inhofe: there are two motions, but go ahead. i am objecting to a discussion of the amendment at this time until i find out how long he is going to be. mr. kerry: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from colorado have three minutes to make his comments. mr. inhofe: fine. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: i thank the senators for his courtesy. the reason i have offered this consent agreement today is this would help literally hundreds of small businesses create hundreds of thousands of jobs at no cost to the american taxpayer. i did want to in the spirit of bipartisanship mention the cosponsors of the bill. the cosponsors start with the majority leader from nevada, and it's followed by senators snowe, collins, schumer, boxer, brown, gillibrand, inouye, nelson of florida, bennet of colorado, sanders and wyden. mr. president, the bill addresses a problem that everybody in the chamber agrees needs to be addressed, and that's the trouble that small businesses are having accessing capital so

inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, it's my understanding that in 45 minutes, we'll be having a couple of votes, one on my amendment number 4833, and one on the thune amendment 4841, having to do with the delivery system, mine having to do with verification. and i -- i -- that would mean that we would have 45 minutes to talk about this. we have already covered it pretty thoroughly. i just think that we need to have an understanding of what we're talking about in terms of verification. there are only 180 inspections that are authorized by the new start treaty, and that's over a ten-year period, so we're talking about 18 per year. versus the 600 inspections over 15 years in start i. if you do your math there, that would be 40 a year in start i down to 18 a year in start ii, or in new start. one of the arguments for that is that we have fewer sites to inspect, and for that re

i is for inhofe. so it's mom-i and pop-i. that's what these kids call me. as i was listening to the great words that you were sharing for their lives, i would ask unanimous consent that those same words go to each one of these little grandkids up here. as you mentioned, one after another in your experiences, this little girl here, she was one of them. she was only four pounds, and she -- we held her in one hand. the same thing was true with this one over here. and so when you look at this, i just get very excited. what's really important -- we talk about a lot of things around here, but what is really important, one of the criticisms i've had in considering this thing is i want to get back during this christmas season, like i think most of the others did too, to be with them. let me mention this. see this little girl up here? that's my wife. today is our 51st wedding anniversary. so i just want to say that some things are important. i deliver my message to my wife who is back in oklahoma, where she should be with all the rest of these kids -- that's where t

amendment and the inhofe mma.ith with respect to the inhofe mma,t dealing with transformation, we areing to an executive session at 2:00 this afternoon, an opportunity for all senatorst to examine classified materials, that have been presented by our ich intelligence agencies, some of a which relate specifically to the verification of it's too bad that it's notith possible for us to distress was very much specific specificitywe the nature of the intelligence that we will be discussing. but i'll just say that i think it's a good name that we would be voting on the inhofe mma andt following that session because a lot of the material were going to be exposed to relates to the verification provisions of this treaty and verification. i that's about all that i want to say right now, except that i would hope that colleagues would attend that session because their vote on the inhofe amendment would be on thereth re being briefed in an executive session. with respect to the assumedell. amendments, i very much support the amendment as well. the reason is because the whole point of this treaty w

inhofe: first of all, mr. president, we have a couple of votes today that are things that we should have been addressing for a long period of time, and i had time to really get at the bottom, and one is the dream act. i think the senator from alabama did a very thorough job of talking about the problems. i would only say this about the dream act. i have been privileged over the past, oh, 20 years to probably give more speeches at naturalization ceremonies than anybody else that i know. you look at these people who did it the legal way and they come in, they learn the language. i have to say, mr. president, they probably know more about the history of this country than many of us in this chamber, and they do it the right way. they study and they're proud. and when i see something like this, which i believe is done purely for political reasons, i just can't imagine slapping these people in the face and those people who did it the legal way and saying it's all right to open the doors. enough on that. i think it w

inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 4833. mr. inhofe: ask to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, i thank senator from oklahoma. mr. president, i will consume such time as i use for a moment here. let me say, first of all, again, i appreciate this amendment. there is not a lot of contention about the importance of addressing nuclear short-range weapons, tactical weapons, as we call them, and, i mean, the administration wants to do this as much as our friends do on the other side of the aisle and i think the senator from idaho knows that. let me just correct one fact for a minute that both the senator from texas and the senator from idaho said. they said that the russians will not have to reduce their strategic warheads here and that they're already below the number of 1,550. that is not accurate. and i won't go into detail here. we can reinforce this tomorrow in a classified session, but the russians do have to reduce warheads under this requirement, not as much as us, but our defense community has made the judgme

