kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: a point of inquiry before i begin here. is there a difference between -- is there a reason why i should speak to either amendment number 4860 or 4893 first? the presiding officer: the senator can speak in whatever order he wishes but neither amendment has been offered. mr. kyl: all right. thank you, mr. president. then with that, i would like to offer amendment number 4860, slcm site agreement, which i believe is pending at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: and would ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. kyl, proposes an amount numbered 4860. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: mr. president, this is actually a very straightforward amendment. it simply seeks to repeat in this new start

kyl: mr. president, with that understanding -- might i ask the senator from tennessee whether he'd talked to one of the senators from south carolina about this? mr. corker: i had not. i attempted to do so. he was off the floor by the time -- mr. kyl: i don't have any objections as long as we return to the treaty so those who return to the treaty would theoretically have those rights protected -- the presiding officer: is there any objection? mr. kyl: i would not object. i would simply note that i think we will need to have an understanding here that we will need to work through with our other interested colleagues a way forward on these things and having expressed that as a matter of good faith, i suspect that we can do that. mr. corker: absolutely. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. mr. corker: mr. president, if i could, i also would like unanimous consent to accept the plod indications. it -- modifications. it is modified slightly. i want to make sur

let me just ask you this, senator kyl. a new cbs news poll shows that only 26% of those questioned wanted to extend the tax cuts for everybody, including the wealthy. 53% said they wanted the cuts for... or the extension of the tax cuts for the lower-income groups, and i guess 14% want to let all of the tax cuts expire. why was it so important... why is it so important to republicans to extend the tax cuts for the upper-income people? >> first of all, there's a gallup poll of a week ago that had 80% of americans saying don't increase taxes. but i think the point is this. especially in an economic downturn, like we're in now-- but i would say at any time-- it's not a good idea to raise people's taxes. the key here is to put people back to work, to get economic growth going again. we're never going to get out of the deficit that we have unless we have economic growth in this country. that will produce wealth. the government taxes that wealth. and so, it's good for the country, it's good for the government. that means that we

kyl: madam president, no. the house of representatives, i understand, has gone home after adopting a very short-term, i think three-day continuing resolution to fund the government since interfunding terminates at midnight tomorrow night. swreel to then take up hereto that -- well, we'll probably take that up, adopt that bi, i assume, by unanimous consent. we will then work out maybe the three-month continuing resolution that will have to be passed by both bodies before we go home. mr. graham: to my friend from arizona, senator mccain, are you aware of an effort to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy that would allow no republican amendment that could be as early as tomorrow, this weekend? mr. mccain: i would say, madam president, that not only on the don't ask, don't tell, has the tree been filled up, but also on the "dream" act. i've been heavily involved in obviously immigration issues for some years, including things that have happened, including the murder of a border patrol agent just the last couple

let me begin with you, senator kyl. will you vote this week for the 9/11 bill that would guarantee healthcare to the first responders who went to ground zero? >> i don't know if that bill is going to come before us, but dick tells me a moment ago he thinks that it will. first question: is it amendable or take it or leave it bill? it hasn't been through committee and there are problems with it. first thing republicans will ask do we have a chance to fix any problems that may exist with it? it's a lot of money. so my early response is i'm skeptical about that bill. >> chris: senator durbin, republicans in addition to senator kyl, republican critics say you're creating a $7 billion entitlement. and the way you pay for it is a corporate tax an increase. >> chris, i can tell you senators kirsten gillibrand and chuck schumer have been working non-stop with the last several weeks with republicans to try to find the best way to approach this. these first responders literally risk their lives when they went to ground zero. they

kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the remaining republican time be equally divided between senators mccain, kyl, and sessions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, one of the members on our side -- mr. kerry: before the senator gets going, i think we -- we have an understanding. how much republican time remains at this point? the presiding officer: just under 31 minutes. mr. kerry: they will each have 10 minutes. i think senator kyl and senator sessions will speak, at which point i will have an opportunity to speak and senator mccain, since it's his amendment would speak. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. during one of the last votes, a member came to me and said, i have not been able to follow this debate. what exactly is the mccain-barrasso amendment? with all of the to and fro coming to the start treaty and then to the don't ask, don't tell. i thought it would be good to recapitulate what the mccain-barrasso

