chilton, it wasn't your job to set prices. by manipulating or changing some of these limits, you could be, in fact, effective pricing. you may have the undesired result. >> right. >> the question is what is oil worth? >> yeah. >> i don't know. >> yeah. >> it maybe worth $300 a barrel. it maybe worth $50 a barrel. we need to let the markets decide that. i want to got back to spot month. because there's so much to cover here. but since price discovery, i think most people would agree it happens in the cash months or on the spot month. then what would be the need then for having position limits in the outer months? : when you get these large who have a trading strategy. it's different than what they've been in the markets traditionally. they're good price insensitive because they've got a lot of view of it. they've all their positions in the contract expiration comes up in every other trader knows they're going to do it. in these massive passes can have 30, 40, 50% of the market. i think congress commercials question of what you

we should respect general chilton's judgment that the u.s. can maintain an effective deterrent and that such a change would kill this treaty. i yield the floor and i thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i do want to be recognized for the purpose of explaining -- further explaining my amendment number 4833 and also to respond to the senator from massachusetts. before doing that, i would ask if you the senator from south dakota has any responses he'd like to make at this time and then i'd like to keep the floor. mr. thune: thank you. madam president, i thank the senator from oklahoma for giving me an opportunity. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: -- giving me an opportunity to respond briefly, if i might, to some of these issues. one of the issues, too, that general chilton, the stratcom commander, i think testified to was an assumption that there would be no cheating. and as i said before, there are -- history is replete with examples of the russians chea

let me just quote general chilton here. to provide the president a better range of nonnuclear options against rapidly emerging threats, we require a deployed conventional strike capability to hold that risks targets in denied territory that can only be rapidly struck today with nuclear weapon platforms. that's the rationale for it. that's the administration's statement. and i agree with that. the senate provided its advice in section 1251 of last year's defense bill and here's what under secretary tauscher assured senators -- quote -- "there is no effect for global strike in the treaty." it a march 2010 fact sheet assured tkwoe quo the -- -- quote -- "the treaty does not contain constraints on current on planned united states long-range strike capabilities." obviously that statement was meant to assure us that cpgs would not be constrained or limited, but the kicker in there were the words current or planned. that's because there is no current cpgs, and the administration is studying what particular system or systems to mov

bruce chilton. if. for such a small word it packs a wallop. if i live to a hundred. if social security isn't enough. if my heart gets broken. if she says yes. we believe if should never hold you back. if should be managed with a plan that builds on what you already have. together we can create a personal safety net, a launching pad, for all those brilliant ifs in the middle of life. you can call on our expertise and get guarantees for the if in life. after all, we're metlife. >> dr. bruce, welcome. congratulations on your book mary magdalene, a biography. a great read. >> i appreciate that. >> interesting throughout. are there any misconceptions about mary magdalene that you care to debunk? >> i think perhaps the most prominent one is the claim that mary magdalene had earned her living as a prostitute before she encountered christ of. of all the women in history, mary magdalene must be the most unlucky. she was only assigned the job of being a prostitute more than 500 years after she had died. it is the result of a sermon that was preached by pope gregory the great i

general chilton said, russian tactical weapons do not directly influence the stratigic balance between the u.s. an russia. -- and russia. numerical symmetry exists in a number of weapons, we estimate that russia possesses when considered in the context of our total capability and given forced levels of structure in new start, this acemetery is not adessed to affect -- affect the stratigic ability of the united states and russia. we have a couple of other colleagues who want to say something. let me say to my colleagues about the process as we go forward here. there's some talk now that we're reefg a point we're on day -- reaching this a point. we're on day five, wednesday afternoon, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday. start i took five days. if we filed a cloture petition at some point in the evening, for instance, we would still have two days before we even vote on that. two whole days before we vote on that and then presuming we were to achieve it, we have 30 hours after that which can amount to almost two days in the senate. that would mean nine days if we go that distance, we would