inhofe: mr. president, procedurally, we have two amendments right now that are pending, my amendment number 4833 and the thune amendment number 4841. mine is concerning verification. his is concerning delivery systems. we will have, it is my understanding, up until 1:30 when we go into closed session, to debate these. it would be my hope that members who want to debate would confine their debate just to these two amendments because if they don't and if we let the time get beyond us, there won't be as many people -- the people won't be heard on these amendments. ei know that the senator from north dakota wants to speak, and i would just encourage anyone wanting to speak on the treaty, other than these two amendments, defer to those who want to speak on these amendments. i ask now a unanimous consent that -- i ask not a unanimous consent request. it is just something that i think is the appropriate thing to do. these are very significant amendments, both of them. i would comment also that -- and a

senator inhofe? >> let me ask the first question to the ground guys, general casey and general amos. both of you in your opening statement talked about your great percentages and recruitment and retention and that goes all the way across the services and the report states that there are 23.7% with lead or think about leaving sooner than planned. the question i would ask the two of you is how would you face a 23% drop in retention? would that do to you, general casey? >> senator, projections on the retention or historical overstated. in other words, just in our normal retention -- >> let's assume it is overstated by 50%. how would you handle the 12%? >> it could have an impact on a senator and that is why i see in my statement i thought there was an increased level of risk over low for our ability to recruit and retain the force, so i think it would be an increased level of risk, but because they wouldn't all walked out the door at the same time, i think it would be in acceptable -- >> that's on reten

jim inhofe from oklahoma, very conservative, doesn't believe climate change is real. doesn't believe that science, is very skeptical about the whole thing. just refused to show up, and lots of others on the committee felt the same thing. so it was obvious we need to do something new. senators kerry, graham and lieberman wrote an editorial, kerry graham i guess was wrote an editorial in the near times, talk about a comprehensive climate and energy bill. they were very busy writing one. it was a big deal, and then they are trying to get a bill ready for the floor. and then the majority leader of the senate, mr. reid, announced that he was going to take up immigration legislation first instead of climate regulation. graham, conservative republican, was also the key guy on immigration. he was furious. i heard some blue words come out of his mouth that i don't ordinarily here are from members not on the record. but he was very unhappy. they were poised to have a press conference on monday announcing their bill with a whole bunch of ceos standing up. grandma walked out and

senator inhofe? >> let me ask the first question to the ground guys, general casey and general amos. both of you in your opening statement talked about your great percentages and recruitment and retention and that goes all the way across the services and the report states that there are 23.7% with lead or think about leaving sooner than planned. the question i would ask the two of you is how would you face a 23% drop in retention? would that do to you, general casey? >> senator, projections on the retention or historical overstated. in other words, just in our normal retention -- >> let's assume it is overstated by 50%. how would you handle the 12%? >> it could have an impact on a senator and that is why i see in my statement i thought there was an increased level of risk over low for our ability to recruit and retain the force, so i think it would be an increased level of risk, but because they wouldn't all walked out the door at the same time, i think it would be in acceptable -- >> that's on reten

jim inhofe from oklahoma, very conservative, doesn't believe climate change is real. doesn't believe that science, is very skeptical about the whole thing. just refused to show up, and lots of others on the committee felt the same thing. so it was obvious we need to do something new. senators kerry, graham and lieberman wrote an editorial, kerry graham i guess was wrote an editorial in the near times, talk about a comprehensive climate and energy bill. they were very busy writing one. it was a big deal, and then they are trying to get a bill ready for the floor. and then the majority leader of the senate, mr. reid, announced that he was going to take up immigration legislation first instead of climate regulation. graham, conservative republican, was also the key guy on immigration. he was furious. i heard some blue words come out of his mouth that i don't ordinarily here are from members not on the record. but he was very unhappy. they were poised to have a press conference on monday announcing their bill with a whole bunch of ceos standing up. grandma walked out and

and i have to mention jim inhofe hosting our bible study each week. he honored me by inviting me to a codel to africa this year, and there is no one in this senate that's done more for public diplomacy for the united states in africa than jim inhofe. i have learned in my life that you cannot do anything alone, so of course i think of my colleagues in the senate who i have learned to know and respect. i have been blessed to call them friends. the american people have made it clear that they are not happy with partisanship in washington, but the fact is there are some great partnerships here, and those partnerships and relationships result in action. i don't think many people outside washington understand that a lot gets done here on a bipartisan basis. many americans think the only action in the senate is on the floor of the senate, but much of the action in the senate is in the committees and meetings with other members off the floor, as well as through unanimous consents. once a bill gets through committee, perhaps one or two people might have a prob

