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 colleagues to come back to vote tonight, obviously, but if we could get a time agreement and then set

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i thank the senator from oklahoma for yielding some time. we're going to vote on his amendment and then on the amendment that i offer. both address important subjects in this treaty. the senator from oklahoma is dealing with the issue of verification and pointing out the shortcomings in the treaty with regard to that very important issue, and the amendment that i will have voted on deals with the issue of delivery vehicles, which in my viewment is a critically important -- in my view is a critically important element in this treaty as well. as i said earlier today on the floor, what this amendment does is very straightforward and very simple. it just increases the number of deployed delivery vehicles which are the bombers, the submarines and the icbms allowed for in the treaty from 700 to 720. and just in terms of background about why that's important, i want to inform my colleagues in the senate about wh

thune: mr. president, i would like to speak to the start treaty, more specific the to the mccain-barrasso amendment, which is the amendment that's currently under consideration and which we will have a vote on late this afternoon. and i want to point out i guess, mr. president, at the outset that you don't have to watch the news very often in this country to realize that we live in a dangerous world. there are lots of countries around the world that are run by regimes that not only mistreat their own populations but would love to do harm to countries that are allies of ours as well as to the united states. and that's why a debate about an issue like missile defense is so important, and that's why this particular provision in the start treaty is -- has drawn so much attention, drawn so much concern, so many of us who are concerned about the link it establishes between offensive strategic arms and defensive strategic arms. now, the senate made it abundantly clear at the outset of the negotiations

mr. thune: madam president, i, too, want to rise in strong support of the mccain-barrasso amendment to strike language from the preamble to this treaty that links strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms. this language in the preamble is highly troubling because it reestablishes an unwise linkage between offensive arms and defensive arms that was broken when the a.b.m. treaty came to an end. more troubling is the fact that the new start treaty contains specific limitations on missile defense in article 5. moreover, russia's unilateral statement that the treaty can operate and be viable only if the united states of america refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively is also extremely troubling. when viewed together, the new start treaty's preamble, the limitations on missile defense in article 5, and russia's unilateral statement amount to a russian attempt to find a leverage point and exert political pressure upon the united states to f

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. une: i want to speak to an amendment that i have pending at the desk. i want to make some comments relative to where we are on this process because there's ban lot said -- there's been a lot said about republicans not wanting to vote on this or trying to delay this. but i think you have to admit that we have now talked about missile defense, which i think is a valid issue with respect to this treaty, very significant issues of disagreement with regard to how it treats missile defense. we've had a discussion about tactical weapons, which in my judgment also is a very important issue relative to our national security interests and the interests of our allies around the world, and we've had a debate go b. verification which the senator -- senator inhofe, the senator from oklahoma, his debate is currently pending. those issues are all valid and substantive issues to debate and discuss with regard to this treaty. the amendment that i offer will deal with the issue of delivery vehicles, whic

mr. thune: thank you. madam president, i thank the senator from oklahoma for giving me an opportunity. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: -- giving me an opportunity to respond briefly, if i might, to some of these issues. one of the issues, too, that general chilton, the stratcom commander, i think testified to was an assumption that there would be no cheating. and as i said before, there are -- history is replete with examples of the russians cheating on these agreements. and furthermore, what they agreed to was a -- not a -- the treaty is 700 but what general chilton and the nuclear force structure plan would call for is 720. it's 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles up to 420 icbms and up to 60 bombers. now, again, that adds up to 720 and that's all this amendment does is simply makes consistent what the nuclear force structure plan, as outlined by general chilton and others, would be with what the treaty requirements would be as well. and again, i want to

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i thank the senator from illinois for blocking in the time and want to start by saying that here we are jammed against the christmas break with the majority using christmas as a back stop to rush through an arms control treaty with the russians and a $1 trillion spending bill on a dual-track basis. what that means, madam president, is that we're considering at the same time two documents encompassing thousands of pages with very little ability to offer meaningful amendments or devote meaningful time to consider the full impact of these documents that will have a far-reaching and long-term impact on our nation. as i wrote recently in an op-ed that appeared in national review online, new start misses one opportunity after another to maintain a stable nuclear relationship between our two countries, to remedy this will require significant time on the floor of the senate. trying to force it through without ample time for debate and amendments would amount to a christmas gift to the r

