% is off-limits, off-limits politically. now, that is there. now, i -- i have to correct some of the statements some people conveniently -- some of the statements. some people have conveniently misrepresented what our reserves

are. instead of using recoverable reserves, they use proven reserves. well, that's a technical term that in order to prove a reserve, you have to drill and analyze and core and see how much oil is in there. obviously, if we won't let anyone drill, they can't prove it. so when they say we only have 2% of the world's proven reglerves. that's absurd because that's -- reserves, that's absurd because we have to drill to determine what that is. other countries don't have that problem. we're the only country in the world who doesn't let us here in the united states of america exploit our own resources. and i think that people are going to have to realize this. if you want to do something, it's such a simple thing to deal with. it's supply and demand and there's not a person in here, not a person who would be listening today who hasn't gone through the elementary experience and schooling of learning supply and demand. we have the supply in america but we don't have the -- and we have the demand here. we won't let the -- the

politicians won't let us exploit our own resources. that's the problem that we have. so you don't have to overly complicate this thing. it's interesting, and i hate to say -- you know, i'm not pointing fingers in a partisan way but when the democrats and the administration say we're going to tax big oil. well, they say actually they're going to do away with some of the benefits that big oil has. well, there aren't benefits. this would be four huge tax increases that the democrats are talking about doing on big oil. that's not big oil. that's oil period. and i won't go into the details of depletion allowances, percentages and all of that. it's not important. the point is that they have the same benefit every other manufacturer has and to single them out and say we're going to punish big oil, all that's going to do is make the price at the pumps skyrocket. it gets right back to supply and demand. and, by the way, those who are trying to use the argument that this somehow is going to produce revenue that is going to be us used, i would suggest to you

that even the white house's figures or the maximum would be revenue generated, $4 billion. now, keep in mind, you lose all the benefits so that's not a net of $4 billion. take the state of texas, for example. they don't have an income tax. they have a -- they have the oil tax that is -- has run that -- that state very well for a long period of time. and i have a quote from the -- from -- okay. any way, senator menendez made a statement -- this is not -- taxing the oil companies is not going to bring down the price of gas. they're not even claiming that it will. i just think when you see such an obvious solution to a problem, just exploit our own resources, then i'd say that we are very foolish not to do that. i want to cover one other thing that i think is significant. when i talk to people about th the -- and we all talk about the solutions to the problem.

we talk about the spending of this administration, more debt increased in just the first two years of the obama administration than the entire debt that has increased since george washington in the history of this country, the huge spending, the $5 trillion in the president's three budgets of deficit. i can remember coming down and complaining back in 1995 at this very podium when the clinton administration came out with a budget for a fiscal year 1996 and it was a trillion and a half dollars and i said we can't sustain that. now it's a tril imprison an a tf budgets in each the three budgets he had, just the deficit. that's more than it took to run the entire united states of america back in 1996. so i suggest when people say there are only two solutions to this problem, either reduce spending, which would be my choice, or increase taxes, which i wouldn't do, but there's a third option. that option is to do something about the cost of regulation, the cost of regulation. right now, if you just take what

the e.p.a. is doing in five -- in fact, ielg just say -- i'll just say three the five major overregulations that we're going over right now. people in this conference here, people in the united states senate know that we have defeated cap and trade here legislatively by massive percentages five times during -- since 2003. so this administration says all right, if we can't have cap and trade, we're going to go ahead and do it, not legislatively, we'll do it through the e.p.a. and that's what's going on now with greenhouse gases. if you add up what the administration is doing in terms of what the cost is to greenhouse gas regulations, that's between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. the ozone, if they do choose -- and they said they're going to choose the 60 parts per billion standard, that would be $67 $676 billion. and the boiler mac would be something in excess of a billion dollars. anyway, you through in utility mac and cement mac, it comes to

a trillion dollars. this is what i'm trying to get at. i used to use the figure that for every 1% increase in economic activity, it produces new revenue of $42 billion. that has been changed now. according to c.r.s., congressional review service -- and that's bipartisan, that's factual, and no one ever challenges them -- c.r.s. says for every 1%, and we will use g.d.p. -- increase in g.d.p., that produces additional revenue of $50 billion. so if you just take these regulations, add them up, all these -- the increase -- the cost to g.d.p. of the three regulations i mentioned, that's a trillion dollars. a trillion dollars. now, if you take the fact that it's $14 trillion g.d.p. in a given year, this would be 7% of that. for each 1%, it would be $50 billion. you could generate new revenue of $350 billion just by taking this overregulation out of our society. now, you could argue, well, inhofe, that's not true because

these regulations aren't all passed yet and that is right so it would be probably right now about half of that. but when the obama administration came in and they announced these regulations were coming, the manufacturers, the producers, those who are driving the economic ship were the ones who said, because of the uncertainty of these regulations, we're going to slow down what we're doing. if we were to lift all these regulations, then i can assure you that we would be approaching at least by a year from now $350 billion, that's without a tax increase, that's without reducing spending. and i think that we need to look at this realistically, because this is an opportunity that we have. a lot of people remember back in the days of ronald reagan and i could say the same thing back in the days of president kennedy. and, of course, he was a democrat. they felt that overregulation and high taxation is an inhibiting factor to -- to slow down revenue. and, of course, in the case of

ronald reagan, the total revenue coming from marginal rates in 1980 was $244 billion. in 1988, it was $466 billion. and that was at a time when we had the largest reduction of taxes and regulations in this society. so it's shown to be true over the years. my bottom line is this. people know about spending and people know about taxes. they don't know about regulations. the people who are affected directly, the manufacturers, they all understand it. and the figures that i'm using are actual figures that we've gotten that no one argues with, and the fact that $50 billion of increased revenue comes from each 1% increase in g.d.p. is a fact that is supported by the c.r.s. so i offer that along with th the -- with the -- our opportunity to become totally independent from the middle east for our -- for our ability to run this machine called america. and with that, mr. president, i -- before i yield the floor, i

see the senator from alaska. i hope that you were listening to what i was talking about because the opportunities in alaska are just tremendous. $26.6 billion bear -- 26.6 billion barrels of oil. and i'm sure you understand that. and i want to make sure everybody else does. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. begich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. begich: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. begich: i ask to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: i'd like to, mr. president, be able to speak and get consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator has that right until 2:00 and then the senate proceeds into executive session. mr. begich: thank you, mr. president. and to my friend who just spoke a little bit ago from oklahoma, absolutely i'm aware of the quantity and the value of alaska oil and gas. and today i rise to discuss this

issue as well as a few others related to the issues of oil and gas. i rise today to discuss an issue foremost on the minds of my constituents and the concern to all americans, the rising cost of energy. i want to outline the proposals aimed at providing short-term relief for high prices at the pump and to assure -- ensure america's long-term energy security. these are the issues which have been discussed many times in these chambers. the time for talk is past. the time to act is now. mr. president, high energy prices today already are pinching pocketbooks of families and crippling our small businesses across my state and across this country. when i was home over the recess, i visited the roaded areas of alaska. these are communities connected by our highway and road system. from kinaei peninsula to

fairbanks. gas prices were well over $4 a gallon. and as you can see by the poster next to me, they ranged from $4.15 a gallon to $4.35 a gallon. these prices might look good to some of my colleagues who saw gas prices over $5 a gallon in their home states, but off-the-road system in alaska, prices are much, much higher. the fact is, prices for gasoline and home heating oil never came down in rural alaska. they've been well over $5 a gallon for years. some places, such as anatubik pass, are nearly $10 a gallon. i started a discussion with alaskans on facebook to just see how these high prices are affecting their budgets. some families are already facing really tough choices to make their budgets balance. for families commuting intoan ranch from matsu valley every day, they are forced to pay more than $100 a week to fuel up.

that's more than a pocketbook pinch. it's a punch. and even worse, families know the price isn't coming down any time soon, and even though speculation ranges all over the places -- all over the place, prices are still expected to rise 30 cents to 40 cents, probably by july. and it's not just families. small businesses -- the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. arenda l. wright allen of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be one hour of debate with respect to the nomination with the time equally divided in the usual form. the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. begich: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to seven additional minutes, that the time be counted against the

democratic side and my speech in the "congressional record" nolt be split. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: and, even worse, families now the price is coming down. it is continuing to rise. it is not just affecting families. it is affecting businesses. they feel the stickershot shock as we will. we're seeinthese families and businesses expect toss act now. no more excuses. energy is one place where we should be able to find bipartisan common ground. i have been calling for a comprehensive energy bill from day one in the senate. our lack of progress on this is frustrating. we were real close last spring but now here we're again. we need to provide americans reliable and affordable energy in three ways: short-term relief for consumers, new, renewable energy sources for reliable electricity prices, and keep strong investment in alternative transportation systems. and increase domestic oil and

gas production so we're not dependent on unfriendly foreign sources. first, the short-term which call the pocketbook relief. we must help families keep their budgets balanced and hel ensuret increasing consumer confidence doesn't falter. to that i have introduced a family account to save on transportation, the "fast" act. to help families get through the high gas prices over the next two years. this bill will ayou although employers to set up pre-tax transportation savings accounts just like medical savings accounts to help offset the pain of high gas prices on the family pocketbook. the bill will sunset this two years so it will have no long-term burden on the federal budget. second, we have to bring online alternative power sources to buffer power companies from price shocks of rising oil and gas prices. no matter where you are in alaska, you don't have to go far to find alternative energy sources -- wind, geothermal on

the one hand hydro. even in these tough budget times, this is a good investment to strengthen our economy far into the future. the same is true for alternative transportation systems and fuels. we must fully support efforts to develop electric, hybrid and fully efficient vehicles. we must recognize most working families cannot afford to purchase a new vehicle. so we need to find other ways to reduce their transportation costs such as greater investment into city-to-city commuter services. the recent investment in high-speed rail is positive but is not reaching most of the country and will not. even in alaska, we have the potential for commuter rail. it is critical to move commuters from city to city and cutting the $100-a-week gas prices that our folks pay as they drive into anchorage for employment. solving our energy security challenge cannot just focus on reducing consumption.