you mentioned hate continues also james inhofe in calling attention to all of the spas sieve regulatoryer these things would hand to the feds. >> sean: you discuss this in your column. first the democrats they are going to get their way there, there's a real human impact in all of this. it is going to be a real threat to the financial livelihood and security for thousands and thousands of untold numbers of workers, mining workers, logging workers. we killed the offshore drilling industry off the coast of louisiana. this is really disastrous, especially at a time when jobs are hard to come by. >> yes, that's right. there's an added insult and injury to this as well in addition to all of the financial damage, it is also a threat to our national security. he has been pushing for wildlife and preservation, wilderness designations along the southern border. huge, vast swaths of land that they want to put off-limits not only to economic activity, but to border enforcement. on a day like today when we had a border patrol agent just killed in arizona, buy-out laws, who have come across the bord

. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. senator reid? >> admiral mullen, there is a question and conference going back and forth. let me put a question this way. you seem to be saying that there is a high correlation between those who have served with individuals and who believe that unit cohesion will not be affected, and that there is a very low correlation between those who have never served with them and the question of cohesion. in other words, they feel it will be irreparably harmed. which of the conclusion i think you're getting at, -- which leads to the conclusion i think you are getting at. the results are if you have the opportunity to serve with individuals you know or suspect to be gay, you do not have significant concerns about overall cohesion in the unit. is that your conclusion? >> yes, sir. >> and that is the conclusion of the study as you look at the correlation numbers? >> yes, sir. the study laid that out. additionally, the study found that should the law change, the difference between those who are actually deployed

you have situations where michele bachmann and others jim inhofe are saying, well, what about transportation a bridge or a road, it's important -- >> whether or not they can drink communion and drink the wine, will they become an alcoholic again, you've got to go free. you can't take any of these earmarks. and frankly the big issue is they don't need these earmarks. we're arguing over who should spend this stuff but whether she should spend it. >> these earmarks didn't exsit not too long ago. >> they always have. this is, again, i think this is what the founding fathers intended. they gave congress the power of the purse. i've worked in the congress and in the white house. i've seen it from both sides. if there were no earmarks, no congressionally-directed spending, all you would do is, you wouldn't cut the spending. what you would do is empower some bureaucrat at the department of transportation to decide where that road or bridge often that bureaucrat might be wiser but often she might not be. maybe the congressman knows better in his district where the highway bypass ought to be. so my ow

inhofe: for a question. when you talk about the -- the missil defense aspect of this, has it occurred to a lot of people that maybe this treaty's with the wrong people. i mean, we know right now tt iran is going to have the capability -- this is not even classified -- have the capability of -- of a nuclear weapon, a delivery system by 2015. and i think one of the worst things for america that this president did was take down the site that we were planning in poland that would give us this protection. my point i'm going to say and ask is that in the event that this is -- is ratified and that we are restricted in any way from developing further our missile defense system, doesn't that put us directly in an impaired positio in terms of north korea, maybe syria, but definitely iran, who has already indicated and already has the capability of reaching us by that time? it's interesting that that site would have been effective to knock down a missile coming from iran by 2015, the same year that our intelligee tells

about this and we think about the men and women who are serving and the fact that we, as senator inhofe alluded to earlier -- i won't repeat all of those numbers, but the fact is that if the percentages who responded to -- if the percentage is correct of those respondents to the survey comes forth to be true, then we're going to have about 30% of marine combat forces who are going to get out early and not re-enlist, and we're going to have to replace it. we have got about 25% of those combat troops in the army who are not going to re-enlist and who would like to get out early. if that happens, we're going to have about 250,000 soldiers and marines to be replaced in short order. and when i asked secretary gates about it, he said well, that's not going to happen. well, if it does happen, we're going to have serious, serious consequences. so, mr. president, i do hope that common sense will prevail here and that we will not get cloture on this and we can move on to something that's extremely important to the men and women of america at this time in our calendar year, and i yield the floor.

