mr. 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

mr. kyl: madam president, i wonder if i might engage in a colloquy very briefly with my colleague from massachusetts and then propound a unanimous consent agreement. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl kyl: first of all, there two votes scheduled in a few minutes on the thune amendment and the inhofe amendment. have we locked in the lemieux amendment yet? mr. kerry: i don't believe. let me ask. madam president, i -- the presiding officer: no. mr. kyl: so, madam president, does my colleague anticipate that it is possible that there would be a third vote tonight depending upon whether senator la smiew ready to have that vote -- lemieux is ready to have that vote? mr. kerry kerry: i suspect the majority leader would be delighted to have another vote if we can. bumr. kyl: but it hasn't been resolved yet? at some point, just for the benefit of members, there could theoretically be a third amendment tonight if senator lemieux is ready to have that vote and if there is no object

mr. kyl: yes, mr. president, i object, and i hate to object. the -- what we were trying to do was simply get an order so people would know this evening roughly when they would be permitted to speak and what the order would be and how late we would go and so on. it is my understanding that we will not be on the treaty tomorrow but, rather, will be on two other matters that the leader has filed cloture on that would have some debate preceding the two cloture votes. is that -- and, therefore, we would not be on the treaty tomorrow. and that when we go back on the treaty, obviously there may be something that needs to be said on the amendment before there would be a vote. mr. kerry: well, may i -- i really would like to try and lock it in if i can, mr. president. i ask -- i think this is a good effort and i think we can close this out in the following way. could we agree that this -- these -- this list will be the final list of speakers on this amendment with the allowance for five minutes on eac

mr. kyl: i would say the answer is yes and no. consider citers a through they have the right to wrawrks is it not? there is no yes or no. they either have the trite withdraw or they don't? do they have the right to withdraw? mr. kyl: the answer is that while they have the right to do anything -- mr. kerry: do they have the right to withdraw? answer the question. mr. kyl: madam president, the -- senator, kerry, you've asked knee a serious question which requires more than just a yes or no answer. the answer is under the terms of the treaty, they have a right to characterize something as an extraordinary event which qualifies under the terms of the contract between the two parties to withdraw. and it is also true that technically speaking that's not a decision which we can counterman in any way, in that serntion it's true that they can withdraw. but it is also true that this treaty, like any other contract, sets up terms of reference. one of the terms of reference is the supreme national intere

mr. 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 a

mr. kyl: sure. mr. sessions: you as a lawyer have negotiated agreements. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: thank you. you've negotiated agreements. it seems ta what i hear you saye united states enters a into a binding treaty equivalent to a party entering into a binding contract, but the other party has laid a groundwork that allows them to exit the treaty and the contract whenever they want to, in essence. is that correct? mr. kyl: madam president, that point i'm make. and in contrast to the start i negotiations, where when the russians said something very similar to this we pushed back and sairntion no, you're wrong. that would not be an appropriate reason to withdraw from the treaty. in time we didn't do that. we let it pass. therefore, i would suggest taitsly accepting the legal position of the russians. mr. sessions: and, further, it is not a question of whether the united states' diplomats and negotiators are telling the truth and the russians are not telling the truth. it is a question of is there a meeting of the minds

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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 an

mr. kyl: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kwra*z. mr. kyl: i'd -- the senator from from arizona. mr. kyl: jim and i came into the house of representatives at the same time as part of the 100th class. i've enjoyed being with him as well in the u.s. senate. jim and mary are counted as among the best friends that my wife carol and i have. i agree with senator mcconnell, that while people may disagree with jim bunning, no one has ever doubted his courage, his sincerity, his love for this country, his desire to do what's right, and his commitment to all of those things. and so i will greatly miss jim when he's no longer part of the u.s. senate. but i think it's probably time for jim and mary to have a little bit of time to spend with all of those children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and obviously we all wish them both well. madam president, i'd like to speak for a few moments about the matter that senator mcconnell brought to our attention, namely, this almost 2

mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. it's a delight to see you in the chair. mr. president, let me just make a brief comment on the last comment from my colleague about the work schedule of the senate, because i've been one of those folks who have decried the fact that we are dual tracking the start treaty and the omnibus appropriations bill here with just a week left before christmas. i do think it's an imposition on our families and our staff that we need to be working during this period of time. i don't think there's anybody in this body that works any harder than i tkofplt i don't claim to be the -- than i do. i'm no stranger to hard work and i'm happy to be here right up to christmas eve if that's what it takes. but my complaint is that this is a problem that has been brought on by the democratic leadership. all year long we had the opportunity to do a budget. did we ever do a budget? no. all year long we had the opportunity to pass appropriations bills. this is the first time in my memory that the senate never passed a single appropriations bill. not one. so

mr. kyl: yes. mr. graham: now, here's the problem, as i understand it -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- if we enter into this treaty and the preamble is not clarified or stricken, there could come a point down the road as we develop these systems to defend against what we all agree is a real national security threat to the united states, what damage would it do to our relationship and what kind of conflict would it create or anxiety in the world at large if the russians say we're going to back out of the treaty? because that's the one thing you don't want to happen. you don't want to sign a treaty where we're going to do, a, and if we do a, they back out. because you put the world in a state of confusion and really danger. the idea that the -- all the papers in the work would read one day, "russians back out of strategic arms limitation treaty because of u.s. deployment of missile defense," to me, that is something that we need to deal with, with certainty. because if that day ever came, it would reall

mr. kyl: if i could just finish this point. instead of creating a more stable relationship, a relationship built on the reset, a relationship which is built on very clear, transparent views of things on how we're moving forward together built into this treaty is an inherent conflict that can cause nothing but trouble in the future. unless the unite united states s fine, we won't develop any missile defenses that could conceivably be effective against russia, which then means that they couldn't be effective against an icbm from iran or an icbm from korea. this is the dilemma that's presented by this treaty and its preamble terms. this is what causes us such great concern. and i'd be happy at this point to yield to my colleague and if he'd like to engage in a colloquy on this, that would be fine. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i thank the senator from arizona. i want to take a moment, though, to address this point that he's made. because i think it really is central and then we can talk about it

mr. 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 againnother 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 pa

mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: let me compliment senator risch on a fine statement on a very important aspect of this start treaty. he covered the waterfront very well, and i only wish that there were more than two other colleagues on the senate floor to hear this debate. part of the reason that i suggested a long time ago that it was not a good idea to bring the start treaty up just before christmas is members would be preoccupied especially if we tried to go through saturday and sunday. here we are on a sunday afternoon, and there are four senators, including -- and then in addition to the presiding officer on the senate floor. so this is a shame because it's an important issue. yesterday the senate rejected an amendment by senators mccain and barrasso. what they said was that there's some language in the preamble of this treaty that states the interrelationship between strategic defensive and offensive weapons, and that's not a

mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i think what we've just heard illustrates why it's been so hard for us to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to resolve the tax issues that all americans face in just four short weeks. but last tuesday, a group of us went down to the white house to visit with the president, the vice president, some of his folks in a spirit of cooperati cooperation, i must say, and a spirit in which the president reached out to us and said all right, the elections are over, my party didn't do so well but it's time now for to us get together, work together, and the first piece of business we have to resolve is this tax issue. we have to figure out how we're going to fund the government for the remaining ten months of the fiscal year and we have to figure out how we're going to prevent americans from getting a big tax increase come january 1. and what i'd like for you-all to do, talking both to democratic and republican leaders in the house and senate, is to sit down and try to negotiate this

mr. 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 lo

mr. kyl: i think i can do it in 12 minutes. mrs. oxer: after senator kyl that be recognized for 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. i just wanted to speak for a few minutes about the tax package or tax legislation that the senate is debating and will be voting on here before long. there's been dismay on both sides of the aisle regarding the merits of the package, and i emphasize a point that's been made by others. no one thinks this is a perfect bill. most conservatives are upset about the unfunded extension of unemployment benefits and the fact that the tax rate extensions are not permanent. on the left, there are those who dislike the death tax reform and would have preferred that the top marginal income tax rates be increased. and there are other concerns as well. i agree with some of the criticisms my conservative friends have made. this is not the bill i would have written. there are some provisions in the package i disagree with or would have written differently. but, on th

