p the speaker: on this vote, the yeas are 206, the yeas are 60. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> madam speaker, ski unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the senate bill s. 372 and ask its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 372, an act tie mend chapter 23 of title 5 of united states code to clarify that disclosures of information prohibited from processes require a statement of nondisclosure policies and that such forms and agreements

conform with protections for the special counsel and other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill. >> madam speaker, i object. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 36, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 6 , line 23. page 69, line 23, strike title 3 and insert title 2. page 303, strike line 7, strike section 302 and insert section 202. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment is agreed to. the bill is read a third time, passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose -- >> i just want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and congressman platts for his leadership and i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be entered into

the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> madam speaker, ski unanimous consent that the committee on oversight and government reform be discharged from further consideration of the resolution h.res. 1461 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1461, supporting olympic day on june 23, 2010 and congratulating team u.s.a. and world fit participants. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. van hollen: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measures just considered. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. van hollen: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the house committee on foreign a, mr. diaz-balart: that the house committee on financial services be discharged from further consideration of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: senate 4036, an act to clarify the national administration stabilization authority to make expenditures without borrowing from the treasury. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. klein: i ask unanimous consent that the house committee on foreign affairs be discharged from further consideration of s.con.res. 647 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title.

the clerk: senate con curt resolution 67, celebrating 130 years of united states-romanian diplomatic relations and congratulating the romanian people on their great nation and reaffirming the deep trust between the united states and romania, a most trusted ally. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, ski -- johnson i ask that h. 6560 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to amend title 28 united states code to clarify and approve certain improvements relating to litigation against federal officers or agencies to the federal courts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is engrossed, read a third time and passed. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 1779 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1779, resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of the freedom ride. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the

consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include their statements into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table h.r. 6901 with the senate amendments thereto and to concur in the senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title and the senate amendments. the clerk: an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to exempt certain investments from real property interest and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the original

request of the gentleman from washington? without objection, the senate amendments are agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid ton the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to discharge the committee on house administration from further consideration of house resolution 1783 and ask annapolis consent for its immediate -- unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: resolution making a technical correction to a cross reference in the final regulations issued by the office of compliance to implement the veterans' employment opportunities act of 1998 that applied to the house of representatives and employees of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution 1234

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask that the speaker take the bill and ask for the immediate consideration of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: an act to amend the federal water pollution control act to clarify federal responsibility for stormwater pollution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time passed and a motion to reconsider is laid on the time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask to take from the speaker's table the bill s. 4048 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 4068, an act to provide enhanced protection for service members relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosure. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration

of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill s. 3903 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3903, an act to authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands helds in trust. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. lujan: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? mr. lujan: i ask that my full statement be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. lujan: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the

measure considered by unanimous consent today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1784, resolved, that a committee of two members of the house be appointed to wait upon the president of the united states and inform him that the house of representatives has completed

its business of the session and is ready to adjourn unless the president has some other communication to make to them. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 1784, the chair appoints the following members of the house to the committee to notify the president. the clerk: the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the chairman and ranking minority member of each standing committee and each subcommittee be permitted to extend their remarks in the congressional record up to and including the records last publication and to include a summary of the work of that committee or subcommittee.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members may have until publication of the last submission of the congressional record authorized for the second session of the 111th congress by the joint committee on printing to revise and extend their remarks and to include brief related extraneous material on any matter concerning -- occurring before the adjournment of the second session sine die. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to section 205-a of the vietnam education foundation act of 2000, public law 106-554, and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member of the house to the board of directors of the vietnam

education foundation. the clerk: ms. lohr -- upon the recommendation of the majority leader, ms. loretta sanchez of california. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek rick anything? mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, your committee appointed to inform the president that the house is ready to adjourn and to ask him if he has any further communications to make to the house as performed that duty. the president has directed us to say that he has no further communications to make to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. ginny brown-waite of florida for december 21 and the balance of

the week. ms. danny davis of illinois for today. mr. gene green of texas for today. ms. eddie bernice johnson for today and the balance of the week. mr. pastor of arizona for today. mr. poe of texas for today after 4:00 p.m. mr. reyes of texas for december 21 and 22. mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are ordered -- are granted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, this bill that's just passed is a bit indicative of how things have gone here in

the last two years. people didn't have a chance to read the bill. people didn't have a chance to make amendments to the bill. there is no question the heroes from 9/11 deserved our full attention. they deserved to have proper moneys raised in proper ways in order to fund their proper treatment. that should have been done, but it wasn't. now we come rushing here at the last minute, and in fact there were 176 democrats that voted. it took 42 republicans voting to give a quorum to get enough people so the vote would count. we had to wait over an hour for people to fly in from different places. is that any way to run a government? is that any way to handle the business regarding heroes? and by the way, we're told this will be paid for, one of the ways to get to pay for it, our troops in the middle east and we have to buy things from vendors over there and we're going to

slap a 2% tax on everything they sell to us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: madam speaker, after more than nine years of the war in afghanistan and a troop surge that supposedly was going to turn the tide, all we have are modest gains that are fragile and reversible. for the price of $377 billion, the lives of 1,400 brave americans, that's it? we need to hear more than the challenges are tough, there are difficult days ahead. we need to hear more than, does little to eliminate the situation for the american people who are footing the bill. eugene robinson assessed the review this way. the good news that president

obama's strategy in afghanistan is on track. the bad news is that the track runs in a circle. round and round on that track we go, madam speaker. more of our finest young people thrown into harm's way, more dollars flying out of the treasury, more of our global credibility destroyed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, we've had a long, tough congress , and we come to the end of it, and i'm sorry that my good friend from texas implied the

vote was held open for some nefarious reasons. we passed the bill for our first responders a long time ago, and they finally got around to it over in the senate. those people were important, and it was important that we wait and make sure it gets over here and we get it passed into law. unfortunately, one of our members had gone home to visit her grandmother who is near the end of her life, and the planes coming in and trying to drive in the traffic of the rush hour makes it a little difficult. and so it didn't happen quite as quickly as we wanted. but i'm sure this time of christmas when we all believe that we want good will for all men and all women around the world, we can extend a moment to finish the business of taking

care of the first responders who on the 11th of september, 2001, didn't hesitate on our behalf. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h.con.res 336, providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the 111th congress. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 106 of the higher education opportunity act, public law 110-315, and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member on the part of the house to the national

advisory committee on institutional quality and integrity for a term of six years. the clerk: upon the recommendation of the majority leader, dr. george t. french of fairfield, alabama. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 6517 with the senate amendment thereto and to concur in the senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the -- and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 6517, an act to extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs to amend the harmonized tariff schedule of the united states to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is

dispensed with. is there objection to the original request of the gentleman from washington? without objection, the senate amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to section 491 of the higher education act, 20 u.s.c. 1098-c as amended and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member on the part of the house to the advisory committee on student financial assistance for a term of four years. the clerk: upon the recommendation of the majority leader, ms. deborah stanley of bowie, maryland. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, pursuant to house concurrent resolution 336, 111th congress, i move that the house do now adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: in accordance -- the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. in accordance with the house concurrent resolution 336, 111th congress, the chair declares the house of the second session of th

>> listen up. this is a day of celebration.