senator inhofe? >> let me ask the first question to the ground guys, general casey and general amos. both of you in your opening statement talked about your great percentages and recruitment and retention and that goes all the way across the services and the report states that there are 23.7% with lead or think about leaving sooner than planned. the question i would ask the two of you is how would you face a 23% drop in retention? would that do to you, general casey? >> senator, projections on the retention or historical overstated. in other words, just in our normal retention -- >> let's assume it is overstated by 50%. how would you handle the 12%? >> it could have an impact on a senator and that is why i see in my statement i thought there was an increased level of risk over low for our ability to recruit and retain the force, so i think it would be an increased level of risk, but because they wouldn't all walked out the door at the same time, i think it would be in acceptable -- >> that's on reten

and i have to mention jimofe inhofe, hosting our bible study each week. he honored me by inviting me tol a code out to africa t this yeao and there is no one in the senate with them or for public diplomacy for the united states and africa and inhofe. iofe. i've learned in my life that you cannot do anything alone. so of course they think of my si colleagues in the senate would learn to know and respect. blesd i've been blessed to call themtp friends.eo made the american people have made ia clear that they're not happy with partisanship in washington. but the factors and greatult i partnerships here in those partnerships and relationships sesult in action.ot get i'll think many people outsidebi washington understand that a lot gets done here on a bipartisanmy basis.n the sen many americans think the onlyat action in the senate is much ofe the action the senate is on the committees and meetings with other members of the floor asghs well as through unanimousht havw consent. once the delegates to a it committee, perhaps one or two might have a problem with it

doyle: i say to my friend, senator inhofe and senator alexander are co-sponsors of this bill. so i think those two gentleman, very conservative gentlemen, i think my friend would agree, are -- have looked at the bill and are co-sponsors of the bill. i'd also say to my friend that i'd be happy to share a copy of my letter from the plumbing manufacturers institute with him, if he'd like to share a letter that he has from anyone that contradicts this. i believe we have shared this letter with your staff, and i hope that you'll look it over. i would just say to the gentleman, to my colleagues, mr. speaker, that i think we should -- we should try to do the best we can do for the american people when it comes to their health. it's true that a handful of states have already adopted lower standards, but it's just a handful of states. we have 50 states, and over 40 still have not done this. so i think it's important that we set a national standard. this will in effect set a national standard that uses the best technologies available to get us as low as we can based on what we know toda

and this is what they do and sources say the deal was hammered out, principally, by senator daniel inhofe and the reigning rings of pork, and they are both popular at home. how much will the bill cost you? well, if you go to foxnews.com/yourmoney, go to the taxpayer calculator, it will show you, if you make 15 grand or under it will cost you 34 cents, 30 to 50,000, it will cost you $13, if you make 100 to $200,000 it will cost $99 and over $250,000 it will cost you $979. we also want you to vote, you know, the senate is probably going to debate this tomorrow and you have the opportunity to tell congress, if you think this is a wise use of your money. but, in washington, they are already counting noses. so, martha, it is a very important issue. martha: certainly is. and which senators are expected to defect? >> reporter: on the republican side, they've apparently already lost three lame ducks, bennett, of utah, he is going into consult, and voinovich of ohio and kit bond of missouri support this billion-dollar bill, and, it aids constituents and contributors and we believe at least 4 uncom

inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remarks.ent, i would request that. the presiding officer: without host: again, key preel votes on the dream act will take place and on the military's don't ask don't tell policy. we started at 9:00. you can don't watch on c-span 2 if you're interested from watching there. but houston, texas you are up first. patty on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call and i'm so glad i got in. i would like to ask you gentlemen straight up here. for eight years, i mean, what did the tax cut for the rich, you know, if you pay more tax, you will have more money for the federal government. i don't understand this. and i'm understanding why is it that you know, if the poor have lost so many jobs and everything, and, you know, the rich -- but if the poor have their jobs and i'm glad they have this. they can't extend it because they can extend their jobs. [inaudible] ever since bush got in, the wall and everything. and if the poor have the job, they're going to buy the rich people's material bec

inhofe: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i've been here and have listened to the two previous speakers, and let me just echo and agree with the remarks that were made by the senator from wyoming about the senator from arizona. i served as a second ranking member of the senate armed services committee, and i've watched -- served under his leadership for quite some time now, and also i have to say that the senator from wyoming and i are both on foreign relations, and i've watched his leadership in this. so i come from a little different perspective than some because i'm actually on both committees. and one of the things that i've been concerned about for a long time has been that people don't really have a real firm understanding as to the threat that we're under in this country. now, we've heard a lot of different explanations about the intent of article 5 of the treaty. on the one hand the obama administration assures us there's no limitations on our missle defenses. on the other hand, as has been stated by the tw

