mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i would at this time yield to the senator from south dakota, senator thune. mr. thune: mr. president, i would ask that the pending inhofe amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment number 4841. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes an amendment numbered 4841. in section -- mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i would further ask unanimous consent that we resume consideration of the inhofe amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i would like to yield at this moment to -- mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i am just trying to get a procedure in place if we can. i wanted to ask my colleague from north dakota if we could enter into a time agreement on this. we won't ask colleague

mr. inhofe: at this time, i would like something of far greater significance than anything we have been talking about, i would like to yield to the senator from wyoming to discuss this new subject. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i thank the senator from oklahoma. it is a great pleasure for me to be able to make an announcement from the floor of the united states senate, and i would ask unanimous consent to go as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i would ask unanimous consent to have my whole statement appear if i don't make it through it. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i got an early christmas present on the day it was actually expected. wednesday, december 15. allison was born to my daughter and her husband mike. i have been able to hold each grandchild on the day they were born. this baby,al son, was -- allison, was a bit more difficult. i voted and made a dash to dulles airport. i flew to denver, rented a car, and drove to cheyenne, wyoming. i got to the hospital, it was late e

mr. 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

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: it's my understanding i have ten minutes. i would like to ask you to let me know when i have one minute remaining. the presiding officer: the chair will notify. mr. 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 pu

mr. inhofe: i now and that we return to -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: -- the risch amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. 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 accurat

mr. 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

mr. inhofe: you don't think -- excuse me. mr.kerry: on the issue of cheating, madam president, what he said was he didn't think there would be anything militarily significant. in other words, that had an impact on us. again, this is military that we can go into which we will probably in the classified session. but i think -- i just want that distinction to be clear. mr. inhofe: i thought that's exactly what i said. i podle for the -- i apologize for the misunderstanding. the analysis of the n.i.e., and the potential for russian cheating or breakout kerms that the treaty's verification regime is effective and they're saying it's not. i have to -- i have to always be a little suspect of what comes out of the n.i.e. all of us are. we don't take it as gospel. this actually a true story, back in the clinton administration, august 24, 1998, i asked the question how long will it be before north korea has a multistage rocket and the response that came back -- this is the 24 of august 1998 was five to 10 years. seven days later on the 31s

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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.

mr. 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

mr. 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

inhofe. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general casey, i think in response to a previous question you made a comment i want to be clear about what the last several months if not several years has been indicated as the presence of gay and lesbian service members does not undermine readiness or combat effectiveness. is that, again, is that your conclusion? i don't want to read -- >> what i said, senator, is i believe what the survey indicates, what the report indicates is the presumption that underpins law that the presence of a gay or lesbian service member may unite the because the six and a unit causes unexpected risk to discipline and after reading the report, i don't believe that is true anymore and i don't believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that. >> i think it is a significant point because i think it's -- again, i want you to respond, but all i think what it shows is that obviously there are individuals in units that are perceived even though they do not proclaim it as either be gay or lesbian, and

inhofe. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general casey, i think in response to a previous question you made a comment i want to be clear about what the last several months if not several years has been indicated as the presence of gay and lesbian service members does not undermine readiness or combat effectiveness. is that, again, is that your conclusion? i don't want to read -- >> what i said, senator, is i believe what the survey indicates, what the report indicates is the presumption that underpins law that the presence of a gay or lesbian service member may unite the because the six and a unit causes unexpected risk to discipline and after reading the report, i don't believe that is true anymore and i don't believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that. >> i think it is a significant point because i think it's -- again, i want you to respond, but all i think what it shows is that obviously there are individuals in units that are perceived even though they do not proclaim it as either be gay or lesbian, and

mr. 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

inhofe. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general casey, i think in response to a previous question you made a comment i want to be clear about what the last several months if not several years has been indicated as the presence of gay and lesbian service members does not undermine readiness or combat effectiveness. is that, again, is that your conclusion? i don't want to read -- >> what i said, senator, is i believe what the survey indicates, what the report indicates is the presumption that underpins law that the presence of a gay or lesbian service member may unite the because the six and a unit causes unexpected risk to discipline and after reading the report, i don't believe that is true anymore and i don't believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that. >> i think it is a significant point because i think it's -- again, i want you to respond, but all i think what it shows is that obviously there are individuals in units that are perceived even though they do not proclaim it as either be gay or lesbian, and

mr. chairman. secretary, we spoke privately. i appreciate that time. to speed the process, i have a couple of follow-ups to you and potentially the other members of the panel. 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 participate 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 his

mr. chairman. secretary, we spoke privately. i appreciate that time. to speed the process, i have a couple of follow-ups to you and potentially the other members of the panel. 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 histo

mr. 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