bruce chilton. if. for such a small word it packs a wallop. if i live to a hundred. if social security isn't enough. if my heart gets broken. if she says yes. we believe if should never hold you back. if should be managed with a plan that builds on what you already have. together we can create a personal safety net, a launching pad, for all those brilliant ifs in the middle of life. you can call on our expertise and get guarantees for the if in life. after all, we're metlife. >> dr. bruce, welcome. congratulations on your book mary magdalene, a biography. a great read. >> i appreciate that. >> interesting throughout. are there any misconceptions about mary magdalene that you care to debunk? >> i think perhaps the most prominent one is the claim that mary magdalene had earned her living as a prostitute before she encountered christ of. of all the women in history, mary magdalene must be the most unlucky. she was only assigned the job of being a prostitute more than 500 years after she had died. it is the result of a sermon that was preached by pope gregory the great i

general chilton said, russian tactical weapons do not directly influence the stratigic balance between the.s. an russia. -- and russia. numerical symmetry exists in number of weapons, we estimate that russia possesses when considered in the context of our total capability and given forced levels of structure in new start, this acemetery is not adessed to affect -- affect the stratigic ability of the united states and russia. we have a couple of other colleagues who want to say something. let me say to my colleagues about the process as we go forward here. there's some talk now that we're reefg a point we're on day- reaching this a point. we're on day five, wednesday afternoon, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday. start i took five days. if we filed a cloture petition at some point in the evening, for instance, we would still have two ds before we even vote on that. two whole days before we vote on that and then presuming we were to achieve it, we have 30 hours after that which can amount to almost two days in the senate. that would mean nine days if we go that distance, we would have ni

stanley kirkland of chilton auto body came to pack sand bags this morning. he's hope to protect his shop from flooding like it did last year. >> everything got all wet. computers. this year we're going to try not to, get it corrected. >> back live, police want to remind drivers that the roads are slicker than you think, especially on the first day of rain after a dry period. that's because the engine oil in the road rises to the surface. reporting live in san carlos, jenelle wang, abc 7 news. >> thanks, jenelle. if you're flying out of san francisco, expect big delays because of the weather. right now officials in san francisco international airport -- that's what you're looking at -- say arriving flights are delayed more than two and a half hours. right now there are no major delays at san jose or oakland but that's expected to change. so your advice? call your carrier before heading to it the airport. for up to the minute information and security wait times, check out our flight tracker at the bottom of the front page of our website abc7news.com. stay with

as general chilton, today's commander of the u.s.nd more costly. the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is in our best national security interest and i believe there is every reason for the senate to give it the eighth and consent to ratification this year. with that, i'm going to turn the floor to my colleague, jim miller and will look forward to your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you, rose. i want to provide a few brief remarks after what rose is said and it will open up and have a discussion for your question. as roasted, new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is supported by the senior leadership of dod, including secretary of defense, chairman of vice chairman chief of staff and the commander of general chilton. sooner or later for the military understand the treaty well because dod focused in detail on what we want from the treaty as we conducted a nuclear posture review and we provided early ongoing input to rose and her negotiate team. dod also had representatives on the team in geneva and i watched on a particular the contributions of dr. ted

secretary gates said, as every general and admiral who's looked at this -- admiral mullen, general chilton -- have all said, they didn't get that. they didn't win that point. we won that point. but in any negotiation, when somebody needs something to be able to feel good or deal with their own politics, sometimes you let them have a little something that's meaningless to you but may mean something to them. that's what we gave them. take it away, mr. president, you open up this whole treaty. then they have to figure out how they deal in other terms with those politics, and i will wait until the classified session that we're going to have on monday. and in that -- i can't go into this here, but i'll lay out in that classified session why this treaty is good for the united states and why we believe reopening it would be dangerous. that's why this amendment is dangerous, mr. president. because it will reopen this, and it will force -- it will -- you know, doesn't constrain us in the least, and the extent to which that is true, i think, will be seen to a lot of our colleagues in that session. n