mr. kyl: mr.president, i would just conclude by saying i hope that we have just a -- at least just a short moment or period of debate following the executive session so both senator thune and senator inhofe can make a brief closing argument to remind our colleagues about what this debate has been all about. i regret that more of our colleagues are not on the floor to hear the debate. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: madam president, of course we will accommodate hopefully some brief statements prior to the -- prior to the votes, and i'm confident we can agree on some reasonable period, hopefully not more than five minutes or something like that to summarize. but let me just say to my friend from arizona, madam president, because i heard him saying fairly passionately that what's the point of having the senate involved if it can't advice and consent and can't amend the treaty. none of us on our side are arguing that we shouldn't have that right, that we don't have t

mr. 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

specialists in that area, have said this treaty is a great treaty and we should have this treaty -- mr. kyl and mr. brand, they are not specialists in that area. they will pick anything -- you know what? i think they would want not to pass it no matter what. it is a waste of our tax dollars. the are messing around in congress. we could be going on to something else. they are holding as back. host: "the washington post" notes that there are several camps are republicans. some republicans, including senator jim demand, have said that arms control treaties are outdated. they want to develop a highly advanced missile defense shield, something along the lines of president ronald reagan's "star wars" concept. independent line, jane. caller: i very much opposed this. the reason is that we cannot trust russia. we cannot trust china. israel is our best ally and they are going to go against israel in the near future. mr. putin is kgb. they might have changed their name from kgb to freedom- something, just to deceive people. israel is our best ally. we should be on their side and not making friends an

mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. i just wanted to speak for a few minutes about the tax package or tax legislation that the senate is debating and will be voting on here before long. there's been dismay on both sides of the aisle regarding the merits of the package, and i emphasize a point that's been made by others. no one thinks this is a perfect bill. most conservatives are upset about the unfunded extension of unemployment benefits and the fact that the tax rate extensions are not permanent. on the left, there are those who dislike the death tax reform and would have preferred that the top marginal income tax rates be increased. and there are other concerns as well. i agree with some of the criticisms my conservative friends have made. this is not the bill i would have written. there are some provisions in the package i disagree with or would have written differently. but, on the other hand, this is not the bill that president obama would have written. he's made it clear that he doesn't like everything in it eith

mr. kyl: i appreciate my colleague's comments, and rather than read the remainder of this, i would simply ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks here, that i -- that there will be additional quotations on the need for modernization by former lab directors, dr. miller, secretary schlesinger and several others, and would just conclude by emphasizing what the lab directors also emphasized in this correspondence, and i will just quote it. "as we emphasized in our testimonies, implementation of the future vision of the nuclear deterrent will require sustained attention and continued refinement." the out years are very, very important, and that's why the record that we create in this debate is important to ensuring that those who come after us will appreciate our intentions as we move forward here, that we never again take our eye off the ball and allow the deterioration in our nuclear forces to occur as we have so that we can continue to support them as called for in this moder

kyl five. and one more thought, mr. president. we have it within our power to fix the broken immigration system. last year approximately 600,000 people were arrested entering our country illegally. that's lower than it has been. but a determined leadership from the president, from the congress came within a matter of one or two years end this problem, and then we can begin to wrestle with the difficult question of those who have been in our country for some time. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, the time will be allocated as suggested. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, how much time has been used by senator sessions? the presiding officer: the senator used 14 minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that now the senator from oregon be recognized for 3 minutes and then i be recognized for 6 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remark

hatch have 15 minutes, senator thune, 10 minutes; senator kyl, 10 minutes; and senator graham, 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrhumer: would my colleague yield for a question? mr. grassley: will i yield for a question? mr. schumer: yeah. mr. grassley: because you new yorkers think you can make us midwesterns look bad. but i'll be glad to yield. mr. schumer: not you. i thank my colleague. and through the chair, i'd simply like to ask my colleague this. i understand we have a different point of view here. we both care about deficit reduction. could he please explain to me why it is okay to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance extensi extension? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thought i made that point very clear, because the taxpayers are smarter than we in congress are. they know that they give another dollar to us to spend and it's a license to spend $1.15. so it just increases the national debt. and when it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay

mr. kemp will represent house republicans. >> i haven't announced but will in the next hour or two. >> thank you. >> thanks, guys. >> that's it. [indistinct conversation] >> good afternoon, everyone. senator kyl and i had an opportunity to meet with the president and other democratic leaders in the house and senate. the one thing we agreed on is resolve what the tax rates are going to be for the american people beginning next year and second, how we're going to fund the government for the next 10 months. the president had i thought a useful suggestion which was that each of us designate one member to meet with the vice president and jack lew, the director of o.m.b. and move forward to resolve the tax issue. and my designee will be senator kyl who has been our leader on the estate tax issue, which also has to be zretched in the context of deciding -- addressed in the context of the tax rates next year and a senior member of the finance committee. so if there was a news peg from this morning's meeting with the president, i would say that's it. senator kyl? >> thank you. the only other thing i would add is according to a gallup poll last week, about 80% of the american people do not want to see

mr. president, i at this point might share a couple of other thoughts while waiting for a couple of other colleagues whr overpriced him to come near. but they mentioned that senatord kylasked a question of what we get out of this? getat versus what we get and sey to apply that were not getting very much.- that like an escher, the senator frot joint chiefs of staff, secretary of defense, leaders of our strategic command and othersstat don't come before the united states congress willy-nilly just ett g to say, he do this because we don't get anything out of it. every single one of them is articulate very clearly how they believe this treaty strengthensi national security. advantages are leadership in the world, positions us to be able a to deal more effectivelyn withnh iran and north korea. theht and you know, i have to say to l my colleagues, you receive the right to come to the floorf senate and talk seriously about iran and north korea. if you can't talk seriously about the ways in which thisabil treaty enhances our ability to put leverage on those countries. before we pushed the reset ratton so called with russia, wi didn't have their cooperation with respect to ira

mr. president. if you look on that executive calendar, it's on the calendar. we want to bring that up. and, in fact, i believe senator kyl said today, we're not going to bring that up. we -- we're going to stop everything. i saw him on television talking about how we're going to stop everything and this treaty, we're just not going to bring it up. so there are things pending on the calendar that are ready to go. and this treaty in particular -- this treaty in particular deals with our national security. national security used to be an issue where democrats and republicans worked together. but with this letter, it looks like they're not going to be bipartisan. they're going to issue this ultimatum, and they're not going to try to work with us on these kinds of issues. and -- and while they're doing that, we no longer have inspections. we no longer are allowed to go to the soviet union and -- and look at their sites and find out if they're complying with previous treaties. so the start treaty -- the start treaty -- this new start treaty would allow us to do that and -- and what we're seeing here over and over again is thes

mr. president? the presiding officer: there's still remaining on the wicker amendment. and kyl 4860. mr. kyl: i'd like to speak briefly to that right now in direct response to my colleague from michigan. mr. kerry: do we have time remaining on either of those amendments? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts has time remaining on both amendments. the senator from arizona. kyl climate me quote from the start i treaty, text resolution of advice and consent of ratification as approved by the senate. the senate advice and consent to subject to the following conditions which shall be binding on -- upon the president. legal and political obligations of ussr, the obligations of the union of soviet socialist republics reflected in the four related separate agreements, seven legally binding letters, four areas of correspondence, two politically binding declarations, 13 point statements and so on and the two politically binding declarations are precisely the reference to the limitation of numbers -- slcm numbers for both countries. i mean, there's a dispute about whether it is legal

kyl. and before i begin my statement tonight, mr. president, i just want to express my thanks to them. this is a textbook for how the senate ought to work together on an important issue on a bipartisan way. and i'm very, very grateful to my colleagues for their leadership. when i first approached senator cornyn on this, he said in our very first conversation, this has nothing to do with democrats and republicans, this is about what's doing right for young people. so i'm very grateful to my colleague on both sides of the aisle for want support they have shown on this matter. mr. president, each year an estimated 100,000 children in america are trafficked for sex. they are recruited by violent criminals and their average age is between 12 and 14. the fact is, sex trafficking in children is modern day slavery, pure and simple. tragically, my home state of oregon has become a hub for those who would exploit women and young girls. and the tragedy is, my state is not alone. what we have seen, mr. preside mr. president -- and this was brought out in hearings -- that the reason this is such a