the perry schlesinger commission cited by senator risch confirms that interrelationship. as i said, i can't imagine anyone denying it. and i can't imagine anyone denying the fact that as we reduce our strategic offensive weapons, then the numbers of tactical nuclear weapons becomes all the more important, especially because of the large difference between the russians and everyone else in the world. it is said to be about 10-1, russia vis-a-vis the united states in tactical nuclear weapons. and all the more discouraging because there's no transparency in what the russians have, and their military doctrine is to actually use those weapons. our strategic offensive weapons are a deterrent to an attack. to the russians, tactical nuclear weapons are a battlefield weapon just like artillery. there's clearly an interrelationship between the two. it clearly would be to our detriment if we reduce our strategic offensive weapons down to the point that these tactical nuclear weapons could create an imbalance in power. and because the united states has commitments to 31 other countri

first of all, both bill perry, former defense secretary bill perry, and jim schlesinger have been mentioned and the commission that they served on. let me make certain that the record is clear about their position with respect to this treaty. secretary perry said the following, "the focus of this treaty is on deployed warheads and it does not attempt to counter or control nondeployed warheads. this continues in the tradition of prior arms control treaties. i would hope to see nondeployed and tactical systems included in future negotiations, but the absence of these systems should not detract from the merits of this treaty and the further advantage in arms control which it represents." jim schlesinger, from the same commission, said, "the ratification of this treaty is obligatory." i wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were here to hear jim schlesinger's comments, but he says ratification is oh blib obligat. and the reason it's oh blig story you really -- obligatory is you really can't get to the discussion you want to have with the russians regarding tactical unless yo

to be the kind of effective negotiators you should be and these kind of tense situations and perry schlesinger report on nuclear policy for america's legislation i sponsored bipartisan legislation and armed services committee they reported we are not going to get to zero nuclear weapons until there's a fundamental transformation of the international world order. in other words that's diplomatic language saying it is never going to happen and it is never going to happen. so anyway, i think we should have more time to discuss all of this and i've been disappointed it's been rushed through now and we could have had a much more important data about the real strategic situation of the united states of america, with our threats are and the number one threat is not whether russia has 12,000 or 1500 nuclear weapons. it comes from iran, south korea and other places around the world. north korea, excuse me. >> we join millions of americans who are just outraged. that's something i heard from someone last week. they are tired of being outraged. for the last two years this administration and this congress

first of all, both bill perry, former defense secretary bill perry, and jim schlesinger have been mentioned and the commission that they served on. let me make certain that the record is clear about their position with respect to this treaty. secretary perry said the following, "the focus of this treaty is on deployed warheads and it does not attempt to counter or control nondeployed warheads. this continues in the tradition of prior arms control treaties. i would hope to see nondeployed and tactical systems included in future negotiations, but the absence of these systems should not detract from the merits of this treaty and the further advantage in arms control which it represents." jim schlesinger, from the same commission, said, "the ratification of this treaty is obligatory." i wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were here to hear jim schlesinger's comments, but he says ratification is oh blib obligat. and the reason it's oh blig story you really -- obligatory is you really can't get to the discussion you want to have with the russians regarding tactical unless yo

bipartisan congressional commission on the strategic posture of the united states, the so-called perry-schlesinger commission, in which they concluded, and i'm quoting -- "all of the commission members, all of the commission members believe that reaching the ultimate goal of global nuclear elimination would require a fundamental change in geopolitics." end of quote. and, again, quite an understatement. as i said, even the notion that we would be immediately pursuing to try to reach this goal after the start treaty is ratified is to bring into question, at least i would suggest in the minds of 31 countries that depend on our nuclear deterrent for their security, whether this is a wise idea. there are plenty of folks around the world who have commented on this, national leaders who have commented on this. let me just quote a couple to illustrate the breadth of concern about it. president of france, nicholas sarkozy. "it is neither a matter of prestige nor of rank. it is quite simply the nation's life insurance policy." mr. president, i'll -- i'll ask unanimous consent to put in the record the -- at