military leadership, particularly general chilton, who is the commander of our u.s.trategic command and the man responsible for these strategic systems. senator kerry has quoted general chilton, and i want to just add one additional quote of his which he testified to before the armed services committee on july 20 of this year. july chilton stated that the force levels in the treaty meet the current guidance for deterrence for the united states. and by the way, that guidance

stanley kirkland of chilton auto body came to pack sand bags this morning. he's hope to protect his shop from flooding like it did last year. >> everything got all wet. computs. this year we're going to try not to, get it corrected. >> back live, police want to remind drivers that the roads are slicker than you think, especially on the first day of rain after a dry period that's because the engine oil in the road rises to the surface. reporting live in san carlos, jenelle wang, abc 7 news. >> thanks, jenelle. if you're flying out of san francisco, expect big delays because of the weather. right now officials in san francisco international airport -- that's wha you're looking at -- say arrivin flights are delayed more than two and a half hours. ght now there are no major dela at san jose or oakland but that's expected to change. so your advice call yourarrier before heading to it the airport. for up to the minute information and security wait times, check out our flight tracker at the bottttom of the front page of o websitabc7news.com. stay with abc 7 for sto

general kevin chilton is the commander of our united states stratigic command. i can say with confidence this treaty does not constrain any current or future missle defense plans. now, the ballistic missle defensive review report filed earlier this year, made it clear that there -- to defend the homeland in different regions of the world against missle threats from nations such as north korea and iran. he talked about the phase adaptive approach to missle defense in europe. the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff have recommended the phased adaptive approach unanimously. these are our top military people. they're advising us. this is not some political agenda which is being implemented by this treaty. this is a military and security necessity for this country. that's not just me saying it. this is the top military people of our country who are saying it. the nato stratigic concept. this is what nato is saying about that phased adaptive approach which has been criticized during earlier statement on the floor. this is what the nato folks say about i

and senator levin said that this is what general chilton said. quote -- "i can say with confidence that this treaty does not contain any current or future missile defense plans." well, that descrints strike me write -- that didn't strike me quite right. so i had my staff pull the testimony of the witness, and he said -- this is the quote that he gave at the committee. and i think senator levin missed it or his staff didn't produce it in the correct fashion. he said this. quote -- "this treaty does not constrain any current defense plans." not "future," -- "future defense plans" because it does provide a basis for legal objections in the future and there is an ambiguity about the russian understanding of whether or not we'ring about to go forward with missile defense systems in the future. there just s it's not a itty-bitty matter. there is a confusion and real lay misunderstanding. the russians are saying one thing and we're saying another. so i think that's very, very significant. why did i make a difference between "future" and "current?" well,

general chilton, the head of the strategic command said the following: "the options we provided in this process focused on ensuring america's ability to continue to deter potential adversaries, assure our alice and sustain strategic stability for as long as nuclear weapons exist. this rigorous approach, rooted in deterrent strategy and assessment of potential adversary capabilities, supports both the greed-upon limits in new start and recommendations in the nuclear posture review." now, i do know that the senator expressed some concern about our ability to field prompt global strike systems. mr. president, it's true that conventionally armed icbms will count toward the treaty's limits. but, again, let's listen to what the military says. secretary gates stated for the record that -- quote -- "should we decide to deploy them, counting this small number of conventional strategic systems and their warheads toward the treaty limits will not prevent the united states from maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent." admiral mullen said, as far back as march that the treaty protects our ability to

and i would note the quotation for general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, who said, "the most proximate threat to the u.s. are the icbm and slbm weapons because they can and are able to target the u.s. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country. so we are appropriately focused in those areas that are of particular -- we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. tactical nuclear weapons don't have the proximate threat that icbm an and slbms do." i also note that if you look at this from the russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in europe, numerous european nations have tactical weapons which can reach the soviet -- or the reach the russian federation, formerly the soviet union. meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the soviet -- or the russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the united states. i'd then note that we have already addressed this issue in the senate ratification resolution, which states, "the president should pursue, following cons

