Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to thank Father Steven Boes for delivering the opening prayer this morning.

Father Boes has been a priest of the Archdiocese of Omaha since 1985. He has more than 20 years experience as a counselor and youth advocate in Nebraska.

Father Boes served 8 years as director of the St. Augustine Indian Mission and School in Winnebago, NE. He established programs to help Winnebago and Omaha children preserve their traditional language, spirituality, and culture while preparing them for higher education.

In 2005, Father Boes was named the executive director of Boys Town, one of the largest childcare organizations in America. Boys Town provides compassionate, research-proven treatment for children with behavioral, emotional, and physical problems. Father Boes is the fourth priest to succeed Father Edward Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town.

As a young priest in Omaha, Father Flanagan had grown discouraged in his work with transient men. His frustration led him to borrow $90 to rent a drafty downtown boarding house and open his first home for boys in 1917. Youngsters from all over Omaha soon began showing up at the doorstep of Father Flanagan's Home for Boys. Father Flanagan said:

When the idea of a boys' home grew in my mind, I never

thought anything remarkable about taking in all of the races

and all of the creeds. To me, they are all God's children.

They are my brothers. They are children of God. I must

protect them to the best of my ability.

In 1921, Father Flanagan moved his boys home to a farm just outside of Omaha, and it soon became known as the Village of Boys Town. By the 1930s, hundreds of boys lived there. The world learned of Father Flanagan's success in 1938 when he was played by Spencer Tracy in the ``Boys Town'' Hollywood movie.

Boys Town began admitting girls in 1979 and established programs at more than one dozen sites across the country in the mid-1980s.

Under the leadership of Father Boes, Boys Town has focused on implementing its unique integrated continuum of care to strengthen a child's mind, body, and spirit. Father Boes is also expanding Boys Town's role in advocating for changes to our childcare system, which is often fragmented, expensive, and ineffective. He has called for smarter investments and earlier interventions for at-risk children, which can prevent much more expensive problems for society if those children fall through the cracks. For instance, keeping a 14-year-old from dropping out of high school will end up saving taxpayers about $500,000 over that child's lifetime. Keeping him from becoming a career criminal will save as much as $5 million.

Almost a century ago, Father Flanagan said:

There is nothing the matter with our growing boys that

love, proper training, and guidance will not remedy.

Father Boes continues to carry out that mission of healing today.

I thank Father Boes--I know we all do--for his devotion to building healthy, positive lives for children, and I thank Father Boes for his words here

this morning. May they indeed guide us to do what is right for America and the world.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I rise to speak on my amendment proposing a sense-of-the-Senate agreement to cut the Senate's budget by at least 5 percent.

When I go home every weekend, people come up to me at the grocery store, hardware store and elsewhere, and they tell me they are concerned about our national debt and deficit. They want Washington to cut spending and bring down the cloud of debt that hangs over our economic environment.

As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I have been pursuing a 5-percent cut in this year's budget for Congress and agencies and offices on Capitol Hill. We cut this budget a year ago, we are cutting it this year, and we will be back for further cuts next year.

My amendment says that as Congress pursues comprehensive debt reduction while conducting major military action on two fronts, all in the midst of a fragile economic recovery, Congress still should not be exempt from the pain. Fiscal restraint starts at home and with our own budget.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment I just sent to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment I have just offered dealing with cutting the Senate budget by at least 5 percent.

When I go home every weekend and I am at the grocery store or I am at a hardware store, I have people coming to me saying they are concerned about the growing deficit, they are concerned about the increasing debt, and they are asking what Congress can do, what can the Senate do, specifically, to avoid having this unsustainable growth and debt and deficit. They are concerned.

In many respects, the growth of that debt is most threatening to the national security of this country.

Sure.

Ordinarily, I would grant that request, but I have a speech at another location that should be starting about right now. So I will be brief.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, noted that the most significant threat to our national security is in fact the national debt.

The Nation is in a fragile state of recovery, one that we hope will improve the unemployment situation in our country and will improve the overall economy. But as we look at dealing with the deficit and deficit reduction, we must in fact pursue a very important part of that reduction ourselves here within the confines of the Senate. The offices and agencies that serve the Members of Congress have to be reduced along with the rest of the budget.