here's senator harry reid responding to kyl. let's listen. >> yobt nei don't need to hear s of kyl and demint to remind me of what christmas means. my question is where were their concerns filibuster after filibuster on major pieces of legislation? >> don't they have a gag that says, i can't say this? the holidays, they're trying to -- with some kind of -- they should be saved for at least special occasions. why are they bringing them up now? >> what is a holiday, chris? >> there is no gag anymore. that's the thing. that's what seems to be changes is that anything goes now. you can use any ridiculous argument you want. if you try to appeal to the base or try to figure out another way to get a little bit of an edge, they'll use it. it used to be there were these constraints, particularly in the senate, where when they said by distinguished colleague, it wasn't just blather. it was because they respected certain boundaries on the debate. >> is there some living soul out there that's listening to demint or kyl who goes to vote in a

here's president -- or rather senator harry reid responding to kyl and that sort of sanctimony. let's listen. >> i don't need to hear the sanctimony lectures of senator kyl and demint to remind me what christmas means. my question, madam president, is where were there concerns with christmases after filibuster after filibuster after major pieces of legislation during this congress. >> guys you study these guys, the history, don't they have a gag in them that say, i can't say this. >> no. >> i can't say that the fight is over the holidays that they're trying to -- you know with some kind of sack relidge going on here. they should be saved for at least special occasion. why are they bringing it up now? blasphemy, sacrilege, come on. >> that seems to be changing, is that anything goes now. you can use any ridiculous argument that you want. if you can try to appeal to the base or whatever they're doing or figure out some other way of getting a little bit of an edge they'll use it. it used to be where these constraints on -- particularly in the senate, where -- when they said my dist

i think senator kyl will probably be too generous in responding to that. those people that are saying that are absolutely wrong. indeed, they are inaccurate to the point going in the other direction. senator kyl has done things with this treaty as far as some of the issues come at no point to just want to start with, and that's modernization, which has done tremendous service for the american people. without going into intelligence matters, i can say that it's pretty well established everywhere that our stockpile needs modernization badly. badly. that's particularly to in light of what the russians are doing, not only the russians, but the french and english and others who have weapons. they have all gone through modernization programs. we have not. the administration was dragging its feet on this, had no plan. senator kyl has taken to the point where they will start to do what really needs to be done. so those people who said that, i think that is posturing. i think it is typical of people who don't have substance or the facts on their side, and they star

kyl: mr. president, in a technical legal sensible that that's the way it's interpreted. might i also make another point, just to correct something, and we can have this debate later if you want to. but it is not true that no changes qualitatively or quantitatively in u.s. missile defenses will occur until after the ten years that this treaty would be in force. in fact, one of the most critical questions is whether the g.b.i. systems that we had deployed in alaska and california will be available to be deployed in europe or on the east coast or somewhere else in 2015 or whether that would be delayed until 2017. so, clearly, there are -- and those are the systems that would be potentially effective against a -- a russian icbm. mr. kerry: fair enough. i accept that. there are some things that we will do and it may be that we have this moment of question mark earlier. that may be, mr. president. i don't know how that will play out. i do know this, we're going to plan to do what's in our interests

today he seems to have backed on and is with jon kyl. let's watch. >> i think we should bring it up. s.t.a.r.t. is an important issue. i'm leaning towards supporting it. i think the administration is on the right track, but i think jon kyl has very legitimate concerns and need to be aired in a responsible way. to do this before christmas i think might, unfortunately, and inappropriately contract the debate. >> that is a big loss for the white house. judd gregg, there is about a handful of the retiring republican senators they were counting on as part of this group to work with dick lugar, the ranking republican on foreign relations the lone republican champion on this for now. you hear this from a lot of republican senators, i support this treaty, but i respect senator kyl's position. that should indicate how powerful senator kyl is in the republican caucus. he is not just number two in leadership in title. if this is something he wants, he has friends, even a judd gregg says, fine, that's the way kyl wants it, i'm with him. >> the back

kyl and demint to remind me what christmas means. my question, madam president, is where were their concerns about christmas in that filibuster after filibuster after major pieces of legislation during the entire congress? >> it is i remember possible to do all the things that the majority leader laid out without doing frankly without disrespecting the institution. and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for christians and the families of all of the senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff. >> controlling nuclear arms, un-christian. the administration eager to get s.t.a.r.t. approved before the new congress takes over next year. currently at least nine republican votes are needed to pass it but because of democratic lots in the november midterms, that number will grow to 14 republicans next year. democratic leaders believe they now have the 67 votes required for ratification. >>> this morning's "wall street journal" report says white house review of the war in afghanistan that's set to be rel