yes, it is important, but we must cut the use, as is identified through consumption that we need to reduce fossil fuels in all sectors, especially transportation. but we also need to increase our domestic production. every new oil and gas development buys our country more energy security and national security while also creating american jobs. unfortunately, we're going to the wrong direction. 30 years ago, 28% of our oil was imported. today 60%. and while our largest share of oil imports come from canada, too much is dmg from unstable countries 0 or those openly hostile to the united states. not only will we become increasing by dependent on these countries for our oil, but we're exporting over $1 billion a day. let me repeat that. $1 billion a day we export.

in my home state of alaska, we have vast potential to increase america's energy security. the fact is, developing alaska's oil and gas resources buys our country decades of energy security by offsetting foreign imports from unfriendly countries. consider a few examples, which i have here on the board next to me: developing offshore resources in the chukchi durbin in this area -- and the beaufort sea will produce 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. this is easily enough to offset oil imports from saudi arabia. you could even cover iraq, too. developing the oil beneath the arctic national wildlife refuge, anwr, could offset imports from nigeria. developing the cd-5 project in the national petroleum reserve alaska -- let me repeat that -- the national petroleum reserve alaska, recipient for petroleum products -- set up for petroleum

products, and b.p.'s liberty project could produce daily imports from libya. this does not include the tremendous on- and offshore natural resources we have in alaska. one-third of the country's supply in alaska. why aren't swreeling these? two words: politics and buret bureaucrats. mr. president, earlier this year president obama went to brazil where he declared that america wants to be a customer for brazilian oil and natural gas. i got to say, you don't need to go to famplet you can do it right here in alaska with our people, our resources, our opportunities. i remind the president of that, and i'll remind him on a leg basis. to his credit, i will say later in the month he did mention alaska. alaska in his call for energy and domestic energy independence, he mentioned alaska. unfortunately, the bureaucrats

in his administration are not listening. they are not -- they are tossing up barriers in additional alaskan oil and gas production every chance they get. sadly, some of my colleagues in this body are not much better. instead of addressing the problem with specific solutions, they are going for headlines by dragging energy company executives before committees or promising the -- or proposing that roadblock incentives for increased domestic energy consumption, some of which have been on the books for decade. let's stop the headline-grabbing and get serious about the energy security. i have three ideas. first, better coordinate the federal offshore permitting process. i introduced legislation before the recess to create the arctic o.c.s.-coordinated model of the legislation that late-senator ted stevens passed establishing the federal gas pipeline coordinator. my bill addresses the problem too many projects are caught in shall -- the presiding officer: the the

senator has used seven minutes. mr. begich: i would ask for an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: my bill addresses the regulatory whack a mole. you think you have a regulatory one hurdle, another one pops up. this bill gives authority t. second, let's align the clean air standard for offshore drilling permits among the affected federal agencies. we must have a level playing field whether you are in alaska or the gulf of mexico or the eastern united states. as my colleague from louisiana knows, who is here joining me on the floor, louisiana has one rule, alaska has another rule for the same issue. third, let's invest in american transportation and safety infrastructure to develop soil and gas resources in frontier areas. the fact is we need a far

greater coast guard presence in the arctic for oil spill prevention and response. we also need to insnreft our pipeline infrastructure, including the alaska natural gas line, to move oil and gas resources from the arctic to other u.s. regions. there is a lot of talk right now but ending tax incentives for oil and gas industry, but the high profits right now of these companies are easy targets. one thing alaskans know, just because you have aen easy target doesn't mean it is the right thing to shoovment i won't-- --to shoot. it won't decrease prices at the pump for our families and small businesses. it will discourage companies, especially the independents, from domestic investment and job creation. as someone who represents a state with the highest energy prices in the country and some of the best renewable and traditional energy resources, i am ready to join my colleagues on both sides of the ier aisle o address america's energy needs now. we need to set a hard target.

that is why i am asking my colleagues to get serious about real energy plan and give americans freedom from high gas prices by the 4th of july. let's work together, roll up our sleeves and pass a real comprehensive energy plan our families and small businesses can get behind. and let's finally invest in our future energy and put the reforms in place to ensure long-term energy security. mr. chairman -- or, mr. president, i recognize my colleague from louisiana, another great state of oil and gas development, he is here on the floor with me. i yield the floor at this time. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i thank my colleague in alaska for asking me to join him in a general presentation and potentially a colloquy between the two of us about the importance of continuing our support for oil and gas production here in the united states by the large international companies that

have operated in our country and around the world now for many years, as w well as by the hundreds if not thousands independents that operate doing the same. there is going to be a bill that's going to be debated in the senate finance committee tomorrow. it's s. 940, sponsored by the senator from nother, our colleague, senator menendez, that i want to go on record and stronstrong -- in strongly oppo. i am going to give some reasons why and would urge my colleagues from this bill comes up, which i understand it will directly to the floor of the senate, without being heard traditionally in the committee, that we would vote it down. i doubt that the bill in its current form or in/form that it can be modified could get the 60 votes necessary for passage, but i would just like to add my strong voice to you recalling my colleagues to -- towrnlging my

colleagues to read this bill, to -- look at it and understand the inherent unnative americans it the lack of significant deficit reduction, and the fact that it will not, although it is being touted as, it will not reduce gasoline prices by one penney. -- by one penny. i want to start with just some facts that people might find very interesting or hard to believe based on the political rhetoric that they have been hearing from the sponsors of this bill and others in the senate. it goes sort st storyline is big oil operates, they make huge profits at the expense of everyone. they pay virtually nothing in taxes, and we subsidize them. why are we doing this? why don't we stop? so i think that it would be good to just get a few things clarified for the record. it may be surprising to american taxpayers to know that of the

16.6 -- $16.6 billion spent on u.s. energy subsidies over the course of one year, that oil and gas subsidies account for less than 13%. i want to say that again. of the $16.6 billion spent on u.s. energy subsidies over the course of one year, fuels such as renewables, refined coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, et cetera account for 85%. oil and gas is less than 15%, actually 13%. you would think, because of this bill, s. 940, that the big oil and gas companies are getting oil the subsidies, making all the profits, paying no taxes, and the rest of us are

suffering. nothing could be further from the truth. let me repeat. this bill, 940, is going to repeal virtually all subsidies from one industry and one sector of one industry, oil and gas companies, but, mr. president, they only get 16% -- they only get 13% of all the energy subsidies. why aren't we talking about the other 85%? some of them in some people's minds create some harm to the environment, whether it be dams blocking up rivers so fisheries are extinct, or whether it is coal that has its own issues. of course, nuclear doesn't have any problems. we don't -- you know, we must not be paying any ategs to what's happening in japan. why are we singling out one sector of one energy -- you know, one part of the energy industry to repeal the subsidies

when it will in fact have the opposite affect of reducing gasoline prices, which even one of its cosponsors said publicly for us not to be fooled. this will not reduce gasoline prices. so why are we doing it? will it create jobs? no. it will actually hurt job production in the united states. according to eia study published in 2008, the oil and natural gas industry received 13% of the subsidies while producing 60% of the energy. let me repeat. this industry got only 13% of the subsidies but produced 60% of the energy. but the sponsors of this bill, s. 940 that's going to be

debated in the finance committee where the industry leaders are going to be called to talk about this gimmick, 940, produce produced with their independent counterparts 60% of the energy. and i'd like to say exactly where that energy comes from because it really has a bone of contention. the senator from alaska will appreciate this, that the sponsor of this bill represents a state that is one of the highest deficit energy-producing states in the nation, because some of us do this better than others. louisiana produces a lot of energy. alaska produces a lot of energy. texas produces a lot of energy. some states like to consume a lot and produce nothing. that would be like some of our states that put some of their land in agriculture so that they

can produce food. other states saying we don't want to produce food, but we expect you to provide it to us. provide it to us when we want it, how we want it, and for the price we want it. and i'm tired of it, and so are the people that i represent. so i want to put this deficit chart up here. we've seen a lot of deficit charts about deficits of infrastructure, real deficits of money, debt. let me talk to you about the deficit and the debt owed by some states in this union that consume a lot, talk a lot, and produce nothing. california has the greatest deficit. it consumes a tremendous amount of energy, and the imbalance is the highest. it produces the least, consumes the most. now, tpho california's -- now, to california's benefit, before senators feinstein and boxer run down here to argue this point, i want to concede this one point:

california has been on the forefront of energy conservation and efficiency. this chart does not recognize them for that, but i will concede that point, and i'm going to have some further data to explain that. california, while it doesn't produce a lot of energy, it consumes a tremendous amount. at least california has been in the forefront of savings and efficiency. because there are a lot of states up here that don't produce, don't conserve, aren't efficient, and all they want to do is yell about high gas prices. why don't you do something about it? florida is a perfect example. florida has a net deficit and b.t.u.'s of three -- i guess it 3.8 billion. i don't think they do much in nuclear, i don't think they do much in hydro. they have a lot of sun.