the good guys won. [applause] >> all right. whoo! >> i have been so impressed with the legislative efforts of the new york delegation, but also the house members. everyone worked very hard on this issue. it was an issue of fairness and justice. you cannot take out of your mind the power of 9/11 when these brave men and women rushed in to those burning buildings with smoke pouring album, and when the smoke stopped, the debris was still there. the decree was clear, but the problem is, people rushed in and fought those fires and brought people out and help clean the debris, and they are the ones

that will never forget what they did because they have the disease to prove it. every american remembers the fear, anger, and sadness in the hours, days, weeks, and months that followed 9/11. we can all remember where we were. s 219. we had our leadership meeting every week there, and i was the first to get there. john walked in and said there was something going on in new york. high levels of course. the meeting got started. senator daschle was leading the discussion. the door open, people came in, whisked him out, and he said we had to get out of there. he said there is a plane headed for the capital, and we could see the pentagon burning. we also remember the pride we

felt as we learned the stories of thousands of first responders to rush into burning buildings, facing injury and in many instances certain debt to save people they had never met and never seen. we also learned about emergency personnel who helped clean up the search for friends and loved ones in the weeks and months after 9/11. those brave americans were not just from new york. most of the more -- most of them were, but emergency personnel and fire fighters came from all over the country. patriots from all over america answered the call. when america needed these men and women following the terrorist attack of 9/11, they did not hesitate and waiver to do their jobs. because of the toxic fumes they inhaled that day and the weeks and months that followed, these heroes are paying the price for

the courage that is really difficult to describe. sadly, some have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. i cannot say enough about senator schumer. everyone knows how close we are. the new center from new york -- what a team. [applause] -- the new senator from new york. i will always remember the state of new jersey, frank lautenberg is here. thank you, frank. [applause] we did not get everything we wanted. but all we remember -- legislate -- but always remember legislation is the art of compromise. this is $4.3 billion better than

nothing. this is a great victory for the american people, the people of new york, new jersey, and the rest of the country. we said that we would never forget, and today's actions insure these heroes are never forgotten. just as they help us recover from 9/11, we will stand by them and help them recover from the distress, illnesses as a result of there being heroes for us. ladies before gentlemen. [applause] >> this is the day we have all but a working for and waiting for. our christmas miracle has arrived. [applause] democrats and republicans came together to make sure that we could fulfill our undeniable moral obligation to our men and women who are first responders,

our heroes, and all the survivors at ground zero. the firefighters here, the police officers here, everyone involved in the recovery to all volunteer, the family members, thank you. it was your work, your heroism, your dedication that made the difference. your effort coming here week after week to tell senators and congress members about your story and what you went through and your dedication that really shone through. there are so many people to sign, but i really want to thank my colleagues. shock is an unbelievable leader an extraordinarily dedicated public servant, but he is someone who really put his heart and soul into this, and he is an extraordinary closer. he was here to the last hour last night making every effort possible that needed to be done, and i can tell you with great honesty that he is an extraordinary man who puts all of new york first.

thank you. [applause] nynex want to thank our majority leader. harry reid is someone who not only leads by example, but he leads directly from what he believes in. his core values are at the heart of a man who does unbelievable good things for other people. he has led every step of the way. he has never faltered. he has never wavered, and he has never forgotten our 9/11 heroes. thank you, harry. [applause] i want to thank my wonderful colleagues from new jersey. they have been there every step of the way with extraordinary vision and leadership and dedication. thank you for your advocacy and commitment. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, frank. i want to turn to allow house colleagues who have literally been working on this for nine

years. the work that they have done has been extraordinary, and i will tell you why we got this far -- because they took this bill every step of the way in the house. they had 21 hearings. they did the hard work of getting it through the house at a time when it actually had to be done. it was their dedication, perseverance, and conviction that got it to the senate, thank you guys for everything you did. you brought the bill this far and allow us to take it to the next step. thank you. [applause] last but certainly not least, and i want to thank my republican colleagues. if we learned anything from this last election, it was the the american people wanted us to get things done. they asked us to come to washington, work hard on behalf of the american people and work

together. i can tell you that the senators came to the table to help. they wanted to make a difference. they wanted to make the bill better. they came together at a great time of need, and they truly made a difference, so i want to thank them for making this possible today. [applause] going to close with a reminder about what all of this is about. on 9/11, our country was attacked by terrorists. certain men and women -- the strongest, the bravest among us -- race of those towers when everybody was coming down. they were the ones that went to the pile first to look for survivors. then to find remains. and then to do the cleanup. they never failed. they never stopped. they never wavered. they never had any concern for themselves. our government said the air was safe, but they did not care. they were there because they

were answering the call and duty. i want to thank them for their perseverance, their dedication, their love of country, and for standing behind all-america when we needed them. this is our small effort to stand behind them when they need us most. god bless you. [applause] now, i would like to introduce our senior senator. as i said, none of this would have been possible without him. he has such an extraordinary way to bring people together, to move legislation forward and get the american people's business done. chuck schumer. [applause] >> thank you, and i just want to ditto all kirsten's many thanks, but there is one person she did not thank. she did an amazing job.

she never gave up in the darkest days and was indomitable. some of these senators would stop her from bothering me, and i said no, and the result of our but hard work we see today. what a great victory for a new legislative. isn't that fabulous for any new legislator? but for someone this new to do so much so soon is utterly amazing. and one other group that was not bank, and that is the people behind us. i think we would all agree we were sort of the players who moved the pieces on the chess table, but they were the ones who stood behind us, who held up that table. without them, there would not have even been a game. they were amazing. they never gave up. their love of country and their fellow first responders was

unlimited. unlimited. and i have to tell you, the medal of them of amazing. we sat in a room with a few of them yesterday -- i did -- and we told them we might have to compromise, we might have get not everything it wanted, and i were sure they would yell and scream at me, and john showed the metal of a man. he said if we could get this and it would last for five years, let's take it. john, you are amazing. [applause] and everybody else who was here. today is an amazing day. it is a great day, of course, and now at least we know they will be taken care of. it is a great day for new york and new jersey because we were the ones hit, and america rose to the occasion, but most of

all, beyond any amazing story that brings tears to our eyes, this is a great day for america. when you doubt this great country of ours -- and believe me, we are not perfect -- remember days like today, we are america. america rose to the occasion. america almost never lets you down at the end of the day, and america did not let us down today. she smiled brightly. that statue of liberty must have a grin from year to year. not just for new york, but for america. we nearly gave up last night. i was in my office -- someone

else we left out of thanking -- our staff. [applause] and while we were there last night and we thought it had all fallen apart -- and i did. i sleep well. my family and friends and staff knows that. i usually sleep through anything, but i had a bad night last night. when we woke up this morning, and when senator gillibrand and i walked in to tom coburn cozy office expecting barriers, the first thing he said was, "we are real close." you could see by his body language and the tone of his voice that they really wanted to get this done. and it only took us about an hour. so here we are. those people who did rush to help us and who thought they were being abandoned are now in the bosom of america.

this is a proud day. a proud day for everyone who has been involved in this effort and for everyone who bears the title "citizen of the usa." [applause] excuse myself. we have another vote. i'm needed on the floor. >> ok, thanks. our colleagues from new jersey stood with us shoulders shoulder, and when you are in a fight that sometimes seems lonely, to have people by your side is amazing, and they were unflinching in the dedication, devotion, time, energy, and ideas, and it is my pleasure to introduce senator frank lautenberg and senator bob menendez.