inhofe: for a question. when you talk about the -- the missile defense aspect of this, has it occurred to a lot of people that maybe this treaty's with the wrong people. i mean, we know right now that iran is going to have the capability -- this is not even classified -- have the capability of -- of a nuclear weapon, a delivery system by 2015. and i think one of the worst things for america that this president did was take down the site that we were planning in poland that would give us this protection. my point i'm going to say and ask is that in the event that this is -- is ratified and that we are restricted in any way from developing further our missile defense system, doesn't that put us directly in an impaired position in terms of north korea, maybe syria, but definitely iran, who has already indicated and already has the capability of reaching us by that time? it's interesting that that site would have been effective to knock down a missile coming from iran by 2015, the same year that our intelligence

this is an area again where thep my rankingng member, jim inhofe and i have been working very we closely on this and we support as h this extension to read it haspof the support of the members ofere the americans for transportatiom mobilitey collation. i will name some of them to thea american public transportation association, american road and transportation builders, the dit associated equipment distributors, associated genera, contractors, society of civill f engineers, international union lf operating engineers, labor na international, national asphalt paving association, national stone sand and gravel, united w, brotherhood of carpenters and joiners and u.s. chamber of commerce. now listen, that's quite a group. when you've got unions and aou you've got the employers and the u.s. chamber c of commerce which is negative on so many thingspoe unfortunately, positive on this, that is a good matchup. so i as canada's consent thee letters for the transportation mobility placed in the record pace of this extension will save jobs not only in the short termv but it gives certainty to the st

inhofe: mr. president, i complimented the senator from massachusetts a few minutes ago for his endurance and his at attention down here. i appreciate that. i have to say this also to the senator from indiana, my very good friend, i'm in kind of a unique position, one who serves on both the armed services committee as well as the foreign relations committee. i disagree with most of what was just stated and what i've heard several times stated by the senior senator from massachusetts. one of the concerns that i've had is that we have so many people who want to be in on this, who should be in on this, who have been elected. we have new senators. one is occupying the chair right now. we have senator kirk and senator manchin. but also we have senators blunt, boozman, portman, more ran, johnson, and rubio, all of them have signed on to a letter saying this is very significant. we really need to be a part of this thing. this is important. it's important, in my eyes in a different way than it is others.

my ranking member, jim inhofe, and i have been very -- working very closely on this, and we support thisextension. it has the support of the members of the americans for transportation mobility coalition. i'll name some of them. the american public transportation association, the american road and transportation builders, the associated equipment distributors, the associated general contractors, the society of civil engineers, the international union of operating engineers and laborers international, the national asphalt paving association, national stone, sand and tbraf he will, united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners and the u.s. chamber of commerce. now, listen, that's quite a group. when you have got unions and you have got the employers and you have got the u.s. chamber of officers, which is negative on so many things, unfortunately, positive on this, that's a good matchup. so i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the americans for transportation mobility be placed in the record. so this extension will save jobs not only in the short term, but it gives -- really gives ce

president, of course i inhofe: i would will yield. would like to ask the senator be since there may be summed on the way down t to talk how long he may on these be talking on the general subject of missile defense or treaty, the treaty about how long he could be talking of something other than specifically the two amenents? amendments.would estim >> mr. president i would to estimate about 15 to 20 minutesum. maximum. >> mr. president? m >> the senator fromfficere massachusetts.r. president >> mr. president, i spoke yesterday on most of the arguments and i don't think there's a need to go back over.t i appreciate the arguments and t concerns a of the senator frome sena oklahoma. stand so i think i will let that stand where it was and see if another senator comes up. . >> the center fromi north dakota. a very >> mr. president, this is a very significant and important issue as i have indicated previously deal w we deal with a lot of issues in the united states senate, some rant, less relevant, some more important and we often treat the t

about this and we think about the men and women who are serving and the fact that we, as senator inhofe alluded to earlier -- i won't repeat all of those numbers, but the fact is that if the percentages who responded to -- if the percentage is correct of those respondents to the survey comes forth to be true, then we're going to have about 30% of marine combat forces who are going to get out early and not re-enlist, and we're going to have to replace it. we have got about 25% of those combat troops in the army who are not going to re-enlist and who would like to get out early. if that happens, we're going to have about 250,000 soldiers and marines to be replaced in short order. and when i asked secretary gates about it, he said well, that's not going to happen. well, if it does happen, we're going to have serious, serious consequences. so, mr. president, i do hope that common sense will prevail here and that we will not get cloture on this and we can move on to something that's extremely important to the men and women of america at this time in our calendar year, and i yield the floor.