they will not let anybody produce oil and gas on off or off their shores. they sure fire up hotel and restaurants with energy. where do they get their energy from? if it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. they have a gas line that goes from mobile, alabama, to the florida peninsula. we pump the gas out of louisiana, mississippi and alabama, put it in a pipeline and ship it under the gulf of mexico so they can light up their state. would they ever think of putting an oil and gas well or build a nuclear power plant? or if they can't do that, why don't you conserve your energy? new york is another user of energy which produces very little. ohio, georgia, new jersey, north

carolina, michigan and illinois. now, to some of these states, like new jersey and michigan, think about what they look like. they are big -- they have big factories. they have big industries. michigan is the home to the automobile industry. so they use a lot of gas, producing things that we all use. so we want to give them credit for that. but still the fact remains that michigan uses a lot more energy than it produces. then you get down here to what i call the gold star states. we get criticized so much, we're treated like we're some sort of pariah sometimes, but i think we do a great job. kentucky, alaska, new mexico, louisiana, west virginia and wyoming. and alaska is up here somewhere. no, alaska is right here. kentucky, alaska, new mexico, louisiana, west virginia and wyoming. we produce enough energy for everybody in our state what we need, and we export it to

everyone else in america that needs it. whapbd do we get? -- and what do we get? we get bills like this, that go after directly the big companies in our state that work in our state to somehow put them in a position to make them feel like they're not really good companies. they're not american companies. they don't pay tax. they get all these subsidies. i'm going to read into the record what taxes they pay. it's going to surprise you. and then on top of that, we get moratoriums. we get perm toerpls -- permatoriums. we can't drill for the oil we have. we can't look for the oil we might have. my people, when i go home ask me -- and it is a very hard thing for me to answer. maybe senator begich they might ask you the same, they say senator since we do so much to produce so much for the country,

why do we pay $4 a gallon for gasoline? they don't produce anything, senator. why do we pay so much. can you tell me what you answer your people because i don't know what to tell them other than this place is a little screwed up. so, until i get an answer for that -- and i'll ask the senator -- go ahead. what do you tell them? mr. begich: it is a hard one to answer because they see the oil flowing. we have $10-a-gallon gas in some of our communities. $10 a gallon. and so it's hard to explain that, yeah, we're the big producer, but the rest of the country then picks on us. i'm just listening. unbelievable the green -- ms. landrieu: i'll say to the senator because he raises an excellent point. president obama is not the first

president to go overseas and ask for them to produce more oil to send it to us. this goes on. president clinton did it, president bush did it. we go beg saudi arabia to produce more energy. we ask opec to please don't tighten it so much so our prices. why don't you go to the local opec or the local producers, which are kentucky, alaska, new mexico, louisiana, west virginia and wyoming. why don't you help us produce more, because we can do it. but we get shut down by bureaucracy, moratoriums, permatorium, rules, regulations, e.p.a., refuges. we can't even get free to produce the energy that we can produce for this country. and then you've got all these middle states that, you know, do a fairly good job of balance. but i tell you, if we passed a law in here that said every state in america had to produce the energy that it needed, we'd have an energy policy all right.

senator begich knows, i don't know what it would be, but it would be an interesting rule. just like in the old days, if you wanted food, you produced it. it would be a great law. every state in america, all 50, if you consume energy, you need to produce something. you can produce it by wind. you can produce it by hydro. you can produce it by nuclear. you can stop driving all your automobiles and everybody walk. you can give everybody a bicycle. we don't care. just eliminate the energy deficit. that would be a very interesting discussion to have. and i might even file a bill like that, because this one is so ridiculous, people might actually read the one i would file. now let me give awe couple of other stats, and -- now let me give awe couple -- give you a ce other stats. i want to put to mind this issue that the big companies don't pay any taxes. this is from "forbes" magazine. take it as it is.

it's slanted toward industry; i give you that. it's not left to center. it's right to center, sometimes very right. but i think you can check these figures with anybody else. i'm assuming they're accurate. exxonmobil -- this is for the top 20 most profitable u.s. corporations in 2010. exxonmobil's net income was $30 billion. their tax rate was not 10%, not 15%, not 25%, not 35%. 45% tax rate. their estimated worldwide tax bill was $90 billion. $90 billion. of $10 billion in total taxes paid in the united states, $3 billion was income tax. let's go on. conocophillips, their tax rate was 42%. preincome tax, $19.8 billion,

net $11.4, tax rate 42. chevron was 40%. exxon 45%, conoco, 42 and chevron 40. do you all want to know what google was? google is a pretty big company. they don't produce oil and gas. they have another line of business. their tax rate was only 21%. let's take hewlett packard. not in my state, and in other parts of the country -- i mean their headquarters is not in the south. their tax rate was 20%. apple computer, their tax rate was 24%. people will say, it's not just the rate. it's what you paid. i think if you look, coca-cola, very big company, their tax rate was down to 16.7%. does this make sense? no. so that's why we need tax reforms. circumstance transformational

tax reform so all big companies pay similar in taxes, we eliminate some of these loopholes that don't make sense. i could be for that. i could be for that when we're talking about google, apple, g.m., g.e. and exxon and mobile and chevron. but if you're going to ask me to stand here and pick on one industry that pays billions of dollars in taxes, that only gets 13% of the energy subsidies, that hires 350,000 people in my state are hired by oil and gas companies or their contractors or affiliates large and small, not just the large, and when i see what our people produce -- and these states produce nothing, or virtually nothing -- and you ask me can i vote for a bill like this. no. not only can i not vote for it, it's laugh afpblt -- it's

laughable. so i hope the senator from alaska and i -- i mean i know we're going to be the skunks at the garden party because for democrats to be against this bill it's because we coddle this industry. i don't coddle this industry. i'm holding b.p.'s feet to the fire. i want exxon to pay the tax they oefplt i -- they owe. i want chevron to pay the tax they owe. i want this president and the administration to stop the moratorium in the gulf. i want to get our people back to work and would much love to reduce gasoline prices. one way tkwaoebgd it is if cars didn't have to be so dependent on gasoline. why don't we give a significant subsidy to produce different kinds of automobiles. i would vote for that. i have voted for that. if you had a car right now running on natural gas, you would be paying the equivalent of $2 of gasoline at the pump. that's much better, senator, than $10. why don't we take some money and

invest in natural gas vehicles or more incentives for electric vehicles, if people are really serious about breaking the back of opec, then start building the kind of automobiles and infrastructure in this country necessary to do it, and stop introducing gimmicks like this that might get you a few political points in the short run, but it is not leading us in the right direction. having beat up on the democrats, let me say something about the republican side. all they want to talk about is drill, drill, drill, drill. we cannot drill our way out of the situation we're in. do i want to drill more? yes. do i think there's more than 2% of the world's oil and gas in america? yes. but you know what? you have to look for it in order to find it. we're under certain provisions -- the senator knows in alaska -- we can't even go look for the oil and gas we might have. and the senator might want to talk about that, and i'm going to close in just a minute. a senator: to the senator from

l.a. la l.a. -- to the senator from louisiana, let me say, when you describe the moratorium or whatever they call it in the gulf, it is even worse in our state. mr. begich: i mentioned when i had the map i showed the national petroleum reserve. that was set aside by the government to prepare our country for more energy independence decades ago. we can't even get a permit to go across in everyone else now calls it a big river. it really isn't. it's a very small area, but just a bridge to go over to go explore for what you just described. we can't even get on to the land that the government set aside that would then term if we have oil and gas prospects, we believe there is. but the other piece to this which you hammer away, and if

we're skunks of the garden, so be it. it's a question of fairness as you described the 13% of the subsidies, or incentives, that they receive, they produce 60% of the energy, but your other statistic is even more dramatic. of the remaining 87% of those subsidies only produced 40% of energy. if this was a business, you would eliminate that part of the equation because it doesn't give a good return on investment, but we're still doing that because there's a lot of politics being played. and your point on the tax issue, like you, i think there should be an overhaul to this tax system, but picking on one industry because it sounds good, rates good in the polls, gets you a couple of headlines is not what the american people want us to do here. if anything, they're getting fed up with that. what they want us to do is to sit down, and as you have described so eloquently in the

vision of the country, -- in the description of the country, you bet, i would love every state to produce, because then they see what we go through. but because we're a collective group of states, we do our part. we should not be picked on because we do more than our share because we're trying to help out states that are producing vehicles or producing a lot of chemistry and other things or pharmaceutical industry. we can go through those list that's somehow don't end up on these -- getting rid of their subsidies, so your point is right on and if there's anything we should be doing right now, and i agree with you, it is the issue of when i open the paper and i see administration officials, current and past, saying the way we're going to control our energy costs is talk to saudi arabia, is that our energy policy? that sure as heck is one that -- does a great job here, two, is the worst national policy from a

national security perspective and, three, it is just foolish, as i mentioned earlier, that we export $1 billion a day out of this country to buy from countries, in its own case good allies, canada is a good example, but some of these countries are not our friends, but we're giving them cash so they then use it against us. does this make any sense? and, you're right, this is a piece of legislation they put down without a committee process on it is a gimmick, a gimmick to get the next week of activity, get some press out there. i appreciate you yielding for me to rant a little bit. i'm glad you said the part two, the assumption is that these companies pay no taxes. somehow they get the subsidies, they pay nothing. you bet you they're profitable. they're big companies. they're huge companies, but they pay taxes in the billions to the treasury of this government and

when you listen to all those differential rates that is, again, why we need tax reform and then i'm happy to have this discussion, but not singling out the industry just because it's good political score and good, you know, fodder for the newsprint and everything else. so i appreciate you yielding me a few more minutes to ramble there a little bit. i'd like -- ms. landrieu: and just a final point, mr. president, we're going to hear tomorrow's speeches given about america is at the highest production levels ever. that may be true, but it is true for a very short period of time, maybe the next month or two, because, as you can see, there is going to be a precipitous fall? why? because even though people say that we're at the highest production levels that we ever have been, it's going to be temporary. then the production levels are going to decline down to the loews level since 1997. so i just want people to

understand we are not on a path to produce more in america. we are on a path to produce less and taking all subsidies away from the five major international oil companies are not going to change this line. it's going to make it continue to go down. it's not going to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, not by one penny. and it is not going to get ounce the path to a strong, sound energy policy. now, i'll say in one final conclusion, should some of these subsidies and tax credits be looked at? yes, in a comprehensive for matt. and i will say -- format. and i will say, i will be open to the ones that are the least effective, least necessary and apply to companies like google, at&t. people in louisiana will do our

part, we are not, along with texas, oklahoma, and alaska going to take it all on our shoulders. we've had enough. we've had high water, we've had high wind, we now have a high river, we have a moratorium, we have a permitorium. at least they left the independents out and i want them for not putting independent oil and gas companies in this bill, but, still, the big five pay a significant amount of tax. they take a smaller percentage of the overall subsidy, and i think we need to do this in a fairer way. so i am yielding my time and -- mr. begich: one last comment, mr. president. and that is your chart up there you have up there, there is one other piece up there. we have a little over 600,000 barrels a day going through there. we're losing 6% to 7% a year in volume and it won't be a question -- some people say,

just get down to zero and you'll stop the pipeline. when we get down to a level of 300,000 or 400,000 barrels, it will be a question that we can even run the line so we can potentially shut down the volume. we have to look at the long term. because if we decide today to have a comprehensive energy plan that includes conservation, alternative energy, renewable energy, and, yes, domestic production, the senator from louisiana knows, and i know, you can't walk down the street and say, we're going to start drilling tomorrow and suddenly there's fuel. it's a seven to 10-year process. so that chart is a critical part because in order to reach that decline, you have to start doing stuff today. unless we decide the policy of this country -- the energy policy of this country is we will pick up the phone and we will call saudi arabia, nigeria, iraq, iran, libya, that's the list, that's our policy, then so be it.