>> well, like every one of you, this is a proud day for america, and we all feel emotional, but very satisfied that we have come to the kind of an end that we have. we must set our hat or at least give credit where it is due, and that is to kirsten gillibrand. new here, but worked more arduously then many old-timers. she took a leadership position on this, and we have been fighting for years to try to get some justice put in to what took place. chuck schumer, ardent supporter, my colleagues, all of us fell it

personally because our friends and neighbors were some of the people who died that day. the 11th executive director parish at that moment. a young man i knew very well perished that day, 28 years old. the brother of the fellow who heads cantor fitzgerald -- they lost 700 people. perished that day. when we found a group of believers to fight for your help and your lives over lots of disbelievers, skeptics, and our right croll hearted opponents -- they denied the truth about our honor and duty to protect those who fought to protect every one of us, and some even ducked for cover and said it was wasteful spending. would they dare stand in front of other war wounded and say, "sorry, this is wasteful spending"?

even my governor in new jersey was skeptical about it. he thought it might be fiscally irresponsible. in my state, 700 people from my state were killed on september 11, and 8200 are being monitored for exposure to toxic chemicals. we moralize james because he believed it was his duty to spend hundreds of hours surrounded by toxic materials and dust where it was difficult to even read in normally, but he was their many hours. was it our duty to help those in need recover from wounds that were inflicted upon them by our enemies? every one of the persons who is sick now, every one of the persons who died is a victory for the people who want to hurt america, for our enemies, and this compares with some of the great battles that this country has ever seen. i say great in terms of

proportion. the battle of the bulge. i was serving in belgium at that time. left almost 90,000 american soldiers dead, wounded, or missing, and 90,000 people are now dead, have passed on, sit, or are being monitored as a result of this vicious attack on our country. like the men and women affected by passports, the victims of 9/11 are our were wounded, and we are finally fulfilling our moral mandate to make sure they receive the care that they deserve. it is sad that it took us this long, but we all fought until we finally fulfilled our duty, particularly those here who were part of the people who served in that area, part of the families who lived in that area, and i urge my colleagues in the house, do not the late. complete our work and ensure that the heroes of 9/11 no that

their sacrifices will be honored. friends, stay strong. it restores our faith in america. god bless you. [applause] >> i'm thrilled to be here today with all of these first responders. today, the united states senate and america responded to our first responders. i have said various times as we were lobbying here that a grateful nation honors the men and women who wore a uniform. it is a different uniform, uniform of a police officer, firefighter, emergency personnel, and others who responded on that fateful day not by simply going to a september 11 commemoration, but how we take care of their health care, how we take care of their disabilities and how we take care of their disabilities who committed the ultimate sacrifice

on behalf of a nation. today, the nation honors those individuals in a meaningful way. i want to salute my two colleagues from new york. kirsten gillibrand sits next to me on the floor of the senate, and i have to tell you, if she grabs me one more time and says, "this is where we are on the 9/11 bill" -- she was really incredibly driven, and if you have to be in a legislative or other battle, you could not have a more skillful, artful, intellect at work than chuck schumer. these individuals may an enormous difference. [applause] finally, i want to remember in a very special way the person for whom this bill is named. he was a new jersey andian -- new jerseyan who was in new york

city police officer. he spent 450 hours at the site. when he drove away, he said to his wife and kids, "i need to respond." his only protection against the toxins at the site was a simple paper mask. he did not think of himself. nor did he think of the consequences for his family. he thought about his duty, his honor, and his country. we lost jim two years ago, but for all of those who still are alive, we honor them today by the passage of this bill, and that passage says that we are truly a grateful nation. thank you very much. >> i want to also recognize two that could not be at the press conference but also deserve much gratitude. mayor bloomberg, as you know, has been an unbelievable advocate and has really worked hard to win support for this

bill, and secretary clinton. secretary clinton was on the senate floor for the bill, and i said to her that this was a double rainbow because she was one of the first to start the work in the senate years ago working tirelessly, so their hard work has made a difference as well. i would like to introduce carol and jerry, who will represent all the house members who are here -- okay, well, then, i will go straight on. just to say a word -- >> why don't you? >> ok, we will move on to our next speaker, but i want to say one thing about the house colleagues -- one of the reasons we were able to get this work done is because the bill that put together was so good. they literally worked so hard to get it right in the first

instance by having all those committee hearings, by taking it through committee. [applause] it was an excellent bill, and it allowed us to move forward in the senate. i would next like to introduce the president of the aflcio of new york. [applause] >> you know, this is a very special day, very emotional day for all of us, and it is hard, really, to grass the importance of this or the fact that it actually has been done. it has taken a long time, and we really fought hard, and i want to thank both senators for doing this in the way that you did it. as we got to the end, -- you know, there is a certain title that goes to the members of the house that are here as well, and that is to be called the legislator. we do not hear that a lot. i see it in a lot of the things that we have to do, but our

delegation, this new york delegation is made up of legislators, people will understand how to do, and are willing to step out and do things when others say they cannot be done. to make the right compromises, to bring people into it, and i'm so impressed at the work that was done this year, particularly over the last two or three weeks because it shows that the new york delegation, the new jersey delegation, the leadership of the senate all have the interests of us in mind, and for that, i'm very grateful. i want to thank someone directly who had a very big piece of doing this, inspired me to do this in ways that i did not think i could, to focus in ways that i did not think i could. the woman in the green dress. stand up.

[applause] i want to thank ted, jim, to give technical information here in ways that none of us really understood, but they did, and that is a good thing. i want to thank all the unions that got involved in this. the firefighters, bill from the firefighters that are here, steve on his way. all of the participants that spent time and never gave up -- i want to just make their case -- never gave up. one last thing on the house -- the way that came through the house, the spirit and the motion that both of you and elliott, who is here, brought to this -- i'm looking at you, and i will tell you why -- when you have that kind of passion and bring that type of passion, good

things happen. none of us should ever be afraid of hiding our passion. let me just end by saying every time i turned around, john was there. i know all of you that are here -- it is an amazing exercise in how america works, how did things are done, and why it is that this is without probability the best country in the world. thank you all. >> thank you, dennis. not only for your great work, but for your extraordinary leadership. next, i would like to introduce our president of the uniformed firefighters association. god bless steve for his extraordinary advocacy. >> first of all, i want to thank our senators. you did a hell of a job. and also our new york

congressional delegation viewed without them, we never would have got this far. fire fighters will always respond when they are needed. then, we had our government stand behind us. we appreciate that. one big banks i want to cut out is to jon stewart. it really is a shame that it had to come to this theory that it had to come to someone on the comedy channel to make this an issue. the media should take a look at themselves as to what they were doing. [applause] >> thank you. our next speaker is the president of the uniformed fire office association. thank you for his extraordinary advocacy and hard work. richard. >> so many people to thank. i actually had to write down. by unanimous consent, i could have never expected it to be that way. they really should call it united consent because what i

think it has done it has united our country together. we are still fighting two wars as a result of 9/11, and i think that this historic even today is going to really truly unified country. a few days before one of our holiest days, i think it is truly a christmas miracle. on behalf of our president, al haig and, uniform fireworks association, my executive board, the 7000 members active and retired of my organization -- we have so many people to thank. it started in the house and ironically will and in the house, so i'm going to start their first. i want to thank congressman carolyn maloney and dole, the sponsors of the bill, along with peter king, who worked so diligently, prodding his republican colleagues. cannot thank him enough. mike mann, who has always been a friend of my organization and will be our friend for life.