i also want to thanks senator kyl. i think both sides have been great but he is approached as an intelligent respectful way and he has really put in the time to really look at these treaties the way they should. this particular treaty the way it should be. the s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a very important treaty, very important set of issues but we simply don't have enough time to deal with it in this context and the remaining days of the congress. i have to ask, why can't we wait until the next congress? isn't that the morally upright thing to do since we have had a lot of people who have an elected who really ought to be the ones who represent the people having won elections? it seems to me that we have to put it over until we can have enough time to do it. usually these kinds of treaties take at least two weeks on on the floor of the senate and sometimes much longer than that but certainly about to be given at least that amount of time. 18 members of the republican colleagues have requested in a letter to senate minority le

tactical weapons and they have all been addressing the substance of this bill one of which as a senator kyl pointed out a single democrat has voted for coming and the important role the senate please in this isn't just the consent, not to rubber-stamp. it's to take these important issues on which there are substantial disagreements to try to improve and strengthen and make this treaty better and so far it seems to me at least the democrats have sort of decided they want to get this through, they don't want to consider any amendments and they certainly aren't making democrats available to vote for any of the amendments we are offering. so, it is unfortunate we would have been better served if we had been able to get this and next year. when you have the new senators coming in who have an important i think part to play this and something to say about it so it would have been just as easily have asserts have mentioned it to push into ja year. >> "the new york times" just released the first draft of the treaty and one of the things included was the security breach occurred to get this document

. >> woodruff: and the chairman of >> woodruff: still, the leading republican critic senator jon kyl said treaty supporters are making conflicting arguments. >> number one, we have this wonderful relationship with the russians that's been reset and we're cooperating on all these things, and by the way, you can't trust those guys so we've quickly got to put those verification measures in places. there's something that just doesn't connect there as far as i'm concerned. >> woodruff: kyl and others also accused democrats of rushing the vote and even infringing on the >> woodruff: moreover, kyl accused democrats of rushing the vote and quote, "disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for christians and the families of all of the senate." that drew a tart response today from vice president biden in an interview on msnbc. >> get out of the way. there's too much at stake for america's national security. and don't tell me about christmas. i understand christmas. i have been a senator for a long time. i've been there many years where we go right up to christmas. there's 10 days betwee

kyl: thank you, madam president. i plan to speak for about an hour here, for the benefit of colleagues' scheduling. although i will only scratch the surface of what i will have to say about this treaty. so let me begin by talking about 14 or 15 specific things that i intend to cover at some point when we have time during this debate and note that there will be amendments proposed that deal with many of the items that i'm going to be mentioning here. but first i think it's important for us to lay out what some of the concerns are. this morning when i talked about the fact that the senate is going to have to deal with the funding of the u.s. government which expires on midnight on saturday, i noted the fact that the process that the majority leader has invoked here to dual track or consider the start treaty along with the omnibus appropriations bill is not a process that allows adequate consideration of either, and that the american people sent a signal in the last election that they didn't want us to continue this was

kyl: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. i had hoped to be able to respond to some of the things that the chairman of the foreign relations committee said earlier. a lot of words have been spoken in between what he said and what i'll say now. but i think i have -- have correct what his arguments are and if i don't, i'm sure he will set me straight on that. so let me respond to some of the things that senator kerry talked about. i think one of the most significant is this, it's the question of whether the preamble is important or not. is it binding or not? is it significant? while on the one hand the argument is made that it's an insignificant instrument. it's not binding. it's a throwaway statement to quote senator kerry, that it's generally sometimes done for domestic consumption. it is also portrayed as a treaty killer. and in one sense you can say both of those things can't be true. it can't be both insignificant, a throwaway document, b