chilton, commander of the u.s. strategic command stated quote the missile tubes that we have our valuable and the sense that they provide the strategic deterrent i would not want to trade and sobm and how powerful it is and its ability to deter for a single missile defense interceptor. tht essentially, our military commanders are saying that to converting silos for missile defense purposes would never ild th make sense for our efforts to build the best missile defense n possible. a third argument concerning missile defense centers on russia's unilateral statement s upon signature of the netawtrea s.t.a.r.t. treaty, whichom the expresses right to withdraw fro. the treaty for the expansion of u.s. missile defense programs. unilateral statements are and do a not alter the legalrtie rights and obligations of the parties in the treaty. and deep, moscow issued a similar statement concerning ths s.t.a.r.t. wide treaty concluded its obligations for conditional with good compliance with the ft abm treaty. yet russia did not

as general chilton and others will point out, it's not a flaw at all. it's actually an advantage which is maintained in this treaty for the american strategic pos chiewmplestree -- strategicpost. what the snot senator describes as a flaw from his point of view i think the record will well state is a preserved american advantage. that said, i respect -- obviously we want to get this joined. i think what the senator has just laid out is very helpful. but i do want to impress that the sooner we could get to some of these amendments, the more we could really discover whether something is in fact a floor or not a floor and has been adequately answered. mr. kyl: i appreciate my colleague's comment, madam president. i would just note that i think the reason why the russians are going to mirving is -- at least the primary reason is exactly as senator kerry has stated. they have financial limitations on what they can do here but the result of it, i don't think one can deny, is strategic instability compared to moving toward a singular warhead missile such as the

general chilton has said -- quote -- "without new start, we would rapidly lose some of our insight into russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly." let me also quote a letter that secretary gates sent necessity summer -- sent me this summer about whether or not russia could cheat on this treaty in a manner that would be militarily significant. he said -- quote -- "the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the joint chiefs commander, u.s. strategic command, and i assess that russia will not be able to achieve militarily significant cheating or breakout under new start due to both the new start verification regime and the inherent survivability and flexibility of the planned u.s. strategic force structure. our analysis of the n.i.e. and the potential for russian cheating or breakout confirms that the treaty's verification regime is effective and that our national security is stronger with this treaty than without it." now, i mentioned before that ronald reagan was one of the

now, to go back to what some of the experts have said about missle defense, general kevin chilton, commander of the u.s. stratigic command, straticom, said as a combatant command also responsible for synchronizing missle defense plans, operations and advocacy, i can say with confidence that this treaty does not constrain any current or future missle defense plans." and former secretary of defense james schlesinger said, "i don't think that it inhibits missle defense in a serious way. i do not think that we will be inhibited by this treaty or even by the russian pressure with respect to defending ourselves against north korea and ultimately against iran." former secretary of defense william perry said, "the treaty imposes no meaningful restraints on our ability to develop and deploy ballistic missle defense systems." former secretary of state henry kissinger said, "the treaty does not unduly restrict our ability to deploy an effective missle defense system." and, finally, former secretaries of states, kissinger eagleberger and collin powell wrote in "the washington post" that new start preser

as general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, recently said -- and i quote -- "without new start, we would rapidly lose insight into russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worst-case analyses regarding our own force requirements." that's what a "no" vote on this treaty means. russian prime minister vladimir putin made the same point earlier this month. he said that if the united states doesn't ratify the trea treaty, russia will have to respond, including augmentation of its stockpile. that's what voting "no" on this treaty means. so these monitoring provisions are key, as is the trust and transparency they bring. and the only way to get to these provisions is through ratification. in fact, we haven't had any inspections or other monitoring tools for over a year, since the original start treaty expired. so we have less insight into any new russian weapons and delivery systems that migh