the entire new york delegation. the battling troops. i can go on and on. my senators now -- i hope that every citizen in our country feels the same way that i feel about these two senators. i feel truly blessed to have two extraordinary legislators -- thank you, senator gillibrand. thank you, senator schumer. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] i would like to thank carol schaefer, general president of the international association of firefighters, along with his staff. harold is not here because we had a catastrophic event in chicago. there was a very building. he lost two firefighters, and we had two critically injured, so i'm going to respond to harold

and thank him for his extraordinary leadership. the president of the afl cio is truly a labor icon and one that has been working for passage of this for years. his executive assistant is an intelligent, highly organized woman who managed to keep all of these various fractionalized groups together, an extraordinary job. my colleagues in the usa. they did a great job. maine's state firefighters president, john martel, standing right behind me. [applause] john utilize much equity and shared his magnificent relationship with both of his senators. we thank them. we thank him.

finally, to the real heroes, the people that stand behind me -- oh, excuse me, one more. i have colleagues from boston. [applause] they did an extraordinary job. the real heroes, though -- it is all about them. the people behind me. they are the face of this legislation, the very people will answer the call when their country was attacked in an act of war. may god hold you in the palm of his hand each and every day. god bless america. [applause] >> thank you so much. i just want to recognize eliot engel who joined us. thank you for all your hard work. elliott has been a stalwart advocate and fighter every step of the way. thank you. our last speaker is someone who

not only has a way with words, but he is someone who always speaks from the heart, and that is where the truth comes from. i have to say that we have no better advocate, no better friend, no better ally than john. john took it upon himself many years ago to say he was going to make a difference in this legislation, that he personally was going to bring his will upon this congress to do the right thing. and that will is so extraordinarily strong, and despite all the challenges he faces with his own health, he has mobilized hundreds to stand with him every step of the way, i just want to thank you, john, for your unbelievable advocacy and the heart of gold you possess and the absolute infectious nature of your desire to make a difference. [applause]

tall., you're he almost lifted me off my feet. >> he is taller. them at twice in the last month, i said whoever was in this room that did not think this bill was passed -- would pass, i told them to leave. and i meant it. i have faith, and i never wavered. on 9/11, they were tested, and over the last few weeks, they were tested, and we never wavered. because of these people and their leadership is why this bill was done. i have never met anyone more

tenacious than me than you. but i also never ever seen anybody play the hammer like you do here let me tell you something, this man lays the hammer. the fact that i got to play a small part in this big process is an honor. but more importantly, we have gone eight christmases without federal assistance. we have gone eight years not knowing what the following year would bring to us on new year's. this christmas, while you might not get a check by friday morning, will open a box that says the government help you. you can have peace of mind knowing that help is on its way in 2011. to me, that is better than opening any christmas presents this year, and it is because of everybody's hard work that this

christmas will be the best christmas that i have ever known. thank you. [applause] >> that is your new nickname. questions? >> what finally moved republicans on the bill? >> i think the people behind us focusing attention on those who stood in the way. >> senator, can you be more specific about what happened last night and this morning? only on sunday, there was the appearance that there had been a deal for 6.3 or so. what was the stumbling block? >> here is what happened -- we knew that the clock was running out, and even though we would have been here through

christmas -- easier for me then for kirsten. >> not difficult for me. i'm here forever. >> we knew that the clock could run out, and there was a simple strategy by those who wanted to stop this bill, which was let the clock run out. first, we made it clear that we were going to stay. we tried to let them know that this was more important than going home. second, the focus, as i said, of the people behind us. the people behind us, was amazing. and people who were standing in the wake began to have a softening of the heart. last night, harry reid, at our request, -- there was a little story that we're not going to tell -- said while you sit down

and try to work something out, so we met in my little hideaway with the senator and his staff, and we -- oh, before that, in that with the advocates to ask what kind of compromise we could make that will not jeopardize the program. as i said, i thought they would yell at me and kick me out of my own office, but they were really smart about this. knowing that you cannot play an ideological game when you know people's lives are at stake. so they told us, and kingston and i conferred, and we said that this was about as far as we could go. we made a strong pitch to him like it was so important. we told him how well the program had run in the past, how we had done everything to make sure

that somebody who walked down the street of downtown manhattan and got lung cancer was a smoker all year -- they had all these misconceptions -- would not be included in the bill, and he said ok, but he said his staff needed to negotiate a few issues, and those issues ended up being very large. his staff and my staff and kirsten's staff went back to my office, and i state. we were there until about 1:00 a.m. and it looked like the deal was falling apart. we were discussing early this morning about what we should do. what is the best way of trying to get everybody in the senate tuesday, and we also have to worry about the house going home. the speaker had told us several times that if we did not get it done today, they were leaving. so i called up and said, "let's do one more shock." we discussed our strategy, and

then we went over to senator office, and right before that, i had spoken to senator reid, asked if i thought would help if he came, and i thought it would. the minute we saw that he was being reasonable, we knew that we had gotten it done. we are very happy. this does not in any way -- all the changes that were made does not be driven a single worker who got ill rushing to the towers. instead 10 years, it is five years. you can be dam sure we are going to be here fighting to extend it when the time expires, and people will see what a good program it is, and i do not think it will have the controversy that it has this time. do you wanted at anything? >> i just want to say that this is something so many of us here have been working on for so long.

we have been working with our republican colleagues to gain the support we needed, and that is why we had the vote. we knew we had the support. what the final compromise represents is the hard work that has gone in for weeks and months, that some of the changes are going to be very good for the program. a lot of these were very good adjustments being made. and because it is bipartisan and because it is a representation coming together, it really does show the american people that we are here to represent them. >> despite all the difficult controversy, that was enacted by a voice vote, does that show you for does that indicate to you that there might have been another way to get this passed? could this deal have been reached earlier? >> you know how the senate works. it is called unanimous consent. why was there a unanimous vote? because we worked them one by one by one.

we did not have to work one person or three people or a majority of the committee. we had to work every person, and it takes a lot of effort to do it, and sometimes you get someone who says yes, and then someone else says yes, and that person says no. remember, the house sent us the bill on september 29. we were only in a session for one week after that. then, we were off, and look how busy the lame duck was. as important as this is, there were lots of important things on the calendar. if i look back, i would not see another way to do this. >> any kind of timeline on -- assuming that the house does the right thing as well -- back a time line for when the benefits might start? >> there is already health care coverage for the men and women that was allocated last year.