so that senator kyl could do modernization. we did the modernization. i think there's such a thing as reciprocity here in the workings of the united states senate, and we're looking for it. the fact is that since january of 2009, we have had o file 125 closure motions in order to go forward and do the senate's business. that's why we're here late. that's as -- we need you to tell this story to america. you know, as many closure motions have been filed, in the last year as we're filed between 1919, world war i, and 1975, and so they can't even say that we've somehow, that you know, we were guilty of the same thing because the fact is they've doubled the number of closures since 2007, so all i can say is that, you know, we've had to file 264 cloture motions or an average of 66 per year since 2007. that's why the business is slowed down, and that's what americans are mad at, and they need to take a look in their hearts, frankly, and in the realities of these choices about where we're heading here, so yes, i believe we'll have the votes. also believe that i

jon kyl trying to stop s.t.a.r.t. john mccain trying to stop the spending bill. >> reporter: exactly. and john mccain, who's long been a guy who's been against earmarks, those special projects that members of congress can sneak into a bill that pay for things back home. many of them are noteworthy and worthwhile projects, but the kinds of things that aren't approved separately, so they get a lot of attention. and there are 6,400 of those worth about $8 billion in a huge spending package that covers all the agencies of government. so lots of republicans are upset about that, given the deficit. jon kyl, who is really the point man on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty with russia, he is definitely saying this can't get done and he's getting some help from jim demint of south carolina, who says he wants every word of that treaty read on the senate floor. that could take 10 to 12 hours, if they go that route. so we thought we had a drama with the tax cuts, but, oh, no, there's more to play out in these remaining days. >> all right. ke

kyl: mr. president, might i join in this colloquy? i don't think there needs to be any reference to time for deba debate. if i could just make a brief state. i think the purpose for this unanimous consent agreement was to allow members by unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business on the don't ask, don't tell bill prior to a vote on that at 3:00. mr. reid: 3:00. mr. kyl: but that we would be on the treaty and if people did not want to talk about the don't ask, don't tell, then we would be on the mccain-risch amendment and that that debate would conclude before 3:00 and then the mccain-risch amendment would follow the vot vote -- the vote on that would follow the vote on the don't ask, don't tell. mr. reid: i think that's totally appropriate. i would just add to my friend, while the chair is considering the consent agreement, one of the reasons we were able to get this agreement is we've worked pretty hard the last few days and the people thought we should have the afternoon off after we finish this information. as far as i'm

. >> i don't need to hear the lectures of senator kyl and demint to remind me of what christmas means. my question, madam president, is where were their concerns about christmas, filibuster after filibuster on major pieces of legislation during this entire congress? not once, but 87 times. >> all right. for the record, senator reid is right there, there have been 87 filibusters, but also for the record, democrats joined some of those filibusters and as recently as last week with the clock ticking down toward the holds, independent senator bernie sanders took up nine hours of senate time speaking against the tax deal. as for the complaints by congress people about having to work until christmas, only in washington would that seem like a crazy idea. and it got us wondering how much do these congress people actually work in washington, d.c.? well, take a look at the numbers. 123 and 151. that's how many days the house and senate have actually been in session so far this year. 123 and 151. now, traditionally they don't like to work on friday so they can all go back to their districts and

the one compromise, instead of taking the obvious compromise on this, they instead gave kyl somethingt does not have support. they have not been able to get this through the congress. >> do you have somebody in the united states senate that's going to offer this up as an amendment? as soon as cloture is invoked today and they get over their 60, do you have somebody that's going to introduce this as an amendment before it gets to the house? >> chuck, it's not clear yet exactly what amendments are going to be introduced in the senate. we will be talking to the senators to see whether we can move forward on that. but at the end of the day, i mean, this is something that we think needs to be addressed. it to be clear. other members have other legitimate concerns, but i do think this has become the focus of most of our -- >> i just want to understand. is this your line in the sand? if this provision is in here, you can't support it, period. >> chuck, as of right now, if this provision stays, and i think it should not stand and it should be debated, i will have a very difficult time -- >> t

are you getting quiet nods that think what senators kyl and demint have said is out of line? >> i have gotten quiet nods on people from both sides of the aisle that know what i learned during this tough campaign. people back in the states want us working together to actually solve problems. i think the tax cut deal is a good example of that going forward. if we did more of that rather than less, i think congress might actually start to see their approval ratings some place other than the basement. but i think complaining about having to work over christmas is 234 not going to contribute to that. >> tipping points in our politics are sometimes hard to disstern and sometimes come over what seems like very minor things. i've been wondering since i've heard this language thrown around, is this a tipping point for republicans in what has become the overuse of religion, not just in campaigning -- it's one thing to hear it in campaigning. you hear a lot of it in campaigning. but actually using it as a device in terms of legislative blocking maneuvers. is this the kind of thing where

kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. senator vitter brought this matter to my attention as the bill was being wrapped up, and i told him at that time that while we could not provide an extension longer than the one in the tax bill, that i would work with him in early 2011 to help these projects obtain the necessary extension. and i say the very same thing to the senior senator from louisiana today. i also share the confidence of the chairman of the finance committee that we will find an appropriate tax bill early in 20 2011 to include this change which i think we all view as a technical change that will allow this special financing to be used as congress intended. ms. landrieu: i have a question for the senator. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: is it his understanding now having had several conversations with senator vitter and myself, that this technical correction we seek is only and limited to the 77 low-inc

kyl: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i'm not sure i will be speaking for 40 minutes or in a particular time frame here. i want to focus for a moment the omnibus and the continuing resolution, so my remarks will probably be relevant to that, therefore, i probably shouldn't join in a unanimous consent agreement at this time. mr. reid: okay. so, mr. president, i would -- i'm glad we clarified that. as i said, anyone can talk about anything they want. so why -- why don't we have the consent suggestion amended that senator lugar be recognized for 40 minutes, senator kerry for 30 minutes and then the rest of the time will be jump ball, people can speak up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: and i've conferred with senator mcconnell, there will be no roll call votes for the rest of the day. mrs. lincoln: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from arkansas is recognized. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. president. well, i hope t

i want senator kyl to have his time. i will not interrupt him but i wanted to try to see if we couldn't engage him in what the senate does, which is debate. mr. kyl: this is the kind of engagement we need on this treaty and other issues in this body. too many times there is a senator coming down giving a speech. half of us aren't listening or more. this kind of colloquy can develop more useful material for our colleagues, for the record, i think than anything else. i'm very happy to engage in it. i just want to make sure that i don't run out of my time with my colleague's questions. here's how it relates and here's the importance. we're being told that even though the delivery systems -- and remember, this treaty deals with warheads and delivery systems. let's least warheads off to the side for a moment. the delivery systems which are the submarine with their missiles, the long-range bombers with cruise missiles in some cases, and our icbm force and the russian counterparts. those delivery systems are constrained in this

senator kyl's objection was about congress being in session around christmas, because it disrespectsad a similar complaint telling politico, you can't jam a major arms control treaty right before christmas. what's going on here is just wrong. this is the most sacred holiday for christians. well, both senators are right. for christians christmas is a holy day. what's not a holy day for christians is monday december 27th, tuesday december 28th, wednesday december 29th and all those other days between christmas and easter. what senators kyl and demint should have said was actually said by harry reid on the senate floor earlier today which gives me the lazy pleasure of having harry reid do the rewrite for me. >> most people don't get two weeks off on any time, let alone christmas week. these people who are lucky enough to have a job in these trying times need to work extra hours just to make ends meet. so it's offensive to me and millions of working americans across this country for any senator suggesting working through the christmas holidays is somehow sacrilegous or disrespectful. the

kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i think that having spoken to a couple of colleagues that it's quite likely that the first amendment that will be offered relatively soon will be on the treaty itself, so that issue won't have been -- we will have time to work the question out that senator kerry and senator corker have been talking about. mr. president, senator kerry and i were involved in a discussion about missile defense last evening, and i think that will be probably further debated in connection with the first amendment that's likely to be offered. so let me turn to another matter that is of great concern to some of us and i think will require some resolution either in an amendment of the treaty or preamble or in the resolution of ratification. and that is the limitation placed on our potential -- potential global strike weapon. this is a matter on which the senate gave its advice. our role, of course, is advice and consent. in the last defense bill, section 1251 of the fiscal year 10 fdaa, we included

we'll hear from john kn kyl lat today. we'll hear from john kerry. and then we'll find out whether or not at about 2:30 or so america can hear every word of the treaty being read on the senate floor. >> all right, ken. thank you. we are keeping an eye on the house where they are taking up the new effort to repeal don't ask, don't tell. >>> also, the "news nation" is now learning the gunman who opened fire at a school board meeting in florida may have planned his attack well in advance. it was all caught on camera and the video we are about to show you to say the least is intense and can certainly be disturbing to watch. we now know that clay duke, the gunman, fired 14 live rounds at point-blank range. miraculously missing each of the school board members he targeted. >> leave. you may leave, you may leave. you can leave. six men stay. everyone else leaves. if you're going to kill yourself or kill us or whatever, at least let us know what's going on. i'll be very honest with you, i swear, i don't know who your wife is or what she did. i have a feeling