i think that is the worst policy we could ever have for this country. , so again, thank you to the senator from -- so, again, thank you to the senator from louisiana. again, if we're skunks at the garden, my feeling is we'll be good-smelling skunks. thank you, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today the senate

continues its very rapid pace to confirm another of president obama's judicial nominees. the judiciary committee's workload has not slowed since this congress has convened. i'm pleased to report that we're ahead of the paves of the 108th congress. with this vote, the senate will have confirmed 22 nominees in just 47 days. that is a rate of one judge almost every other day of senate session. we have confirmed 32% of the president's -- of president obama's judicial nominees this congress compared to only 2% of president bush's -- 29% of president bush's confirmed during the same time period. we have also reported out of committee another 11 nominees. we have reported out of committee 46% of president obama's nominees sent to the senate this year.

that exceeds the 38% of president bush's nominees reported out during a comparable period. furthermore, we have held hearings on ten nominees. some of those, i expect, will be reported out of committee at our markup scheduled for tomorrow. in total, we have taken positive action on 43 of 71 judicial nominees submitted this congress, or approximately 61% of all nominees. i hope these facts will put to rest once and for all any complaints that we are delaying or obstructing judicial nominees. there are currently 89 vacancies before the courts, yet the president has not sent nominees for 51% of those vacancies. he has, however, sent the senate four nominees for seats which are not yet vacant.

this is perplexing to me since the current vacancy rate is 10%. i would think the white house would concentrate on current vacancies. nevertheless, we simply cannot confirm nominees who do not exist. i have a few remarks regarding the nomination that we're voting on today, arenda loretta wright allen is nominated to be u.s. district judge eastern district virginia. mrs. allen received her b.a. from cookstown state college in 1982 and her jiewrs doctorate from -- and her juris doctorate from north carolina central university school of law in 1985. following law school, she was commissioned into the united states navy as an ensign. she was -- she served there as legal intern in the naval legal

services, office of judge advocate general's corps. in the same year, she was promoteed to lieutenant and became defense attorney for the navy. in 1988, the nominee became the staff judge advocate at the naval air and engineering center where she was the sole legal advisor to the commanding officer. leaving the navy in 1990, mrs. allen joined the united states attorney's office for the western district virginia as an assistant u.s. attorney. in 1991, she moved to the eastern district of virginia where she remained for the next 15 years as an assistant u.s. attorney. in 2005, the nominee left the u.s. attorney's office to become an assistant federal public defender with the federal public defender's office for the eastern district virginia. the american bar association standing committee on the

federal judiciary has given her the rating of majority qualified , minority well qualified. i congratulate the nominee and her achievement and public service, and i urge my colleagues to support this nomination and hopefully it will be supported unanimously. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i understand, mr. president, we are in the time of our republican colleagues, and so i would just kate that if we have a republican colleague that comes to the floor during my time, i would certainly be glad to stop and yield to them. mr. president, i want to speak about something that is incredibly important to the families and businesses of michigan. i'm sure it is true in pennsylvania as well, the great concern about what is happening in terms of gas prices. going through the roof right now. we have families that are paying as much for gasoline at the pump as they are paying for their health care, almost as much as

they're paying for groceries right now to put food on the table for their families. and what adds insult to injury is that while we are seeing in the industry top five companies with the highest profits ever, they are also receiving taxpayer subsidies. so we pay twice. we pay at the pump in outrageous prices, and we pay again when we are paying as taxpayers to support an industry that clearly, clearly does not need to be subsidized. you know, we're involved, mr. president, in a major debate right now about what to do about a very large deficit. i was here when we balanced the budget in 1997 when i was in the house and was proud to do that, was here when we had the largest surpluses in the history of the country. in 2001, a number of things happened, policy decisions that put us back into deficit so we have to dig out again and it is

very serious. so the question is what are our priorities? our colleagues -- our republican colleagues in the house have said their priority is to eliminate medicare, eliminate medicare as we know it. eliminate medicare, balance the budget on the backs of tens of millions of seniors in the country. we're saying in the senate wait a minute, let's start with taxpayer subsidies, some of which have gone on for 70 or 80 years that are now being given to an industry that is the most profitable in our country and probably the world who clearly do not need taxpayer subsidies. why don't we start there? and by the way, let's make sure that we are sending a clear message that we don't appreciate paying twice. we don't appreciate paying at the pump and at the same time paying through our taxpayer dollars. now, when you look at the numbers, when you look at the numbers, mr. president, just in

the first quarter of this year, it's staggering. we certainly don't begrudge any industry of profits, although with the gas prices going up, what we're talking about now are consumers getting gouged in the face of these numbers. but you're talking about about $35.8 billion in total profits in just three months of the top five oil companies in america. and these folks are asking us to subsidize them on top of that. and so our message and what we will be voting on next week, mr. president, is a message that says that check for $4 billion a year, we're going to void it. we're done with that. no more taxpayer subsidies for an industry that clearly does not need it. what we really need to be doing,

mr. president, are a couple of things. first of all, we need to create real competition at the pump. we need to create competition that maybe doesn't require a pump, or at least not very often. in my great state of michigan, we are making new terrific award-winning automobiles that are electric vehicles. the chevy volt, the ford focus, other hybrids that are winning awards, top quality vehicles that are going on 100 miles or 200 miles on a gallon of gas. real competition is what we need. investing in alternative vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles for the future. that's jobs. very excited about announcements that are being made now. in fact, friday by general motors, expanding their operations to see what chrysler and ford are doing is very exciting. it's jobs for us and it's real competition for the oil companies who know right now the

only choice we have is to pay whatever price they put up at the pump. now, we have begun to create some other choices, and we need to continue to support those. you know, i find it so interesting that we're going to be debating shortly whether or not to support ethanol and ea-5 and the ability to create some alternative to gasoline at the pump, and there will be those who argue that, well, we have supported them for a few years now, they are a maturing industry, they no longer need support. and that's maybe five years, six years, eight years, ten years. we're talking 70 or 80 years. that subsidy is now going to the largest, most profitable companies in our country and probably the world, and yet because of cheer politics and nothing else, we have not been able to get these subsidies stopped. well, taxpayers in our country are saying we need to make better choices to balance the

budget. we need to decide what's important, what's not important, and we need to cut the things that are not important, and clearly subsidizing the top five big oil companies in this country is not a priority when they are making huge, huge profits. when we can be investing in other things that will, first of all, bring down the debt, because we're talking about taking away this $4 billion and using it to pay down the debt, and then making choices about how we really do create jobs and create alternatives and clean energy manufacturing, alternative fuel vehicles, whether it's advanced biofuels, natural gas, clean diesel, electric vehicles. mr. president, we have a lot of choices that we need to present to consumers so that they can get off of the price gouging efforts that are going on at the pump.

now, there is another issue as well. we have heard from the companies that they need to be able to drill more, and yet at the same time we know there are 60 million acres under lease by the oil companies. they hold onto 60 million acres right now that are oil and gas leases where they are not drilling. they hold onto them, maybe because their -- they don't want their competitor to get them, but they're not drilling. so i strongly support, and i'm pleased to cosponsor senator menendez's legislation that simply says use it or use it. use the leases you have for domestic drilling in america or lose it. now, i also have held hearings as chair of the senate agriculture committee to focus on and investigate how much market manipulators are driving up prices and to explore ways to

strengthen american-made biofuel industries and other alternatives to foreign oil because our farmers are very much a part of the solution for the future. so there's a number of things, mr. president, that we can do to create real consumer choice, get off of foreign oil, but part of our deficit reduction efforts should start by eliminating the outrageous subsidies that are going to the top five oil companies in america. we should stamp this check "null and void." thank you, mr. president. i yield back. the presiding officer: question is on the nomination. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination. 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 in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote?

if not, the yeas are 96, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that at 1:00 p.m. thursday, may 12, 2011, the senate proceed to executive stowings consider the nomination number 47 on the calendar, that there be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form, upon the use or yielding back of that tiernlg the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate, on calendar number 47. the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, no more motions be in order to the mom nation. any statemented relating to the nomination be printed in the

record, that the president be note notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to s. res 179. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 179 to constitute the minority party's membership on certain committees for the 112th congress or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. reid: mr. president, s. 953 is at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the senate needs to dispose of the current resolution. mr. reid: i'm sorry. i didn't hear the chair.