there is funds available now, but this new program gets into effect next year, starts july 1. it is a new program. we are basically taking the old format of six different programs, merging them into one. one of the improvements of the bill as we will now have 100% transparency and accountability and one third-party administrator. that is what simplifies the program and allows for greater transparency and accountability. i think that is one of the reasons why this bill passed because it is a real improvement on how we measure health care. >> ok, thank you, everybody. merry christmas. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> president obama today signed legislation repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military. the senate passed the bill over the weekend 65-31. the pentagon's plan for implementing the repeal is expected to take at least several months. >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. [applause] >> good day. [applause] it is a real good day. [applause] as some of my colleagues can tell you, this was a long time

in coming, but i'm happy it is here. ladies and gentlemen, welcome. please be seated. it was the great five-star general and president dwight d. eisenhower who once said, "go forth and protect in emergency only justice, fairness, and consideration and cooperation can finally leave men to the dawn of eternal peace." by repealing "don't ask, don't tell" today, we take a big step towards fostering justice, fairness, and consideration, and that real corporation president eisenhower spoke up. this fulfills an important campaign promise the president and i made and many here on this stage made and many of you fought for for a long time. repealing a policy that actually weakens our national security, diminishes our ability to have

military readiness and violates the fundamental american principle of fairness and equality. that exact same set of principles that brave gay men and women will now be able to openly defend around the world. [applause] it is both morally and militarily simply the right thing to do. it is particularly important that this result was fully supported by those within the military who are charged with a blinding it. i want to pay particular respects with a personal note -- i used to be allowed to say in the senate, point of personal privilege -- admiral mullen, you

are a stand-up guy. [applause] he already has enough power. [laughter] and it could not have been done without these men and women leading our military, and,

certainly, it could not have been done without the steady, dedicated, and persistent leadership of the president of the united states. [applause] mr. president, by signing this bill, you will be linking military might with an abiding sense of justice. you will be projecting power by promoting fairness and making the united states military as strong as it can be at a time we need it to be the strongest. ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states of america, the commander in chief, barack obama. [applause]

>> yes, we can. yes, we can. yes, we can. yes, we can. yes, we can. >> thank you. yes, we did. >> thank you, mr. president. >> you are welcome. >this is a good day. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you, thank you, thank

you. i m just overwhelmed. this is a very good day, and i want to thank all of you, especially the people on this stage, but each and every one of you who have been working so hard on this, members of my staff who worked so hard on this. i could not be prouder. 66 years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forest of western europe, allied forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the battle of the bulge. in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th division of patton's third army came under

fire. the men were traveling along a narrow trail. they were exposed, and they were vulnerable. hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy. during the firefight, a private named lloyd corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine. after days of being trapped, he was as good as dead. but one soldier, a friend, turned back. with shells landing around him amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slopes, risking his own life to bring private corwin to safer ground.

for the rest of his years, lloyd credited this soldier, this friend named andy lee with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone. it was a full four decades after the war when the two friends reunited in their golden years that lloyd learned that the man who saved his life was gay. he had no idea, and he did not much care. lloyd knew what mattered. he knew what had kept him alive, what made it possible for him to come home and start a family. he lived the rest of his life. it was his friend.

is with us today, and he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender or religion or creed, that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of europe is the reason that we are here today. [applause] that is the reason we are here today. [applause] this morning, i am proud to sign a law that will bring an end to "don't ask, don't tell." [applause]

this lot and i'm about to sign will strengthen our national security and of hold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend. no longer will our country be denying the service of thousands of patriotic americans who are forced to leave the military, regardless of their skills, no matter their years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. no longer will tens of thousands of americans in uniform be asked to live a lie or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love. [applause] as an admiral mike mullen has said, our people sacrificed a lot for their country,

including their lives. none of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well. [applause] that is why i believe this is the right thing to do for our military. that is why i believe it is the right thing to do, period. many fought long and hard to reach this day. i want to thank the democrats and republicans who put conviction ahead of politics to get this done together. [applause] i want to recognize nancy pelosi.

[applause] steny hoyer. [applause] and harry reid. [applause] today, we are marking a historic milestone, but also the culmination of two of the most productive years in the history of congress, in no small part because of their leadership, so we are very grateful to them. [applause] i want to thank joe lieberman. [applause] and susan collins. [applause]

and i think carl levin is still working. [laughter] but i want to add carl levin. they held their shoulders to the wheel in the senate. i'm so proud of susan davis. [applause] and a guy you might know, barney frank. [applause] they kept up the fight in the house, and that got to acknowledge patrick murphy, a veteran himself. [applause]

[applause] >> i also want to commend our military leadership. bending don't ask, don't tell -- ending don't ask, don't tell was a topic in my first meeting. we talked about how to end this

policy. we talked about how implementing this change depended on a working closely. two years later, i am confident that history will remember well the courage and vision of secretary gates. [applause] of of admiral mike mullen, who spoke from the heart. [applause]

of of the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and deputy secretary william glenn, who is here. [applause] also, the authors of the pentagon's review, and who did outstanding and meticulous work. [applause] all of those who laid the groundwork for this transition. finally, i want to express my gratitude to the men and women in this room who have worn the uniform of the united states armed services. [applause]

i want to thank all the patriots who are here today, all of them who were forced up -- forced to hang up their uniforms, but you never stopped fighting for this country and to rally to and marched and fought for change. i want to thank everyone here who stood with them in that fight. because of these efforts, in the coming days, we will begin the process laid out by this law. the old policy remains in effect until secretary gates and i certify the military's readiness to implement the repeal. it is especially important for service members to remember that. i've spoken to every one of the service chiefs and they are all committed to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently.

we are not born to be dragging our feet to get this done. -- we are not going to be dragging their feet to get this done. [applause] with any change, there is some apprehension. that is natural. but as commander in chief, i am certain that we can effect this transition in a way that only strengthens our military. people will look back on this summit and wonder, why was this every source of controversy in the first place? i have every confidence in the patriotism of our service members. just as they have adapted and ground stronger with each of the other changes, i know they will do so again. i know that secretary gates and

the vast majority of service members themselves share this view. they share is based on their own experiences, including the experience of serving a dedicated service members to your also gay. -- who were also gay. this was one of my favorites. we have a gay guy in the unit. he is dead, he is mean, he kills a lot of bad guys. [laughter] no one cared that he was gay. [laughter] i think that sums up perfect way the situation. [laughter] [applause] i want to speak directly to the gay men and women currently

serving and are military. for a long time, your service has demanded a particular kind of sacrifice. you've been asked to carry the added burden of secrecy and isolation and you've put bull europe -- and you have put your lives on the line. you are not the first to carry this burden. today marks the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades. this is a moment more than two centuries in the making. there will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by gay americans. their service has been obscured in history. it has been lost to prejudice that has waned in our own lifetimes. at every turn, every crossroads in our path, we know that gay

americans bought just as hard, they've just as much to protect this nation and the ideals for which it stands. there can be little doubt that there were days soldiers that fought for american independence, of who consecrated the ground at gettysburg, who manned the trenches along the western front, the storm the beaches of the would jima. their names are etched into the walls of our memorials. their headstones brought the ground at arlington. as the first generation to serve openly in our armed forces, you will stand for all those detained before you. you will serve as role models to all who come after. i know that you will fulfil those responsibilities with integrity and honor just as you had every other mission with

which you have been charged. you need to look no further than the service men and women in this room. distinguished officers, former navy commanders -- [applause] marines -- [applause] leaders liked capt. @ jonathon hopkins, earning a bronze star for battle. -- for valor.