and that was pretty much the genesis, that and the so-called perry schlesinger commission which really ran the red flag up the flagpole to get this program moving. so in fiscal year 2010, the obama administration devoted devoted $6.4 billion to nuclear weapon activities, but it has acknowledged that that's a loss of purchasing power of about 20% from 2005 -- and this is by the administration's own calculations. so we knew from the very beginning that there wasn't enough money in the plan to get the job done. in december, just a year ago, 41 senators -- and this is before scott brown, i might add, joined us -- wrote a letter to the the president, stating -- "funding for such a modernization program beginning in earnest in your f.y. 2011 budget is needed as the u.s. further consideration the nuclear weapons reductions needed in the start negotiations." end of quote. so to make a long story short, the administration had a ten-year plan in place that was becoming pretty apparent would not be adequate. that ten-year plan called for about $7 billion a year over ten years to basically operate

first of all, both bill perry, former defense secretary bill perry, and jim schlesinger have been mentioned and the commission that they served on. let me make certain that the record is clear about their position wit respect to this treaty. secretary perry said the following, "the focus of this treaty is on deployed warheads and it does not attempt to counter or control nondeployed warheads. this continues in the tradition of prior arms control treaties. i would hope to see nondeployed and tactical systems included in future negiations, but the absence of these systems should not detract from the merits of this treaty and the further advantage in arms control which it represents." jim schlesinger, from the same commission, said, "the ratification of this treaty is oblitory." i wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were here to hear jim schlesinger's comments, but he says ratification is oh blib obligat. and the reason it's oh blig story you really -- obligatory is you really can't get to the discussion you want to have with the russians regarding tactical unless you sho

william perry and dr. schlesinger,. former defense secretary of thi, country, a democrat and republican, actually senatoracts schlesinger served in president carter and president reagan'seas cabinet.cabi but they were able to reach a rh consensus on a number of key nr issues. they concluded that we could nue reduce our nuclear stockpile more than the current numbers, but that, quote, modernization is essential to the the non-proliferation benefitsxtende derived from the extended esstil deterrent.o it was essential to have aw a lt modernization program.ssion i know a lot of discussion hasbn been ongoing about that. bel i do believe senator kyl has done an excellent job in raisind this issue and the legislation i has responded posnitively in soe regards. the commission also nicely in a diplomatic language reflected the administration's's goal ofey the zero nuclear weapons by saying, quote, it's clear that f the goal of zero nuclear weapons is extremely difficult to obtain and would require a fundamental transformation of

perry and dr. james r. schlesinger, former defense secretaries of this country, democrat and republican. actually secretary schlesinger served in president carter's cabinet and president reagan's cabinet. but they were able to reach a consensus on a number of key issues. they concluded that we could reduce our nuclear stockpile more than the current numbers, but that -- quote -- "modernization is essential to the nonproliferation benefits derived from the extended deterrent." they said it was essential to have a modernization program. i know a lot of discussion has been ongoing about that. i do believe senator kyl has done an excellent job in raising this issue and the administration has responded positively in some regard. the commission also, nicely in -- in -- in a diplomatic language deflected the administration's goal of zero nuclear weapons by saying -- quote -- "it's clear that the goal of zero nuclear weapons is extremely difficult to attain and would require a fundamental transformation of the world political order." close quote. so i think that's about as close as you come from

of defense james schlesinger saying he does not believe this i object hibts missile defense -- inhibits missile defense. you have former secretary of defense under clinton, william perry, being very strong on th this. secretary of state henry kissinger, and so on and so on. we have in "the washington post" this comment as signed by henry kissinger, george schultz, james baker, lawrence eager berger, e, they say the leaders made clear that the treaty does not limit u.s. missile defense plans. i think the biggest danger to our country is not acting on this, mr. president. if we don't act, that's a danger to the national security of this nation. and i am very pleased to see the incredible bipartisan support outside this chamber, and i hope inside this chamber. i'm hopeful, i'm very hopeful. but we will find out in the next coming days. i wanted to also talk about the two very critical votes that we cast here moments ago that's so important to large segments of our community. on the dream act, which would give a path of legality to students who are outstanding in their community, who want to join the military or go to college. this was an important bill. because of a fili