the presiding officer: the resolution for committee appointments is still pending. mr. reid: i ask consent that that be approved. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask also, mr. president, that the -- not only the resolution be agreed to, but that the motion to reconsider be also laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that s. 953 have its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 953, a bill to authorize the conduct of certain lease sales in the outer continental shelf to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to modify the requirements for exploration and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now ask for second reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the

appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until tomorrow morning, thursday, may 12 at 9:30. that following the prayer and pledge -- that following the prayer and pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later ni day -- later in the day. by the way, mr. president, i ask we adjourn until 9:30 a.m. i didn't announce a.m. or p.m. following leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 1:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the first hour equally divided and controlled between leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. following morning business the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there will be a roll call vote around 2:00 p.m. tomorrow on the confirmation of executive calendar 47, the nomination of michael urbanski to be district judge for the western district of virginia. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> continued funding for a sec engine for the new joint strike fighter and modernization of the new weapons systems. republican chairs the committee which began work at 10 a.m. this morning. we go live to the mock up session already in progress. >> it's a great example of how we can work together in this committee and in the subcommittees. thank you, and i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? about the questions on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner? all in favor say aye? those in favor say no. the ayes have it and the

amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i call up an unblocked cartilage on package number two. the amendment will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations] >> the gentleman's recognized now to explain his amendment. >> mr. chairman, the amendments have been worked and improved by the minority side compromising the following. amendment directing a report on increasing competition for space

launch, an amendment directing report on the satellite control network, electronic scheduling program, and expressing a sense of congress on missile defense training and two amendments of my own, first regarding a modification relating to pension reimbursements to clarify authorities and the second directing the commander of air force global strike command on capabilities for monitoring the status of the air force's icbms. >> is there a discussion on the gentleman's amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner. in favor say aye? opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. lamborg for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to introduce an amendment

that i believe is at your desk. log 142 -- >> will the clerk please distribute the amendment, number 14 2? without objection, reading the amendment will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment represents part of the new start imputation act, a legislative package introduced last week introduced by mr. turner, myself, and other members of the committee, and this amendment would do three

things. first, it would freeze funding for new s.t.a.r.t. reductions if promised nuclear modernization does not. two, pribt contributions to the stockpile, and three, require congress to be involved in future decisions to cut our nuclear forces by deployed and nondeployed. in the first place, this amendment would hold this and future administrations accountable to the promises made during the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty ratification debates last year. in particular, the grand bargain, quote-on-quote, that treaty ratification continues if agreed to a much-needed nuclear modernization program. in this regard, less than two months ago, all 16 members of the strategic forces subcommittee of both parties wrote a letter to chairman -- budget chairman paul ryan urging the importance of this

commitment. with the bipartisan support, the house budget had full funding for weapons modernization. the difficulty that the senate struck with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is congress cannot appropriate money in in advance in a ten year period. we're continuing on the good faith effort of the executive branch and futures not yet elected. the memory of last year's debate and the need for modernization may or may not last a full 10 years so we need mechanisms to influence the future through the life of the treaty or beyond to make sure promises are kept. now, this provision is carefully crafted to avoid producing a treaty default, however, it would make implementation more

cumbersome. we have to remain credible. as the president noted in a november report to congress, this bill of paying for modernization has to be paid even in difficult economic conditions, and i hope we would all agree with that, so we must now move to create what tom, the head of the nuclear security administration, has called a sustainable deterrent, and we don't have that yet. despite the administration's pledge of just a few months ago to embark on a ten year program, and for the finding request along with that for fiscal year 2012, we have to watch this for ten full years, so we only just begun on this. this amendment would also do a couple other things. it would put the brakes on any efforts by this administration to race down a road to further, and what i think would be

ill-advised cuts in our nuclear weapons in the future that don't include the interaction of congress. recent statements by administration officials including national security adviser have given us cause for concern, and to do this unilaterally without congress being involved whether it's the senate or the house, i don't think is a good idea, so the -- another limitation contained in the amendment is to preclude premature cuts to our nondeployed hedge stockpile. one again, this is something that comments have been made that cause concern, so we based on reports and testimony by nnsa, if we were to cut our nondeployed hedge stockpile before the modernization was done -- excuse me, should not be done until we have new

facilities that are up and running, quote-on-quote, and these are now plutonium and uranium facilities. these are needed to meet the criteria for the administration's own 2010 nuclear posture review, so the second part of the amendment would prohibit cuts to the nondeployed hedge stockpile until these two important facilities are indeed up and running, fully operational. that may not take -- they may not be done until 2023-2024, but the seriousness of this requires we remain vigilant to make sure the important steps are taken between now and then. the last part of this amendment would amend the u.s. code so that all future reductions would have to require the involvement of congress either through legislation -- >> the time has expired. >> okay. i urge adoption of the amendment

and i yield back. >> if you'd like to be recognized, please raise your hand so we can get you down on the list. yield five minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i speak in opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it. this amendment ties a president's hands now into the future on how to manage our nuclear arsenal at a time when we are finally seeing cooperation from other countries on nonproliferation. it halts the retirement of any new s.t.a.r.t., and it's one the two major portions of the treaty. this amendment is an attempt to rewrite the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty u through the defense act. this amendment also halts any action by the president on

nondeployed nuclear weapons until such time that the chemical and mental energy research and replacement facility is completed and operating. the las alamos lab producing a year, and the capacity to run two simultaneous life expansion programs. in other words, this amendment changes the rules of new s.t.a.r.t. implementation after the game has already started. the executive branch as stated and has demonstrated in its budget a commitment to complex modernization a point recognized by the majority and minority on the strategic forces in a letter earlier this year and by the commentings from the chairman and rnging meb -- ranking member a moment ago. to block this long in the future, not only limits military options, but diplomatic

options. it halts new s.t.a.r.t. implementation, a treaty that has strong bipartisan support and that the senate approved according to the spirit and the letter of the constitution of the united states. mr. chairman, we see governments around the world signing up to locate, secure, and destroy nuclear materials to keep the worst weapons out of the worst hands. we see russia agreeing to commit the verification of the dismantlement of its strategic arsenal consistent with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. if we stop implementation, russia stops implementation, and we're left with nuclear weapons above the thrsh holds set in new s.t.a.r.t.. mr. chairman, i'm asking the committee members to agree with me in opposing this amendment. this amendment changes the rules of the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation, changes the rules of the game that has already started, does more to put obstacles in the way of

implementation rather than encourage implementation of new s.t.a.r.t., and with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back recognizing the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you. i speak in support of the amendment and urge everybody to support it. i want to thank the cosponsor of the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation act from which this provision arises. senator kyl is introducing the limitation agent on the senate side i'm told today. this, of course, does not rewrite the s.t.a.r.t. agreement. i mean, if you read the actual amendment, it says it requires a certification by the secretary of defense and the secretary of energy that they are proceeding with the representations that they have made, the accomplishments in modernization that are the basis of what their assurance to the senate was in

approving new s.t.a.r.t.. it supports the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation by modernizing the weapons facility. it's based on this document, the may 10 assessment on the refurbishment and it's the road map for this. all this says is that the secretary of defense and secretary of energy have to certify this process going forward. new s.t.a.r.t. is based upon our going to lower numbers with the assumption that we are assuring we have safe and reliable weapons structure. the provisions in this also ask that we not have further reductions in our hedge of stockpile weapons until we proceed with the modernization of the facilities at at lasalam.

it's the to do list that the administration brought forward to the senate what the administration was going to do to ensure new s.t.a.r.t. would not threaten our deterrent capability. since it is the president's own to-do list, it should not be at all difficulty for the president to comply. the -- i think everyone who has concerns with what occurs if we implemented new s.t.a.r.t., but did not undertake modernization would support this. i thank the chairman for this, support the amendment, and i encourage all members to do so. >> mr. chairman, yes. >> the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i support mr. larson with respect to this issue. i think, you know, if you look back at history, even though

there were agreements in place, specialically with russia, the fact of the matter is in 1991 in the immediate aftermath of the cold war, then president george bush announced that the u.s. would dramatically reduce arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons which led the soviet union to take similar steps dramatically increasing united states security. even though that was not in the treatty, the fact the president has the ability to work and to actually lower the amount of arsenal that we have to increase our security, i think it's an incredibly important tool that any president whether it's a republican or a democrat or of any party has. that was hw bush, and then the

george w. bush administration announcing in 2004 they planned to yiewn unilaterally reduce nuclear stockpile by 50% by 2012. the reduction was actually achieved by december of 2007, five years earlier, and, again, at the point i believe made us safer, not less safe because the president had the ability to bring down the stockpile, and according to the russian scholar and state member, nuclear forces will shrink dramatically because moscow is retiring older systems faster than it is adding new weapons. i believe it's incredibly important tool that the president has that we have fixed something at the new s.t.a.r.t. line, but that he has the ability or she if it's a woman

president, by the way, in the future, to decide if by lowering the stockpile we actually can make the united states safer, i think that this is a good tool for them to have. i will support mr. larson's amendment, thank you. >> chair recognizes mr. whitman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield to mr. lamborn. >> okay, and i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. just in a quick response, if you look at the first page of the amendment, the numbers show that we've had massive reductions since the end of the cold war in the number of nuclear we haves held by -- weapons held by the united states. specifically from the high in 1967, our nuclear stockpile is down 84%.