i want senator kyl to have his time. i will not interrupt him but i wanted to try to see if we couldn't engage him in what the senate does, which is debate. mr. kyl: this is the kind of engagement we need on this treaty and other issues in this body. too many times there is a senator coming down giving a speech. half of us aren't listening or more. this kind of colloquy can develop more useful material for our colleagues, for the record, i think than anything else. i'm very happy to engage in it. i just want to make sure that i don't run out of my time with my colleague's questions. here's how it relates and here's the importance. we're being told that even though the delivery systems -- and remember, this treaty deals with warheads and delivery systems. let's least warheads off to the side for a moment. the delivery systems which are the submarine with their missiles, the long-range bombers with cruise missiles in some cases, and our icbm force and the russian counterparts. those delivery systems are constrained in this

republican senator jon kyl's response says reid is disrespecting christians.lican jim demint echoed the religious rage calling it sacrilegious. to hold a vote on s.t.a.r.t. around christmas. here is senator reid defending himself and shooting back. >> i don't need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of senator kyl and demint to remind me of what christmas means. my question, madam president, is where were their concerns about christmases to in that filibuster after filibuster on a major piece of legislation during this entire congress? >> well, how about a nuclear arms race, a renewed one? is that a better way to celebrate christmas? look, s.t.a.r.t.'s important enough to stick around, at least another week. finally, do as i say, not as i do. here we go. hypocrisy time. republican senator john cornyn has requested millions in pet projects in a new spending bill designed with all that ballyhoo on the earmark moratorium. here he is today on fox facing the heat from mark halperin. >> earmarks, too, according to this list, some 16 million for your home state. can y

>> that senator jon kyl probably had to soak his face in cement before he made that preposterous statement about harry reid being sacrilegious. >> and i just realized you could turn to the vatican for help on what to give susan for her birthday. >> i guess i could. speaking of susan on her birthday, look at that. happy birthday, susan scarborough. she's going to kill me for putting up her picture. sleaze a beautiful, beautiful girl. 29 years young today. or something like that. >> we're still celebrating anniversaries. willie, way too early. what time is it? >> it's "morning joe." stick around for "the daily rundown" with chuck and savannah. >>> senator kyl and demint to remind me of what christmas means. >> happy holidays. capitol hill got to a new shiny wrapped partisan fight over christmas. >>> down, but not out, with the latest nbc news/"wall street journal" poll says about president obama's prospects for 2012 and out of his would-be republican challengers. >>> plus, what was the worst moment on capitol hill? so many low lives to choose one. only one receives the coveted chuvannah awar

now senator kyl sort of sees that as a problem. all of our folks who negotiated this treaty and our military and our strategic thinkers see that as an advantage for the united states of america. that protects us. we are better off that way. why? because, madam president, it would be extraordinarily difficult to ver if i compliance -- verify compliance with a treaty that limited nuclear tipped icbm and slbm but it didn't count and therefore didn't inspect identical conventionally armed slbm and icbm. so we'd be absolutely foolish on our part to allow the russians to deploy additional slbm, slbm based exclusively on their assurance that they're not nuclear armed. how would you know? it's only by putting them under the counting that we protect the interest of our country rather than creating a whole sidebar arms race which would make everybody less safe. not -- not counting those missles would, in fact, create a new risk, the risk of breakout that you allow the other side the opportunity even if there were no cheating russia could sim

it's simply impossible it to have the time to do them right. >> kyl has been outspoken for some time. debate on the measure expected to start in the senate as soon as today. >>> a report in "the new york times" this morning casts doubt on progress in the war in afghanistan. sources in the intelligence community are reportedly giving a bleak assessment arguing large swaths of the country remain at risk of falling to the taliban and neighboring pakistan is still supporting insurgents. this comes as the white house is planning to unveil a report tomorrow that president obama will address from the white house. press secretary robert gibbs says it will affirm the president's timetable to begin withdrawing some u.s. forces next july. >> i doubt there will be, in all honesty, a lot of surprise at what the review lays out. there has been some important progress in halting the momentum of the taliban in afghanistan. we have seen through counter terrorism success at degrading senior al qaeda leaders. and we've seen greater cooperation over the course of the past 18 months with the pakistani gov