[applause] he was discharged only to receive e-mails and letters from his soldiers saying, i knew he was gay all along. and thought that he was the best commander they ever had. [applause] there are a lot of stories like these. stories that only underscore the importance of enlisting the service of all who are willing to fight for this country. that is why i hope those soldiers who had been discharged under this discriminatory policy will seek to reenlist once the repeal is implemented. [applause] that is why i say to all

americans, gay or straight, who want nothing more than to defend this country in uniform, your country needs to print your country once you. we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known. [applause] i visited afghanistan just a few weeks ago. while i was walking along, there was a big crowd, about 3000. a young woman in uniform was shaking my hand and other people were taking pictures. she pulled me into a hot and she whispered in my ear, gets don't ask, don't tell done. i said to her, i promise you i

will. we are not a nation that says, don't ask, don't tell. we are a nation that says -- that welcomes the service of every patriot. we are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. those are the ideals that generations have fought for. those are the ideals that we all told today. it is my honor to sign this bill into law. [applause]

[laughter]

[applause] usa! usa! ♪

♪

♪

>> on the final day, the senate approved in nuclear arms treaty with russia. the chamber voted 71-26 to approve ratification of the new start. today, we spoke with author on the history of the treaty and of u.s. nuclear policy. from today's "washington journal," this is about 40

minutes. und. give us your impression of what you've heard so far. guest: this is clearly the end game. there seems to be a resignation on the part of the opponents that they've lost this battle. there's a certain graciousness and magnanimous rhetoric from the winning side. this tree will get more than enough votes to pass. -- this treaty will get more than enough votes to pass. expect that later today. obviously, i'm competing with the boat itself, and that is over on c-span 2 -- the vote itself, and that is over on c- span 2. host: what is the difference between this particular start treaty and others? guest: there's been a long

history of bipartisan cooperation on arms control. the first real arms control treaty was during john f. kennedy. richard nixon started the process with henry kissinger into first limit nuclear weapons, and then ronald reagan really began the process of really limiting nuclear weapons. we've seen the total in the united states and russia declined by over 70%. u.s. and russia have 95% of all the nuclear weapons. they have been steadily reducing their arsenals. the start treaty is part of that process. it now has bipartisan support, even though this is the first nuclear reduction treaty negotiated by a democrat to win senate approval. host: with regard to this treaty and others that have preceded it, has it been as difficult to

get them ratified as it seems it has been as difficult to get this one ratified? guest: there have always been opposition to arms control. i was just watching "7 days." hard coreways been a opposition. some of the same people now, for example, who were critical of the treaty for selling out or weakening the united states were critical of other arms control treaties. they also oppose the regional ronald reagan start treaty. they opposed ronald reagan's nuclear force treaty. they ran ads in the paper the announcing ronald reagan as in the teaser, if you can believe that. there's always been the core of opposition. the republican presidents have

usually been the ones negotiating these treaties. have seen bigger margins of victory. sometimes, 93 to 6, for example. the last george bush arms treaty was passed without any opposition. this was a bigger negative vote then we've seen before, largely explained by the politics. host: we're talking with joseph cirincione, author of "bomb scare: the history and future of nuclear weapons." the numbers, if you want to get involved in the conversation -- you can also send us e-mails and messages.r

what has caused the delay? guest: it has caused us arms on the ground. we have not had inspections. u.s. inspectors have not been able to monitor russian compliance with the treaty. we have not had that kind of predictability and assurances of what the russians are up to. it has cost us some intelligence. so far, it has not been critical. if it continues, if it goes into next year, if the treaty ran into trouble, that would be a critical loss for u.s. national security. that's one reason the joint chiefs of staff back the treaty so consistently and so strongly. that's one reason you have seen the uniform support among former cabinet and security officials. every single former secretary of state has backed the treaty. almost every secretary of defense back it for the real

security benefits. the delay has not cost us that much insecurity so far. host: our first call for ray walser comes from pensacola, florida. darren on the line for republicans. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. on the arms treaty, there are doing it on the lame-duck session. never done that before. first, why are they doing that? second of all, we know pretty much how much nuclear weapons russia has. depending on what they have, we should be building defense. in the treaty, it says we cannot build up to a stage four defense. guest: ok, thank you. treaties have been approved in lame duck before an important pieces of legislation have been passed before. you are right. it is somewhat unusual.

the reason for this is because of the delays built into the process at the request of the republican minority in the senate. first, they did not want to rush the treaty considerations. they asked that a vote not be taken before the august recess. the democratic chairman agreed to delay it. they did not want to vote in september or october because they said it would politicize it before the election. they agreed to delay it. they set it up to do it during the lane duck, and then there were talks of further delay. it became clear that the delay tactics, which are not based on substance, -- they haven't exhaustive hearings. lots of questions have been asked and answered. it was ok to proceed and they've

now been given -- this is the eighth day of debate. it's almost more than all the other previous treaties together. the head of the missile defense agency has testified that this does not in any way restrict the future of u.s. missile defenses. there's no language from the bidding us of that. stage four is the plan we now have. and seeing if we cannot increase them to make them more effective through four phases. there's nothing in the treaty that stops us from that. host: paul on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: a quick comment and then the question. it seems to me that the republican opposition to the treaty is purely political. i hear the mentioned that a

nuclear arsenal needs upgrading and i find it hard to believe. exactly how backward and broken is the nuclear arsenal? i'll hang up and hear your answer. guest: sure. there's no question there's a need to upgrade the facilities that we used to build our nuclear weapons and maintain them. we have some deteriorating buildings. those are the ones that we use, for example, to assemble the uranium cores. that is an expensive proposition, whenever you're talking about radioactive material. the president has laid out a plan to spend $85 billion. he added $5 billion to that. that is just to maintain what they call the nuclear weapons complex. many of us think that's more than enough. the former head of the nuclear

weapons complex said that in his day, he would have killed for a budget like this. he's delighted to see that kind of money devoted to the complex. i do not know if we are going to spend all that money, frankly, in times of budgetary restrictions, and as we continue to ramp down nuclear weapons, i'm not sure we will spend all that money. on the politics of this, i think it's pretty clear to most observers that most of the opposition was political. there were genuine concerns about the treaty. people were concerned about verification procedures. were there enough inspections allowed under the new treaty? i think those have been answered. there was ideological opposition. richard lugar has said many of his colleagues just didn't like any arms control treaty. i would say that maybe even half of the opposition. was. -- opposition was political.