we have 16% of what we used to, one-sixth, and more than -- we've dropped 75% just from when the berlin wall fell in 1989, and from 1991 to 2009, the nonstro teggic nuclear weapons declined by 90%, so we only have 10%. when you have smaller numbers than we used to, the room for error is tighter. there's less room for error in my opinion so for this or future administrations to bargain without the knowledge or agreement of congress on unilateral reductions becomes more of a problem because we have a lot less room for error so i think it's important to assert the role of congress in these kinds of important decisions so that's what the third part of the amendment does, and that's one reason why i would urge a yes vote on this amendment, and i yield back. >> mr. chair, i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes ranking member, mr. smith, from washington for five minutes. >> thank you, i yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. smith, and i just want to respond to comments made earlier about the certification process. my understanding from the reading of page five line 12c1 on prohibition of stockpiles says in general the secretary of defense and energy may not obligate or expend amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to the department of defense or energy to retire, dismantle, or eliminate any nuclear weapon until written certification, that, and then it goes through on pages -- page 6, 1-22, outlined under subsections

a, b, c, and d, specific actions that have to occur, but that must occur before the provision can occur. in other words, this is not -- this provision is not something that says -- it's okay to move forward if you don't certify. it's a provision that says you have to finish the cmr or have the two leps, and if you do not have those, then you cannot move forward on the actual implementation. >> will the gentleman yield? >> of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, and that's the way it reads. i'll yield for a question to mr.-- >> yes, mr. smith. >> the provision you are reading does not apply to the new

s.t.a.r.t. treaty. these apply to the hedge portion of the stockpile which is not falling within it. that's why it has provisions that are not just affected by the certification process. those within new s.t.a.r.t. can be affected and implemented solely based upon the certifications so it is a different section. >> declining my time and yielding again. >> waiting for the yielding process to work its way through from one person to the next. i thank the gentleman for comments on that. i still note we are attempting to change through this amendment, attempting to change the rules of the game after it started. it's simple as that. congress did have a say, not just this chamber of congress that had a say with the new s.t.a.r.t.. it was the senate using the

procedures under the u.s. constitution to have their debate, have a strong bipartisan support, and now they want a new s.t.a.r.t., even before the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation started. i don't think that's a good decision. i think we stop implementation, don't move forward, and i think we need to move forward on it and have debates about future treaties and decisions when administrations decide to bring those up in the future, so with that, i'll yield my time back to mr. smith. >> i yield my time back to the committee. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. franks recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't think this is changing the rules as it were. the entire debate in the senate was predicated on the importance

of modernization of the united states. this was a central consideration, and i believe that mr. kyl and others were concerned primarily at some of the disadvancing this might offer to us in new s.t.a.r.t. simply because strategic weapons were the primary weapons included in s.t.a.r.t., tactical weapons were not even addressed, and we were certainly at an extreme disadvantage in tactical weapons with the russians. it's true our nuclear umbrella has to reach more places in a broader sense than the russians do, and, mr. chairman, i think that the senators on the republican side believe that it was important to have this nuclear modernization. the president gave his promise that would occur, and i think for the sake of national security, we should maintain that.

one last thing, and that is if indeed our friends who count on us for our nuclear umbrella have a reason to doubt that, then they may proceed with some type of nuclear umbrella of their own, and that certainly is something that i think my friends on the democrat side might have renaissance about because that would be the anticipation of trying to build down or trying to prevent nuclear proliferation. with that, mr. chairman, i would just emphasize this nuclear modernization is one of the things that we're needing on the american side because of some of the intrinsic disadvantages new s.t.a.r.t. places on us otherwise. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any other debate? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll keep my comments short, but there is been an insinuation

that we should not trust this administration with the funding necessary to modern modernize our stockpile. i point out it's hr1 suggesting the very labs needed to modernize the stockpile be cut, a 17% cut, 11% at sandea. . .

thaw of the u.s. and the statement made no mention of tactical nuclear weapons in europe and in december of 2008 the secretary of defense has nuclear-weapons management shared by james/injured it said that principle advocates for nuclear-weapons in europe from its advocacy, nato cohesion is based on other values including counterterrorism and cyberthreats and partnering and missile defense and crisis management. there is a strategic assurance away from that when we look at our allies with respect to

tactical weapons. i yield my time to the gentleman from new mexico. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> i would like to yield my time to mr. turner. >> to reiterate, mr. lamborn's amendment which is an excellent amendment does not change the rules for new s.t.a.r.t. it has to do with the recommendation the president sent to the senate which is part of the implementation. the senate has the primary role and approval.

obviously our role is on implementation. this is purely and implementation provisions that ensures it goes forward. it does not change the rules in any manner but codify the rules. the other provisions that relate to further production specifically the issue of the hedge and modernization of cmr and ups, these provisions will make us safer and go straight to the issue of ensuring we have a modernization as we go to lower numbers. we want to ensure what we have is marginalized. back to you. >> gentleman yields back. further debate on the amendment? the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. >> i will take a moment to try to put a little context in this discussion because not everybody lives and breathes nuclear weapons all the time.

nuclear weapons were invented in 1945. we used them twice to end the war in the pacific. the u.s. has felt a strong nuclear deterrent is the critical part of our nation's security. other countries have them now. we are not going to wish them away. the basics of how to build a nuclear weapon are widely available, unfortunately. our nuclear weapons were built to last 15 to 20 years. they are all past their design life expectancy now. what we are trying to figure out how to do is keep these complex machines in absolutely tiptop shape if you will excuse the

expression to make sure they are safe to be around and reliable and work when we want them to. they are past their design life. any reasonable person would say the way to check that is test it. we can't test these things. it is like having a car out there for 40 or 50 years and replacing some parts everyone's in a while but you have to be absolutely certain when you turn the key it will fire up and work the way you want it to. that is a complicated business and that is why so much money and time and effort is spent with loss alamos to make sure it turned right off and that is the reason i would suggest that under the s.t.a.r.t. treaty where the russians and the united states on strategic weapons agree to come down to 1550, the reason the senate insisted as a condition that we

have the very best facilities and nuclear-weapons infrastructure because we are down so low that if there is a problem it will be a major problem that could wipe out a huge portion of our deterrent. so it was i believe a condition of ratifying s.t.a.r.t. that this infrastructure be modernized and this amendment says we have to make sure we keep that condition. that is the bottom line. is not about this president and it is not about either party or congress. as the gentleman pointed out, both sides might try to back up on this because this infrastructure modernization will cost some money but the point is if we are going to have a deterrent we can count on we will have to have that infrastructure to inspect and the weapons, make a new party leader and replaced them and the maintenance to keep that car running. that is what this amendment

does. we will do everything we can in this body. we took a constitutional oath to defend the country and do everything we can to make sure that condition is kept. the only other point are would make is i don't care again which party we are talking about. we are down under s.t.a.r.t. to 1550 weapons. i printed up what wikipedia as far as what weapons other countries have. you have france and china with several hundred. india and pakistan have 100. north korea last than 10. the point is if we go lower than s.t.a.r.t. levels it will have major implications for whether our friends can come to us, made 0 or otherwise, whether other countries try to add more

weapons. the gap gets smaller and it is enticing for them to get where we are. the lower we go the more of our stockpile could be wiped out with other problems. my view is the gentleman's amendment makes sense. it helps make sure the central pillar stays strong and the condition of ratifying new s.t.a.r.t. to go to these levels no one thought we would never get down to. 1550 weapons to go down to that level. conditions are kept regardless of who is president and who is in congress. >> gentleman yield back. gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. this extraordinarily important issue in many respects,

obviously we count upon our nuclear weapons as a deterrent. the question is how much of a deterrent do you need? the number of weapons around world are quite sufficient to destroy the world. the number of weapons we have are quite sufficient for the task at hand which is the deterrent task against any of those countries that mr. thornberry listed having nuclear weapons. i think we have plenty. the problem is twofold. the language in this bill prohibits the department of defense from doing anything with the nuclear -- that is the word you use here. the nuclear systems. my goodness. what are the covered nuclear systems? they include bombers, the b-52 h series which is rather old dating back to 66 as i recall.

nearly all of those missiles that are designed to carry nuclear weapons. and nuclear warheads and the rest. the point here is this goes beyond the nuclear weapons themselves and covers virtually everything that has to do with nuclear weapons. that is an enormously broad and i think detrimental way in which to pose this question. i don't think any of us are suggesting we go below what the s.t.a.r.t. 3d recommends although there may be one weapon we decide when we get to that level we need to take out for some time or take out period but you can't do it with this language. secondly the issue mr. heinrich brought up about age are 1 --

--h.r. 1, this is to make it more reliable. this would take 60500 scientists and engineers out of laboratories that are supposed to do this and as near as i can tell, age are 1 remains the policy of this house or at least the majority of this house. my question to those who propose this amendment is how are you going to do it now that you have managed to eliminate 6,506,500 for the people required to do what you say has to be done here? i think we ought to reject this amendment and get on with appropriate and proper implementation of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i yield back my remaining time. >> recognize the gentleman from maryland bluegrass the mr. bartlett for five minutes.

>> thank you. there's an interesting philosophical argument. on earth has been responsibility to make iras and regulate the army and naval forces. if we determine a level of armaments that we consider essential to of the protection of the united states, can the senate give this way in ratifying a treaty in which we hand over to the executive the authority to determine the level of protection needed by our country. we have every right to search ourselves. i don't know if we have been in

this contest. i think we have to assert ourselves to the world in we would object while only has come this limits funds for reduction of the beat floyd weapons required by the new

s.t.a.r.t. 3d until the secretary of defense and energy jointly certify the modernization plan is proceeding. there is nothing in there that guts or stops implementation of new s.t.a.r.t.. it just verifies the modernization you said you would do is proceeding. future administrations need to be reminded that this has to continue forward. s.t.a.r.t. requires a joint certification. the second and third parts of the amendment have to do with non deployed had weapons or other unilateral cuts are out side of new s.t.a.r.t.. this is something that may be someone's idea in the future but is not something that is on the table right now and is not concluded in new s.t.a.r.t.

whatsoever. this has been carefully written not to stop implementation of new s.t.a.r.t.. it puts some speed bumps in the way to make sure people's feet are held to the fire so promises that are made are actually kept. all this amendment does. i yield back. >> i yield back as well. >> any further debate on this issue? the question is adoption of the amendment offered by mr. lamborn. those in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. the ares have it. >> mr. chairman, ask for the recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been arrested. >> support for will call. will call is ordered. we will call these roll-call

votes later in this debate. the chair recognizes mr. turner for purpose of offering an amendment. >> i have no amendment. >> clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. gentleman is recognized to explain this amendment. >> thank you. this amendment continues efforts to recodified implementation

process that arises out of the new s.t.a.r.t. agreement. during the deliberations in the senate on new s.t.a.r.t. this and it gives direction to the president to take up the issue concerning be in balance of non-strategic nuclear-weapons between russia, united states, europe and our nato allies. estimates are russia has as many as 3800 non-strategic nuclear weapons pointed at europe not addressed in the new s.t.a.r.t. agreement whereas estimates are europe has between 100, and 500 of these weapons. the senate in addressing the issue of this imbalance recognizing it represents a specific and -- significant threat, the president if he is to go forward with any additional agreements to address this issue, this amendment responds to that direction that the president has undertaken.