mr. thune: mr. president, i think the american people when they spoke at the election this year basically were saying one thing, and that is we want to keep the main thing the main thing and the american people the main thing is getting the economy growing again and creating jobs. now, almost everything that has been done here in congress in the last couple of years has been the exact opposite of that. because you've seen policies put in place that increase the cost of doing business in this country and make it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs. and so here we are today debating what evidently has become the democrat economic theory which is raise taxes to create jobs. now, we've seen it in play throughout the last year -- the last couple of years. the cap-and-trade bill was a tax on energy. it didn't get through the senate here because we were prepared to stop it, but it passed in the house of representatives, was headed here. the health care bill raised taxes on medical device man

cornyn and mr. thune today at a press conference talking about the earmarks. here it is. >> pardon me? i intend to vote against those earmarks. >> let me just say this, kelly, and maybe this is the -- i will vote against the motion to proceed to this bill. if we get on the bill i will vote against the bill. >> laura flanders, what do you make of it. >> you know did you hear hypocrisy used in relation to the gop recently? i mean let's face it, john thune and his co have not wanted to support the procedural way to get support to even their districts through stimulus. if you don't like earmarks then let's talk about the process without earmarks. they've stood against that. they've opposed that. but earmarks, they're fine with. or even if they're not fine with, they want in this bill. this is just, again, we're going to see a rising tide of people against earmarks right and left, frankly. i don't think that is the way to legislate. but you can't both stonewall progress on stimulus and try to sneak in your own earmarks and then hope that your base is rowled up agai

mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i also want to join with my colleagues today, and before i speak to the issue of the day and express my appreciation to senator gregg for his great service to this institution and to our country. i think it's fair to say that there is nobody quite like judd gregg. he really is one of a kind. and i remember when i first got here, i -- i thought that he didn't like me, and maybe he didn't like me, but i concluded that part of that was just his serious misdemeanor. he's a guy who means business. once you get to know him, you not only appreciate that side of his personality, but you also gain an appreciation for the incredible wit and sense of humor that he also possesses. and i have had the opportunity to experience that on many occasions. and the thing that i think the institution is going to miss the most, and certainly as someone who cares a lot about t

mr. thune: mr. president, i want to acknowledge the remarks that were made earlier by my colleagues from utah who i thought did a nice job of providing a history lesson for members of the senate about the past several years and tax policy and why we are where we are today. i don't think that there is anybody here in this chamber or any senator from any state who doesn't acknowledge we have a big problem right now with 9.8% unemployment. we had lots of things that we agree on here in the united states senate, we have lots of things that we disagree on. i think the one thing we agree on is 9.8% unemployment is unacceptable. i think the thing we disagree upon is how do we get that unemployment rate down, how do we create jobs, how do we get people in this country back to work? now, there has been a lot of discussion about various issues that might be dealt with here in the senate before the end of the year, most of which don't deal with this fundamental issue. the fundamental issue that is important to

mr. president, advocating against this tax proposal is to advocate for a tax increase. >> thune's comments came on the same day that potential 2012 republican frontrunner mitt romney called the tax plan a, quote, disappointing agreement that does not extend tax cuts for the wealthy for a long enough period. romney wrote that in a usa it "today" editorial. >>> there is growing outrage after senate democrats unveiled a $1.1 trillion spending bill to finance the federal government, filling more than 1,900 pages the measure cuts $26 billion from president obama's budget requests. however republicans say they will oppose it for including hundreds of earmarks which many on capitol hill have promised to stop. among the flash points in the bill is the inclusion of about $450 million to continue a second alternative engine for the f-35 joint strike fighter. defense secretary robert gates has repeatedly said the engine is not a necessity and that president should veto any bill that includes money for that defense project. yesterday, senator john mccain slammed members of congress for failing to get

mr. president, might i also say that senator thune would like to have 15 minutes tonight. so i -- i think that's the best way to -- and then perhaps we could talk off-line about -- mr. kerry: mr. president, that's fine. inning we're moving in the right direction -- i think we're moving in the right direction. i appreciate the effort of the senate. we'll get there. and so the agreement is -- is the chair clear on the names? senator sessions for 30 minutes. we request senator graham for 10 minutes following that. senator dodd for 20 minutes following that. senator kirk, 15 minutes following that. senator demint, 10 minutes -- 15 minutes. senator thune, 15 minutes. and then senator kyl and senator mccain, such time as they will use, and senator kerry, such time as i choose to use. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: and senator sessions for an additional -- mr. kerry: and senator sessions for an additional 30 minutes as such time between senator kyl and senator mccain as they would allow. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so order

thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentleman, for your great service to our country and for appears here today to answer question on a very difficult issue. secretary gates told us yesterday that the service chiefs are less than the working group about the level of risk of repeal. with regard to combat readiness. we've heard that in testimony today as well as in previous testimony. many of you have offered in front of the committee, you told the committee a few months ago in your view, and i quote, the policy and unique requirements of the marine corps, thus, i do not recommend it's repeal. end quote. and your prepared system for today's hearing repeats that view. i guess i would just pose the question of you that i did of the panel yesterday. secretary gates and admiral mullen, how should we as members of congress weigh the fact that there isn't consensus among the service chiefs and secretary on this important issue? general casey? >> senator. i think you should be grateful for that. i think we are trying

thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman.thanks for calling the hearing and i want to express my appreciation to the panel of witnesses other joined us today to talk about a very serious matter. it's a question that's on the minds of more and more americans as they result of recent events in the increase in air travel that always happens this time of the year, whether it was

thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentleman, for your great service to our country and for appears here today to answer question on a very difficult issue. secretary gates told us yesterday that the service chiefs are less than the working group about the level of risk of repeal. with regard to combat readiness. we've heard that in testimony today as well as in previous testimony. many of you have offered in front of the committee, you told the committee a few months ago in your view, and i quote, the policy and unique requirements of the marine corps, thus, i do not recommend it's repeal. end quote. and your prepared system for today's hearing repeats that view. i guess i would just pose the question of you that i did of the panel yesterday. secretary gates and admiral mullen, how should we as members of congress weigh the fact that there isn't consensus among the service chiefs and secretary on this important issue? general casey? >> senator. i think you should be grateful for that. i think we are trying

that senator 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

thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentleman, for your great service to our country and for appears here today to answer question on a very difficult issue. secretary gates told us yesterday that the service chiefs are less than the working group about the level of risk of repeal. with regard to combat readiness. we've heard that in testimony today as well as in previous testimony. many of you have offered in front of the committee, you told the committee a few months ago in your view, and i quote, the policy and unique requirements of the marine corps, thus, i do not recommend it's repeal. end quote. and your prepared system for today's hearing repeats that view. i guess i would just pose the question of you that i did of the panel yesterday. secretary gates and admiral mullen, how should we as members of congress weigh the fact that there isn't consensus among the service chiefs and secretary on this important issue? general casey? >> senator. i think you should be grateful for that. i think we are trying

mr. president procedurally we have two tending. my 4833, and the thune number 4831.y is delivery confirmation and his is delivery system. we will have information until we go into the closed session to debate these. it will be my hope that members want to debate will confine to these two. if we don't and let time get beyond us there won't be as much people -- people won't be heard. i know the senator from north dakota wants to speak. i want encourage anyone want to speak on the treaty other than these two amendments. that's not a unanimous consent it's something that i think is appropriate. these are very significant, both of them. : amendments and there is somebody that wants to talk about the amendment, i would hope that they would defer to who wants to talk about these two amendments. leat me that i can a comment about theabout the comments of the senator from massachusetts. when you talk that we have been on this treaty for years and months and all that. i would remind him, i am in a unique situation because i am on both the armed services and foreign relations c

mr. president. advocating against this tax proposal is to advocate for a tax increase. >> all right. that's senator john thune that will be probably pass ntd the senate today. joining us from capitol hill, democrat from ohio, senator sherrod brown. thanks very much for being on the show. >> good to be with you. thanks. >> we'll talk about the tax deal in a second. i'm trying to get my brain around this other bill, the democrats rolling out this 1900-page document, proposal, $1.1 trillion in spending for things like beaver management, weed management, peanut research and virus-free wine grapes. please help me understand this. what's your take on this other spending bill that's now being tossed around in washington? >> the other spending bill is to keep the government running. much of it is bipartisan. much of it is input from republicans and democrats alike. there are very few earmarks in this. it's doing the right things, funding parts of government that need to be funded. you can always pick apart a multi billion dollar, hundreds of billion dollar budget and find some research project you don't like. this go

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask that amendment number 4920 be made pending. the presiding officer: is there an objection? the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i do seeect and i want to say to the delighted to have a discussion with him about this particular issue, but i think given the efforts that we've made thus far to deal with the fixed set of amendments has been affected somewhat by some of those amendments which were late filed and also not germane really requiring colleagues at the last minute to consider a lot of issues on the floor that are not pertaining directly to the treaty itself. the subject that the senator wants to bring up to talk a rusg matter of foreign policy, and i want to join with the senator in emphasizing that. i look forward to hearing his comments about it. and i think we could have an important colloquy here that could add to the record of our discussions with respect to

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 good way to do that, if someone wants to talk about the treaty other than these two amendments and there is somebod