and i would note the quotation for general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, who said, "the most proximate threat to the u.s. are the icbm and slbm weapons because they can and are able to target the u.s. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country. so we are appropriately focused in those areas that are of particular -- we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. tactical nuclear weapons don't have the proximate threat that icbm an and slbms do." i also note that if you look at this from the russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in europe, numerous european nations have tactical weapons which can reach the soviet -- or the reach the russian federation, formerly the soviet union. meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the soviet -- or the russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the united states. i'd then note that we have already addressed this issue in the senate ratification resolution, which states, "the president should pursue, following cons

with that experience, the former stratcom commander in chief, general chilton, who just recently departed, said, "our nation will be safer and more secure with this treaty than without it. what we negotiated to is absolutely accept to believe the united states strategic command for what we need to do to provide the deterrent for the country." i wholeheartedly agree. i'm prepared to vote to ratify the new start treaty because it promotes our national security and can make both america and the world safer. it increases transparency between nuclear nations. it promotes cooperation and not suspicion, and it redices the possibility of a -- reduces the possibility of a nuclear exchange and still inabilities america to respond to the terrible threats that continue in this nuclear age. i'd like it elaborate for just a second. america will be stronger if we can continue to look under russia's hood and they under ours. trust but verify still works. this treaty will help u.s. strategic command accomplish its absolutely vital mission for our nation. further, as the chairman of the u.s.-russia interpa

general chilton has spoken about how -- how conversations about these matters need to start now. development of replacement delivery vehicles for all three legs of the triad needs to begin during the new start. development needs to begin in the next 12 years or replacement systems will not be available when current systems reach the end of their current system lives. there is no assurance that the next long-range bomber will be nuclear capable. therefore, i plan to offer an amendment which will require the administration to certify that the president has made a commitment to develop a replacement heavy bomber that is both nuclear and conventionally capable. with regard to delivery vehicle numbers, madam president, on july 9, 2009 in a an armed services committee hearing, i asked the vice chairman of the joint chiefs about the administration's commitment at that time to reduce our strategic delivery vehicles to somewhere in the range of 500 to 1,100 systems and to specify at what point in this range would he become concern that the delivery vehicle reductions would necessitate mak

and i would note the quotation for general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, who said, "the most proximate threat to the u.s. are the icbm and slbm weapons because they can and are able to target the u.s. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country. so we are appropriately focused in those areas that are of particular -- we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. tactical nuclear weapons don't have the proximate threat that icbm an and slbms do." i also note that if you look at this from the russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in europe, numerous european nations have tactical weapons which can reach the soviet -- or the reach the russian federation, formerly the soviet union. meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the soviet -- or the russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the united states. i'd then note that we have already addressed this issue in the senate ratification resolution, which states, "the president should pursue, following cons

i think most of you know that general chilton, the commander of united states strategic command, who knows a great deal about all of this, has said that without new start, we lose rapidly -- we lose insight into russian nuclear strategic force developments and activities and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worst case analyses regarding our own force requirements. end quote. think about that, members. let me be clear, that's what a "no" vote means on this treaty. russian prime minister putin made the same point earlier this month. he said that if the united states doesn't ratify the treaty, russia will have to respond, including augmentation of its stockpile. that's what voting no on this treaty does. these monitoring provisions are key as are the trust and transparency they bring. and the only way to get to these provisions is through ratification. in fact, we have not had any inspections or other mop other g tools for over 100 years since the original start treat

president, this amendment is not only unnecessary, i say "unnecessary" because as general chilton, who is the commander of u.s. strategic command says, he says, "i can say with confidence that this treaty does not constrain any current or future missile defense." in addition, secretary gates has said that what the russias wants to achieve was a restraint. he said "this treaty doesn't accomplish that for them. "quhation this amendment would do, however, even though the language is completely nonbinding, has no requirement in it whatsoever, this amendment requires us to go back to russia, renegotiate the treaty, open up whatever advantages or disadvantages they may perceive since the negotiation exist, and we would go through a prolonged negotiation. we have no verification whatsoever today because that ceased on december 5 of last year. we need to hold this treaty intact and pass it. i'd yield whatever time i have to the chairman of the armed services committee. mr. levin: mr. president snr. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: every one of our military leaders h