in the nato recently in adopting its strategic concept in november of 2010 reaffirmed it is a nuclear alliance and in that, represented the support for the importance of the united states and nato to have a nuclear deterrent. as part of that nato also directed that they undertake a deterrence review and our concern is the deterrents review may be undertaken without context to what it is deterring. if nato undertakes this review, looks at the assets of nato in the united states, further reductions may be undertaken without the senate's goal of production on the part of russia. this limits reduction or consolidation to withdraw nuclear forces from europe and less the country requests it or nato decides to support the

reduction and consolidation and withdrawal and the president certifies remaining nuclear forces in europe >> reporter: a commensurate level of deterrence. our subcommittee held a significant number of hearings leading up to this which included testimony from defense secretary william perry who testified that the united states should not eliminate all tactical nuclear weapons unilaterally. we should seek concessions from russia in its overwhelming presence. another thing of great importance his a policy statement from this committee that if adopted by the house, a geographical relocation or storage of non-nuclear weapons by russia would not constitute a reduction. we want to make sure we are not in a situation where the administration agrees for russia

to geographically move their weapons back a distance from europe and have that be counted as a reduction. i think people -- we moved weapons from the dakota to texas would not consider that a reduction, just we moved an asset that could be moved back. we are making a statement that the president as a result of direction he received from the senate moves forward in looking at reduction that a geographical relocation of those weapons would be insufficient to be considered a reduction. this is a provision that is part of the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation after which i appreciate the chairman's support and senator carl --kyl will drop that on the senate side. this provides some context to the administration as they move forward in that direction from the senate. as we look at the support of our

deterrence umbrella and how it supports our nato allies. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen. >> i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for leadership of the subcommittee. he has done a great job with the subcommittee working hand in hand with ranking member sanchez. we seem to have a few differences of opinion. one of these being this amendment but overall i want to emphasize for the most part we have worked very well together on the committee to move our market forward. in particular there are some things, certainly the need for a nato consensus on any removal of nuclear weapons in europe or request for removal of tactical nuclear weapons by nato host countries with notification

requirement as well. this amendment misconstrues the value that nato puts on tactical nuclear weapons in europe. the value of the nato alliance places on it. as noted by sanchez the nato strategic concept states in november of 2010 the guarantee of security of the allies, provided by strategic nuclear forces of the alliance particularly those of the united states. what i mean by that is strategic as opposed to non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons. the statement makes no mention of tactical nuclear weapons. the fact that in december of 2008, the task force chaired by former secretary schlesinger along the principal advocate for nuclear weapons abstain from its

advocacy role and no longer recognizes the political imperative of u.s. nuclear weapons in the alliance with senior levels of the u.s. uconn but the strategic deterrent of the u.s. does in fact provide a credible and effective deterrent to protect the alliance. countries such as the balkan states and others still value the role of nuclear weapons in europe, tactical nuclear weapons, commensurate insurance can be provided by strategic deterrence in the united states as allies in nato or japan or south korea. no doubt that the estimated number of russian non-strategic nuclear-weapons cottas me heartburn and a lot of us heartburn. those concerns can be addressed and ought to be addressed. i would agree with the

gentleman's assertion regarding the geographic relocations of these nuclear weapons should not be counted as reduction but i would also note we need to find a way to not get in the way of the administration's hands to get the geographic relocation to happen. one is to ensure these tactical nuclear weapons are in fact secure within russia as opposed to where they are. we might think they are secure but we obviously think they are deployed throughout that country. in a geographic location. and secured geographic location would be important whether they are counted as reductions. having said that, i think we are close on this one but not quite

there. we are attempting to dictate to and administration, not this one or the next one, about approachs to take -- approaches to take. the nato strategic concept emphasizes strategic deterrent not so much non strategic deterrent. and dod opposes this amendment as well. i asked my colleagues to oppose this. knowing full well then this is a subcommittee that doesn't work well together on these issues despite some differences around the edges. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. wilson for five minutes. >> i yield my time to mr. turner of ohio. >> i want to thank mr. larsen for his statements about the

bipartisan effort of the subcommittee. certainly significantly contribute to that. it is a subcommittee where everybody realizes we have a learning curve on issues and everyone will the their sleeves and works diligently. i appreciate your characterization of this amendment because you identify the issues very accurately. the reason i ask additional time is to provide more insight as to why this would be important. if you put an amendment in front of this committee and ask us to support unilateral withdrawal of the united states nuclear weapons from europe without any concessions from russia and/or without the consent for consensus of our nato allies. that amendment would have unilateral opposition from this committee. this amendment is just the reverse.

it says since we are opposed to that, don't do that. if you are opposed to unilateral withdrawal of weapons without concession from russia you should be for this amendment because everyone would agree that it would be a bad outcome. this is a policy statement from this committee to the administration as they are undertaking these important negotiations to not do that. people will support the amendment and i appreciate your support for the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation act. >> the gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, for five minutes. >> i appreciate the very thoughtful way that chairman turner and ranking member sanchez and mr. larsen approached this. here's my objection to the amendment. if i am wrong in my interpretation of that i asked to be corrected.

let's say the russians agree that they are going to make up a wholesale intense effort to round up loose fissile material and give it a high national priority and let our people help them look and there will be no holds barred, they will give an urgent national priority to rounding up loose fissile material and we determine that is a beneficial security goal for us to achieve. and the russian come to the president whoever that is and say to him or her as a show of good faith to make this happen in our domestic politics we want you to back off some of your nuclear arsenal in europe. that is the gain we want to have. as i read this amendment, if the nato countries disagree with that, then we couldn't do it. if our president decided and had broad support in the country

that that is a good deal for us that we should back off some of our nuclear arsenal in western europe in exchange for an intense russian effort to gathered loose fissile material we can only accept that deal if nato has decided to support such reduction consolidation or withdrawal. you can quarrel with whether or not we can accept the deal are just hypothesized but i don't think any of us wants to delegate the decisionmaking authority of the president of the united states or the united states congress to nato. i would yield to anyone who would care to tell me if i have beincorrectly interpreted the amendment. >> reporter: the subject matter

of treaty negotiations with the senate. not be that -- the expectation is the unilateral -- [talking over each other] >> i don't think that the scenario i outlined would require treaty. if the russians agreed that they were willing to engage in that kind of active partnership the president has legal authority to say yes right now and i don't think it requires a treaty to determine our nuclear presence in western europe will be less than it is right now. if you assume no treaty necessary is my conclusion right? >> the intent of the provision you're referring to is these weapons are part of the deterrents umbrella with nato and nato would have an active role in that decision. we don't view the weapons in europe as weapons necessary for the defense of the united

states. they are there for the defense of nato and our european allies. that is why the provision has the intent of their engagement. so that we don't in essence have them with the rug pulled out from underneath. >> reclaim my time. 9 understand that argument and it is offered in good faith but i respectfully disagree for the following reason. imagine if we changed the idiom from nuclear weapons to troops and we decided in our budget cutting decisions we wanted to close bases in germany or england or elsewhere in europe and we understand we will do that but only if nato -- [talking over each other] >> everyone would argue and understand they are for our

protection and our allies. the presence of these weapons as said in our hearing are absolutely in there with respect to the umbrella for nato -- >> i appreciate that remark. it is not about the weapons but the principle. and the principle here is the purview to make the decision is that of elected officials in the united states and not of nato. for that reason i would respectfully urge a no vote on the amendment. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? mr. franks recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman. we find ourselves in an unfortunate element of debate simply because the line between strategic weapons and tactical weapons is beginning to blur a little bit if you are germany or someone like that. if you are surrounded by russian tactical weapons that have the

capability to decimate your country, all of a sudden the distinction between a strategic nature or technical nature sort of doesn't matter that much to you. one of the great weaknesses of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is it separated for those two weapons to the extent where america has the obvious advantage. most would agree related to the strategic weapons. we made the treaty based on those alone. we are in the process of building down significantly and we left what must be a 10-1 disadvantage with the russians on tactical weapons. out of the equations and at some point we have to debate that or enter -- whether it is the treaty or part of the administration. that is going to leave us at a strategic disadvantage in the debate itself and i think this amendment tries to address that

in a responsible way. there are some points that you are for that are worth considering for the future but this amendment addresses this in an effective way and i urge support by the members for the turner amendment. >> thank you. any further discussion? gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, recognize for five minute. >> i have a sense of the attempt being attempted here to maintain a strategic advantage and a nuclear deterrent. however, in reading through the language in various sections of the amendment which is a dangerous thing to do when debating something it is easier to debate on a philosophical but on reading through this, the effect of this amendment is going to have a very detrimental effect to foreign policy.

it director, restricts, and makes it difficult for a former member of this committee who has specific responsibility for this task to engage in negotiations and discussions with our allies in europe, some of whom might want to see a reduction in the american forces that are stationed in their country. i just think we have gone too far with this specific language and the way it does restrict. all of you are familiar with a former member of this committee and her task is specifically this issue. if you look from the point of view of what she must do in negotiating with the europeans or the russians on this set of issues this is really restrictive. and i think inappropriate. it might be nice to say some

words we want to maintain a strategic advantage but when you get into the detail here, i know what i would do. i would be most upset that congress is getting into foreign policy and specific areas of the president and i will refer to mr. bartlett's's comments about the role of this house and with regard to military policy. this is very much foreign policy. we ought to put this aside. i yield back the remaining amount of my time. >> any further discussion on this amendment? hearing none, the question is out of option by mr. turner. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it.

request for a roll-call vote will roll out to a later time in the debate. we now have mr. fleming for the purpose of an amendment. >> i would like to call up amendment 248 are. >> please pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. if the gentleman will suspend the amendment to be distributed. gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.