i know senator inhofe is here, but i would like to say a few at words before he does, the veficationverification because i think of it's important as we go forwarde here to be very clear about the ndme, a verification components of thist treaty. a number of colleagues have questioned the verification regime, and we may yet have a further discussion on that. so let me just make as clear as i can that this treaty is fully satisfied our intelligenceolks community and military community and our stockpile verification folks as to the verify ability ofst the treaty. now is it slightly different from what we had before with s.t.a.r.t. juan? the answer is yes.ue but importantly, i want to w underscore why the difference wg exists because one copy sort of raised the issue a little whilei reo. i think it was senator kafeel who talked about why it was we might not have gotten them to an extension of the start i treaty. the reality is it takes all extension. all the fact is kazakhstan, ukrainew belarus, they all dropped out of the nuclear game, and all of tha party to the original agreemento but

inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remarks. mr. levin: mr. president, i would request that. the presiding officer: without host: again, key preel votes on the dream act will take place and on the military's don'tsk don't tell policy. we started at 9:00. you can don't watch on c-spa if you're interested from watching there. but houston, texas you are up first. patty on the democrats line. call: thank you for taking my call and i'm so glad i got in. i would like to ask you gentlemen straight up here. for eight years, i mean, what did the tax cut for the rich, you know, if you pay more tax, you will have more money for the federal government. i don't understand this. and i'm understanding why is it that you know, if the poor have lost so many jobs and everything, and, you know, the rich -- but if the poor have their jobs and i'm glad they have this. they can't extend it because they can extend their jobs. [inaudible] ever since bush got in, the wall and everything. and if the poor have the job, they're going to buy the rich people

my ranking member, jim inhofe, and i have been very -- working very closely on this, and we support this extension. it has the support of the members of the americans for transportation mobility coalition. i'll name some of them. the american public transportation association, the american road and transportation builders, the associated equipment distributors, the associated general contractors, the society of civil engineers, the international union of operating engineers and laborers international, the national asphalt paving association, national stone, sand and tbraf he will, united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners and the u.s. chamber of commerce. now, listen, that's quite a group. when you have got unions and you have got the employers and you have got the u.s. chamber of officers, which is negative on so many things, unfortunately, positive on this, that's a good matchup. so i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the americans for transportation mobility be placed in the record. so this extension will save jobs not only in the short term, but it gives -- really gives c

senator inhofe at a question. i have done surveys in the army. i do not remember them been voluntary. they say there is a survey. we want it done. get it done. we are spending a ton of money. it is a critical piece of what we are dealing with in society in the armed forces. get it done. any thoughts on that? why did we just say, here is a survey. get it done. >> i do not know why they chose to do it the way they did. >> anyone else have any thoughts at all? >> from our perspective, we use surveys for various purposes, or looking at personnel issues and things like that. this was consistent with the way we survey our force. the figures we have seen in this survey are consistent. the patterns are consistent. it was a good way to sample the force. >> i have been in for 31 years. i have taken a ton of surveys. this is one thing we are dealing with that is an important part of where our military is going now and in the future. it seems, in listening, i have read the report. i have spoken to at least 1000 people in afghanistan, the national guard reser

given what senator inhofe said about the participation, i can tell you from first him conversations when i visited afghanistan and spoke to members of the guard and reserve, half with through the process when the committee took certain actions, they felt it was a done deal. as a result, they did not partipate in the survey. 28% does not seem like a high number of participation, regardless of the total number. it reflects the nature and total amount of service that have gone forth. is there anything additionally you can shed in terms of your understanding as to why the participation still was only at 28% and not hire? -- higher? >> let me ask general ham or mr. johnson to address the statistical significance of the numbers. >> senator, 28% overall response rate is well within the normal historical range of department of defense service of military personnel. when we worked with the company which administer the survey, we wanted to make sure that the proportional number of surveys were distributed based on historical response rates by each service. in fact, each community within each servi

inhofe: mr. president, procedurally, we have two amendments right now that are pending, my amendment number 4833 and the thune amendment number 4841. mine is concerning verification. his is concerning delivery systems. we will have, it is my understanding, up until 1:30 when we go into closed session, to debate these. it would be my hope that members who want to debate would confine their debate just to these two amendments because if they don't and if we let the time get beyond us, there won't be as many people -- the people won't be heard on these amendments. ei know that the senator from north dakota wants to speak, and i would just encourage anyone wanting to speak on the treaty, other than these two amendments, defer to those who want to speak on these amendments. i ask now a unanimous consent that -- i ask not a unanimous consent request. it is just something that i think is the appropriate thing to do. these are very significant amendments, both of them. i would comment also that -- and a