what do you say to senator kyl and the others who are dragging their feet. >> get out of the way.nal security. and don't tell me about christmas. i understand christmas. i have been a senator for a long time. i have been there many years where we go right up to christmas. there's ten days between noi an christmas. i hope i don't get in the way of your christmas shopping, but, this is the nation's business. this is a national security at stake. act. act. >> all right. >> that pretty much boils it down. >> and the reaction of the vice president and, of course, on the line calling him the greatest vice president in the history of mankind. >> did we say that? >> no doubt about that. >> he was actually, called in had to go in a national security briefing which makes me really question -- >> exactly. >> national security? >> maybe we'll get him to call in. >> as the vice president said, it's not only about harry reid. it's a complaint he might have to work a little bit into the christmas holiday, when people in the country work on the holiday. people serving overseas dies for our countr

want to say to my friendssh on this sideat of the aisle that this seems to me that through senator kyl's efforts and of people working in a cooperativer wayy we have been very successft in getting the commitment thatn. we need on the modernization, w and by theou way i would have it not think wehi would be talkinge about the issue of modernization today, s something that hasn't , been done for many years to thif scale we would not be talking weout that if it were not fortra have enhanced our country's national security just by having this the date. s mr. president, i would say we ri have sought and received a commitment that otherwise we n would notot have received if its were not for the discussion ofey this treaty and the two are peoy related. i've heard a lot of people say there is lno real relationshipap between the two, there's a lotha of relationship between the twow and i think americans want toe g know if we are going to limit ourselves to 1550 warheads thatw we know th kat they operate and, know that they can be delivered and we know that the thousands of warheads we have that a

kyl: mr. president, unless senator durbin would like to -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, could i be advised after i've spoken for five minutes? the presiding officer: the chair will notify. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, the "dream" act is an attempt to cure a symptom of a problem. the symptom is that some children have been brought here illegally and they're suffering the consequences of being illegal aliens under american law. the problem is illegal immigration which causes all manner of other bad results or problems. there are huge costs to society and any number of personal tragedies as a result of illegal immigration, the "dream" act process being only one subset. just a few days ago another border patrol agent was killed in our state of arizona, illustrating again another kind of personal tragedy from illegal immigration. unfortunately, treating symptoms of the problem might make us feel better because we're doing something for a

for mitch mcconnell, kyl is very important to him.he guy that helps keep the conservative wing of the party in line and helps out mitch mcconnell. that's why mcconnell is let this go a little bit. even though he might cut the deal, kyl is like, i've got to have this so he backs off. >> we've got "morning joe" on the "roundtable" sunday. huge. >> andrea mitchell, it's going to be great. >> terry garr? >> terry garr. >> and joe biden. >> can you say don rickels for the hour? >> an old friend, don rick les. >> i want more. do more. >> we're going to see you and savannah on "the daily rundown" after "morning joe." coming up, host of the last word, lawrence o'donnell. sign up for "morning joe" minutes newsletter go to joe.msnbc.com. what's around the corner is one of life's great questions. and while it can never be fully answered, it helps to have a financial partner like northern trust. by gaining a keen understanding of your financial needs, we're able to tailor a plan using a full suite... of sophisticated investment strategies and sol

>>neil: but senator kyl said don't touch it, you do, you are done.uld they let it blow up on the estate tax? >>neil: wiser heads should prevail but i have seen wiser things prevail for less. >>guest: most people want a compromise on this. both sides want this. >>neil: but a lot of the guys are not normal. >>guest: how do you define "normal." >>neil: good question. >>guest: i like lower taxes. the markets like lower taxes. businessmen like lower taxes. there is a lots of spending in this but they will cut, too. >>neil: thank you, charlie. time for joe to go in 90 seconds left. and, maybe, finally, we will know. we will know. stella: hmmm. we're getting new medicare benefits from the new healthcare law. jane: yea. most people will get free cancer screenings. and 50 percent off of brand name prescription drugs if you're in the donut hole. stella: you read my paper. jane: i went to medicare.gov. it's open enrollment, you know. so i checked out all the options and found a better plan to fit my budget. stella: well, you know what they say...knowledge... ja