>> before i talk about the amendment specifically i would like to reflect upon the comments made by other members here. mr thornberry talked about the fact that we would love to beat our swords into plowshares but that would not compel others to do the same. we are in a period in which more and more countries are considering or have gone for nuclear-weapons but we have to be very careful about unilaterally disarming our sales. he also talked about the fact that we have an aging nuclear weapons system which we are in the process of updating but at some point in the process we have malfunctions which could in some way with a small margin we are down to under the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty could create a dangerous situation in terms of

limiting our ability to be a deterrent. to be more specific, i would like to make comments about the president as well. releasing statements from senior administration officials the administration is preparing for the next round of nuclear reductions. beyond those required by the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and the president plans unchanging targeting requirements to enable these reductions, would the president's pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons there is concern the administration will seek to change targeting strategy in nuclear structure to an approach that requires fewer warheads without ensuring such changes are driven by national security requirements and not a disarmament agenda. let me address for a moment a very important concept and that is counterforce versus countervalue. in nuclear warfare enemy targets

can be divided into two types. counterforce, military targets and countervalue, civilian targets. the counterforce target has a military value such as an icbm launchers 50, an air base in which nuclear-armed bombers are stationed, home port for ballistic missile sub range or command and control installations. the intent of a counterforce strategy is to disarm and adversary. hopefully in a preemptive way by destroying its nuclear weapons before they can be launched. countervalue targets on the other hand include an adversary's population, economic or political resources like cities. what i am saying here is if we continue down with our nuclear stockpile under future treaties we could find ourselves, the

president already suggesting in order to make them work with such a small margin wheat may be in a position to have to move up the priority of targeting the city's rather than targeting the nuclear installations from our potential adversaries. what this bill does in summary is explain the implications of such changes in deterrent and assurance, and certify they do not require a change from counterforce to countervalue targets. would mandate a study of nuclear-weapons structure requirements. this is also an amendment building on the work my good friend mr. lamborn did last year to put forward an amendment on

the floor which would involve the secretary of defense committing a report to congress before further reductions. in summary, i feel like this is very needed in order to avoid some targeting strategies that could be very dangerous in the future. it actually has a more humanitarian approach, that is to say let's target first our adversaries or potential adversaries nuclear sites and not the cities and certainly populations. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from -- road island. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.

i respectfully rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. basically the amendment oversteps the constitutional authority of president and micromanages nuclear war planning. the president as commander-in-chief has the authority and responsibility to provide guidance to the military on how we can deflate and target nuclear-weapons. congress has the authority to request information and notification about that guidance and has the opportunity to block anything with which it disagrees like funding for their efforts. the premise, we talked about an issue of counterforce and countervalue, the premise of the certification is in terms of construing nuclear targeting as

all counterforce and assuming it might become counterof value, the gao, history of targeting has been a mix. targets have included not only military installations but also industrial institutions and political leadership, communication. these targets are usually located at major cities which blurs the distinction between counterforce and countervalue. the fact is the 1991 gao report notes that, quote, is targeting process is designed to develop a plan that provides the president with a range of options for using u.s. nuclear weapons to respond to any level of aggression. mr. chairman, the amendment is not only unconstitutional but ties the hands of the administration nuclear planning

and engages nuclear deterrence. with those reasons, i oppose the amendment and asked my colleagues to as well. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. chair recognizeds the gentleman from arizona, mr franks for five minutes. >> i support this amendment. i think it is important to point out the language says the secretary would certify such a reduction does not require a change in targeting strategy from counterforce targeting to countervalued targeting. it is an important consideration. this doesn't put upon the president to follow some sort of congressional mandated strategy. it simply says we don't want to put ourselves in a position of making reductions that require us to move from counterforce targets to countervalued targeting. it is important to keep in mind when we talk about deterrent, is

not defined by what is in our minds. it is what in the potential adversary's mind. an adversary would conclude very quickly that if we were moving to a countervalued target, cities or things of that nature there would be a greater reticence on the part of the commander-in-chief to carry that response out. mr. chairman, that is an important psychological consideration. i had the privilege of being in japan and one of the members of their suggested japan needed their own strategic deterrent simply because if a madman like kim jong il decided to launch a nuclear strike on some part of japan, the only actual nuclear deterrent would be the american umbrella. would an american president make the decision to kill millions of north koreans or hundreds of thousands or thousands of north koreans to respond to such an

attack upon japan? there is at least a question to -- there is at least -- is not a certainty. if japan had their own deterrent i think the north koreans would recognize the response would be almost certain. the certainty of our response is a critical element to deterrence and if our targets for deterrents are counterforce targets i think an enemy will conclude we are much more likely to follow through with that and the sponsor here has recognized that and understood that not only is it within our value parameters of the united states, but much more possible to have a stronger deterrent by maintaining our ability to target counterforce basis. the amendment simply says reductions cannot require us to move to counterforce to

countervalue targets. >> i suggest the sponsor is quick and we will support it. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from washington, mr. larsen is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from louisiana for this amendment and mr. langevin's comments. i would like to ask you to oppose this amendment. i am not asking for a show of hands but who really wants to have a debate about who or what gets targeted by u.s. nuclear weapons? that is a very obviously difficult debate to have. sometimes needs to be an

extremely cold hearted debate because these are nuclear-weapons. they do a lot more damage than non nuclear-weapons. i can understand it is difficult to have this counterforce versus countervalued targeting debate but it is not one we want to have but one we have to have. because of that, one that we have to have a logical conclusion is we have to settle on insuring that the executive, whoever that executive is war may be has the flexibility to make a decision about targeting that matches threat and national security. i may differ with others but i

don't think there's anything humanitarian in the targeting debate. i just really don't. it is a debate threat is one of necessity and when we make these decisions about targeting, it is really about our threat and national security. as a result, we do need maximum flexibility to make these decisions. as a result of that i really think we need to oppose this particular amendment. yield back. >> evelyn yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. once again this is a provision in the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation act and i appreciate the chairman's support for that. this provision again goes to the issue of how do we proceed after

s.t.a.r.t. and its implementation? it is clearly constitutional. we are not getting into its use of targeting or debating targeting. we are making a value statement of two switches, countervalued versus counterforce. with respect to this committee we did this last year. i have the provision in front of me that was passed for national defense authorization act for last year and it says it required certification from the secretary of defense that such reduction preserve the nuclear deterrent capabilities of the nuclear triad and in the next session, it does not require a change in targeting strategy from counterforce targeting to countervalue targeting. they did this before and it is an important statement to make because countervalue targeting, concept of targeting the

civilian populations of your adversary can be used to argue that you need a lower number of weapons if you are just going to kill people as opposed to actually address military infrastructure. obviously the issue for us when it gets to increase safety is if you target them with military infrastructure you actually inhibit their ability to continue to attack you. you diminish their overall capability whereas if you target their population you are just killing people and that is immoral and consequences that i know this committee and this house would never support. we are making a statement that we made before. we did it last year and we are making a statement everyone here agrees with. that is counterforce versus countervalued targeting being not desirable and something we would not support. our concern is this administration if they change

that targeting scenario would utilize it for the purposes of arguing that they need an even lower number of their star carl. we believe that would make us less safe and from a policy perspective is something this committee would not support. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, miss sanchez for five minute. >> i was not going to speak on this but when my colleague from washington mr. larsen started talking about is it really right, should we be targeting -- i think he made some good points. i won't talked-about targeting except to say that the premise of the certification is flawed in terms of nuclear targeting is all counterforce and this and it may become all countervalue. the history of targeting has been a mix of both because

sometimes you go after industrial installations and political leadership, not only military installations because a lot of these targets are in major cities, it blurs the distinction between counterforce and countervalue. i am going to be supporting -- i am going to be opposing the amendment and supporting mr. larsen on this because i do believe that it is flawed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yelled back. the gentleman from california, mr. hunter is recognized for five minute. >> i yield my time to the gentleman from louisiana. >> i thank the gentleman and want to focus on this. mr. larsen talks about flexibility. i think that is the whole problem here. we already have after

implementing this new s.t.a.r.t. treaty we are down to 1550 weapons many of them very old. we are at a point where the president is already talking about going down further and there may have to be a new targeting strategy in the process of doing that. what we are saying here is this president and future presidents should retain the flexibility that they can continue targeting first, the highest priority, other nuclear systems, systems that are from a potential adversary rather than pointing at their populations. that is precisely the point of this amendment to preserve the flexibility of this. with that i yield back. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from texas, mr.

thornberry is recognized for five minutes. >> three quick points. we don't decide who gets targeted but the amendment says change in nuclear employment strategy. we don't beside the target but we should know whether there is a change in strategy of how nuclear-weapons are targeted, because that is a larger national security issue that is part of our responsibility. secondly, the strategy one uses in targeting also determines in some ways and maybe depends on the characteristics of the weapons themselves. that is our -- about what modernization programs we will fund, what characteristics these weapons have relates to the infrastructure we were talking about as well as work going on

in the labs. the last point i make is i appreciate and respect the president's role as commander-in-chief and the point was made our role is funding. we can't make decisions on funding if we don't know what happened. the point of this amendment says he has to give us a report. if he is going to change the strategy he has to give us a report with these items in it and i don't think that is too much to ask. it is a fair criticism from time to time that members of both parties have not aggressively enough questions administrations of their parties on some defense issues and it is important for us to have the information we need to make our decisions and to affirmatively take our place in the constitutional system of providing for the common defense.

i think this amendment helps us do that getting us the information and requiring the report that is in there so we should support it. >> gentleman yields back. no further requests for debate on this amendment. question is on adoption of the amendment offered by dr. fleming. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. there has been a request for a roll-call vote that will be rolled until the end of this portion of debate. we now recognize miss sanchez of california for five minutes. >> thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will pass out the amendment. >> 227. >> without objection the reading of the amendment will be

dispensed with. the gentlelady will hold until we get it distributed. gentlelady is recognized to explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what this amendment would do would reallocate the increase of $100 million from the ground based midcourt defense to the national guard and reserve equipment because this funding is not needed in fiscal year 12 for d m d. .for. in..