people believe that because of the words of mitch mcconnell, who says his priority was to deny president obama a second term. you heard him say this week that he would not approve a treaty so the president could have a press conference. it was pretty clear there was a political agenda. there are a lot of newspaper columnists talking about that today. if that's true, if there was a political agenda, it backfired. you never want to wound the king, as they say. the political opposition thought they could give a body blow to the president of the united states, but they missed. host: dean on the line for republicans from phoenix, ariz. caller: regarding nuclear arms testing -- testing them without exploding them, like under water

testing, i've heard about facilities. i know there are three different types of nuclear facilities. nuclear fusion facilities. one of them is a sphere of some type or they use a laser that shoots what is the equivalent of the entire united states in a fraction of a second. this is also quoted by the gentleman -- as far as building this -- this is also used to test the efficacy of our u.s. nuclear arsenal. this is a brand new facility. when he said this, i thought, well, this means he's talking about current day nuclear warheads that are sitting around and that need to be tested, not

a facility that needs to be updated. this is a state of the art, multimillion-dollar facility used for testing nuclear fusion , or for testing the efficacy of these warheads. this is where i wonder about the political infighting about whether or not they want to spend another billion dollars, which we do not have in our economy. host: we will leave it there. thank you for your call. guest: the u.s. has not done an explosive nuclear tests since 1992, under 1992h.w. bush. we ended the practice. in 1996, president clinton negotiated a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. most countries do not test any more.

the last test was by north korea. the norm is to not test any nuclear weapons. to replace the knowledge that we used to get from those explosive tests, we now spend $6 billion per year on the stockpile stewardship program to model these experiments. we use supercomputers. we do explosive tests, but without the plutonium. we see how everything works, except for the actual nuclear explosion to we have a tremendous amount of data. then there is the national ignition facility, sometimes called the nif, where they're working are replicating the fusion -- what goes on in the core of the sun -- and they focus laser beams and tried to replicate fusion.

they've achieved it for a fraction of a second. that will cost more than three times what people thought it was one to cost. questionable whether it is worth it is a done deal. that facility is up and operating. on the larger issue of whether or not we will be able to afford the expenses of these weapons, we will see debate over ratifying the comprehensive test ban. we will probably see that. congress faces very expensive decisions on whether to modernize, not just the warheads, but the delivery vehicles. the submarines, the bombers, the new missiles -- those are very expensive items. it estimated a new nuclear-armed submarine would cost about $7 billion each. is that where you want to spend your money in times of tightening budgets? would you rather spend it on conventional forces? those are the kind of issues, swill wrestle with in the next five years.

host: we have this twitter message. is it true that the treaty is only 17 pages long and they had nine months to study it? if you would, compare the length of this treaty to others. guest: yes, it is true. one of the journalists talk about this last night. he used that quote. it's only 17 pages long. they've had it for eight and a half months. this is shorter than most previous arms control treaties because it deals with the existing process. it builds on the existing start framework. they did not have to spend a lot of time negotiating some of the details. there is a multi page annex that is a couple hundred pages. it specifies the details of this. there is a little heavier reading to going to on that.

it compares favorably with previous arms controls treaties. host: joanne on the line for independents. you are on the "washington journal." caller: yes, in terms of the spending aspect, who receives that? who institutes it and implements it? and sure they will have 1000 different places, 1000 more committees, that they will want to come up with to help pay for it. that essentially be stuck on the taxpayers. guest: this is a very interesting point. there are already some interesting lines drawn. traditionally, you have liberals that want to cut defense spending. conservatives better for it. now with the rise of the tea party, members of congress who are very conservative, but are

fiscally conservative and are saying, we have to cut american government spending across the board, including defense spending. once you do that, then the joint chiefs start to weigh in. the heavily backed the new start treaty. they're less and less interested in nuclear weapons. as the chairman, admiral mol ullen said, this leaves us with long-range strategic weapons -- 1550 of them. he said it is more than enough. there's a sentiment in the military to keep producing to maybe -- to keep reducing, maybe to a few hundred. they'd rather spend that money on ships, planes, tanks, and troops.

what are the budget figures looking like? i mentioned the $85 billion that has been allocated for the next 10 years. that's just for the warheads. there's an additional $100 billion that is planned for the delivery vehicles, the missiles, the severance, and the bombers. that's a pretty hefty tag. the price rose as you continue. the committees that will look at that will be the arms services committee. they have primary jurisdiction. for the warheads themselves, that usually goes to the energy committee in the house. and then there's the appropriations committee. you have the authorizing committees that authorize these expenditures. the appropriating committees appropriate them. it's probably about 10 committees altogether. host: the federation of american

scientists provides us with the estimated number of nuclear warheads. by the numbers, russia is estimated to have 2600 nuclear warheads. the u.s., 2126. france, 300. china, 180. the united kingdom, 0160. israel, 80. pakistan, 70 to 90. back to the phones, frank on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. first of all, i'm 100% pro defense of america. i believe this treaty should be ratified. the united states and russia are not going to nuke each other. the cold war is over with. they're just playing political games, wasting billions of more of u.s. tax dollars. the gentleman you have on as a

guest is one of the finest aokesmen i've heard in while. i really appreciate having quality guests like this on your show. guest: thank you. i appreciate the compliment. let me just talk about the consensus you are talking about. you are absolutely right. there's a broad, bipartisan consensus that has developed in the very center of america's national security establishment that sees that what ever nuclear weapons benefits might have had in the cold war is now outweighed by the risks they present. people like henry kissinger and george shultz are not just supporting the treaty but saying that this is the first of a number of steps to steadily reduce all the nuclear arsenals lambda world, eliminate the major threat to us, and in so doing working on the countries

like iran and north korea. you consider example of that. goneat new website have gons up, securityconsensus.org. it is a group of retired military and former security officials from both parties that argue that now's the time to take this step by step reduction of nuclear weapons. we can do with a lot fewer nuclear weapons, save money, and improve security. host: ellen on the line for independents. thank you for calling. largestthe world's deposits of uranium is located outside of virginia. there's a movement to mine the uranium. with this treaty stop them from going forward? guest: no, it would not.

there are no restrictions in mining uranium. it's very common to its as common as tin in the earth. we have uranium. we also import uranium from canada. we no longer need any more uranium for our nuclear weapons. the reason people are still mining uranium is for fuel for nuclear reactors. host: next is harold on the line for republicans. right outside of jacksonville, fla.. caller: listen, with all due respect, this sounds like pie in the sky. it's kind of like the 1920's and 1930's where the armed forces were drastically reduced because we thought we had peace. the bad guys were dramatically rearming at that time. every general who is in favor of this -- let's be honest. if you're a general in the armed forces of the united states, to get that high, you have to be a politician to some degree. you have to know which way the

wind is shifting. we are at war right now with two different areas of influence. two different countries. when you have things in the world like emt, where we could basically be put back in the stone age by a few simple things -- this is not the time to disarm. every time we've made a treaty with north korea, iraq, or the outs.r., all wewe later found they treaty. the u.s.s.r. may all kinds of problems about weapons of mass destruction. they hit d nuclear weapons underneath the ground. the head other factories we never found out about. this is not the time to disarm. when you're at war with two different radical areas and the people have relatives, sons, daughters, killed by u.s. drones and u.s. soldiers, we have some fanatics out there.

if they get a wild weapon, they will use it. host: joseph cirincione. guest: you raised a couple of good point. i want to show the drgraph in "the washington post" today. you will see the chart that shows the 60 years of the nuclear arms race. on the first half of that, the first 30 years, there was a rise. and then you get to the middle, and that is where we start the arms control process. you can see the u.s. forces leveling off. and then the steady drop, which was begun by ronald reagan. we have dropped 70% in the last 25 to 30 years. frankly, we are not less safe because we no longer have 22,000 hydrogen bombs, which is what we had 25 years ago, and we only have two thousand hydrogen

bombs. that's more than enough to destroy the plant, let alone deal with any military contingency that we might face. most experts agree that we go down.n continue to we're not talking about disarmament. we're talking about a step-by- step process. we go down and the russians go down. eventually, china, india, and pakistan join the process. the reason is exactly what you said. you mentioned the electromagnetic pulse. i do not think it is as big a threat as people say, but it is real. one nuclear bomb could do tremendous damage to this country. as to our benefit to reduce the nuclear weapons number nuclear, eventually, in my view, getting to zero nuclear weapons. as long as they exist, there will be a threat to this

country. host: prescott, ariz., jack on the line for democrats. good morning. you are on the "washington journal." caller: you touched on one of the comments i wanted to make. i do not think the americans realize the importance of a treaty. the gentleman from florida said they break treaties. we all break treaties. the treaty gives the opportunity to communicate and dialogue with one another. there is no defense. we're releasing that energy. if we can talk to one another and remind both sides of over 20 years ago, we had enough nuclear

stuff to blow up the earth 14 times. host: jack, we're going to leave your call and go to the floor of the senate. lamar alexander, one of the republicans who crossed over, is making his case right now. >> i was with him there. he's talked to many more people than i have on this subject. these weapons are being modernized and facilities of that are completely outdated. it would be like if we were making corvettes in a model t factory. it's not just an inconvenience to the workers, it is a threat to their safety, and it is a waste of taxpayers' money. as the senator from arizona said, after a certain number of years -- maybe 15 years -- this

case for itself. the modernization of these facilities means the taxpayers will pay just as much to operate the old facilities as they would to spend $5 billion or $6 billion to improve these two big new facilities and the other infrastructure we need to do. i think this is -- it ought to be said -- host: joseph cirincione, your comments on senator alexander. guest: he's talking about the expense of modernizing the facility pities the third ranking republican. he came out yesterday morning in strong support of the treaty. he's one of the senators that led. we have about 11 now who have endorsed the treaty.

about a quarter of the republican caucus, which is exposing some divisions within the republican senate minority. what he is talking about is the cost of modernizing the facilities. in full disclosure, again, he is -- his state of tennessee is one of the uranium facilities that would have to be modernized. it will cost about $6 billion. there's a little bit of constituent interests here. you see support of the modernization plan across the board, even from senators with no financial interest. host: this twitter message says the refusal to set up a treaty raises red flags. guest: one of the disturbing things about this debate is the way you have seen some of the opponents to the treaty tried to revive the u.s.-russian rivalry

and portrayed russia as a country that does not deserve to be negotiated with, as a country cannot trust, as a source of great tension and still evil in the world. i think they're still stuck in the days of the evil empire. they do not realize that this struggle within russia to try to make the country even more democratic, that we need russian cooperation for many of the global problems we face. for example, they are helping us in supporting our troops in afghanistan. u.s. supply routes are much shorter now because we get to fly over russian territory and even using some russian facilities to supply our troops in afghanistan. they joined us in containing the danger from iran. it's no coincidence that after the start treaty was signed, you saw the u.n., with russian support, back the strong this sanctions ever enacted iran enacted. russia wants to sell iran --

they are now agreeing to forgo the profits from the arms sales and join the sanctions. in part, it's due to the partnership. it does not mean we agree to was going on inside russia, but we recognize their value as a partner in our. host: global. -- in our global efforts. host: this message -- guest: i'm going to meet with russian officials in part of the consultative process that we do. they're not laughing. there are the same kind of arguments inside russia about the value of treaties with the united states as there are within the united states. there are russians that do not trust us. trust use some that wer guardedly. you've heard us say 100 times, trust but verify.

their steps we're going to take together. here's the process we're going to takput in place. the negotiating process is to work out the kind of mutually benefiting treaty. in the end, both sides leaving the table to feel they've gained from the agreement. that's what is happening here. host: tina on the line for democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: i've been listening to conversations about the treaties for a very long time. i never heard so much chatter about the treaty before until the president was black. can you explain that to me, please? thank you. guest: there's an element there. i will not deny that. the position you seek to -- the

opposition you see, some is due to his race. some people have a hard time with that. most of the political opposition, however, especially to the treaty, is because a democratic president is negotiating the treaty. that is somewhat unusual. turns out republicans have been better at arms control than democrats. republican presidents win over a good portion of the conservative vote. you only get a sliver of opposition. in this case, where you have a democrat and doing it? there's a political game played out by the opposition party, who wants to score points, who wants to portray the president as weak, or does not really care about american security -- might not even be american. there is that political game

being played. to the credit, not just to the president, but because of the bipartisan support that exists that you can get this treaty passed over the emotional and subustubborn political oppositi. those people opposing this are on the extreme right now. in the national security establishment of the united states, democrats and republicans, going back seven administrations to richard nixon is this consensus we can reduce nuclear weapons. step-by-step trees are part of the process. this is the way to secure america in the future. host: when you are talking with your russian counterparts on the phone or when you go over there, do they bring up the president's race or the opposition of the republican party? do they see him as another american? guest: i went to moscow before

the election and i gave a briefing before a large group of security officials. i told them president obama president was going to be elected president and here is what his nuclear policy was going to be. they laughed at me. they thought i was a fool. they did not think a black man could ever be elected president in the united states. there's a deep element of racism in russia that i saw reflected in those comments. i went back one year later and reminded them of what i said. yes, you do see that in russia. at present, they see him as a partner. i think they're starting to get used to the idea. they see value in the relationship, both for their own national security interests. host: stuart on the line for independents. caller: thank you. i have a brief comment and then i would like to ask your opinion.

i feel like any peace treaty written to reduce weapons in the world, i'm all for it. i commend barack obama for what he is doing to be leaning more -- for what he is doing. we need more piece heroes -- peace heroes. we have way too many war heroes already -- especially dead war heroes. you can see the numbers of the weapons in the world. if any of those can be reduced, i think that we as americans should be all for it. this is our children we're talking about, our future. host: thank you. guest: thank you for your comment. i think it is clear there is agreement among most national security officials that we do

not need as many nuclear weapons as we have now. we went a little nuts in the 1960's and 1970's and build up to an absurd levels. we are coming down now. we can come down a lot further. i expect that to happen. i expect this trend to continue. we do not need 1550 long-range nuclear weapons. we do not need four thousand weapons held in reserve as we now have. we do not need to have nuclear weapons stationed in europe anymore. we have about 200 over there. one of these can destroy a city. 10 of them can destroy a country. a couple hundred could destroy the world. you could get down to much lower levels. their strong military support for that. senator corker, the republican from tennessee, lamar alexander's cohort, was on the senate floor announcing his support. he said he was impressed with the joint chiefs of staff and their strong support. every single one of those

generals and admirals, he said, was appointed during the bush administration. host: zeke, you are on the line with joseph cirincione. caller: there's a difference of opinion as to the efficacy of the obama administration. it seems to me that it will become increasingly evident that he shot himself in the foot with this little stunt that people with social security. complementing the nuclear treaty, we have the problem of domestic policies. we need a vast expansion of nuclear powered generation in the united states, specifically to around constructing the north american water and power alliance, which will use nuclear power plants to pump the water to change the characteristics to change the characteristics from