In order to address the Nation's fiscal crisis I think the Senate must lead by example and reduce our own legislative budget. It is in that context I have introduced this resolution of the Senate today, a sense of the Senate that it should lead by example and reduce the budget of the Senate by at least 5 percent.

This is not something new to me. Two years ago, we held the line in the growth of the Senate budget. A year ago we cut the legislative branch budget. We are looking forward, beyond this current budget, this continuing resolution, and looking at 2012. I hope the legislative branch on a bipartisan basis--as in the past, with Senator Murkowski, now with Senator Hoeven--will be able to further reduce the legislative branch budget as we go forward on the 2012 budget that will take effect on October 1 of this year.

This is designed for us to set an example by cutting our own budgets, not just asking other people to tighten their belts and go through the process of deficit reduction through cuts, but to lead by example and do it ourselves. Obviously there will be an opportunity to speak more at a later time. I hope that will generate some more discussion on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the two budget bills we will be voting on shortly that purport to cut spending in Washington. I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, in pointing out many of the shortcomings of the two pieces of legislation.

I am here to deliver a eulogy. Both bills are dead, and they deserve to be dead. One bill cuts too little; the other bill has too much hate. Neither one is serious. Most important, neither will pass, and they shouldn't pass because they are unfair. They are not in the best interests of Nebraskans and taxpayers across our country. About the only thing they are serious about is guaranteeing shutting down the government.

Nebraskans want serious spending cuts, but these bills are loaded with tricks, treats, gimmicks, and games. On one side, we see a bill that simply cuts too little. It purports to cut spending by $50 billion, but when you push through the thicket of gimmicks, it actually only cuts about $6 billion. In a budget of more than $1 trillion, a cut of about one-half percent isn't enough. It will not get runaway government spending under control, nor will it begin to bring down that unsustainable national debt that endangers America's future. To win my support, there needs to be more cuts in spending and they need to be real and reasonable.

That brings me to the other bill. The other bill is H.R. 1. It is chock-full of provisions pushing a political agenda snuck into the bill in the middle of the night. One provision is an attack on America's farmers. It aims to block allowing the use of more American-made ethanol in our cars and trucks. Today, cars and trucks can use gas with 10 percent ethanol. The government has just approved a 15-percent ethanol blend. There is no cost, but that didn't stop some from sneaking in an unfair ban.

Cutting back on ethanol at a time when gas prices are above $3.50 a gallon nationwide, and rising fast, is the wrong thing to do. Worse, it is a gift to foreign oil. Looking at all the violence and turmoil we are seeing on TV in a key oil-producing region of the world, it seems the worst possible gift at the worst possible time.

Another political agenda item in H.R. 1 will eliminate public television in Nebraska--an educational resource for our citizens and an informational lifeline in many parts of Nebraska.

This bill makes other sneaky attempts to push a political agenda. It eliminates poison control centers, blocks a consumer database people might use to determine a product's safety, and keeps high-speed Internet service out of rural areas.

H.R. 1 also limits urban homeland security funds and sets the limit arbitrarily at 25 cities. That will likely bar any future funding to the largest city in my State. While some might not think of Omaha as a terror target, let me tell you it is the home to the U.S. Strategic Command, a major national telecommunications hub, and is a key rail and highway crossroads for freight and transportation.

On the spending side, the House bill makes unfair cuts to the States, including mine, that will cost Nebraskans hundreds of jobs and, indeed, unnecessary hardship. For example, more than 1,200 Nebraska children would lose access to Head Start, which has proven to help students complete high school. The bill cuts Pell tuition grants that 43,000 Nebraskans need to afford college.

In addition, the $75 million cut for homeless veterans' housing vouchers seems absurd. To quote the Director of the Omaha Veterans Hospital: ``This is a very big deal for those veterans and the community.'' This could impact 10,000 homeless veterans nationwide. In Omaha alone, 240 veterans have used these vouchers, and there are likely 600 more who need this help to find permanent housing.

After all is said and done, the bottom line is Washington hasn't gotten serious. I will not be held accountable for the failings of the House and the Senate.

I can, however, be held accountable for 1 of the 12 spending bills that fund the government. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I have the responsibility to oversee the spending bill for Congress. We cut spending last year, we are cutting spending by 5 percent this year, and we will be back for more cuts next year.

Last year, Senator Murkowski and I did this before all the campaign- style speeches about cutting began. It was clear she didn't bring a political agenda to the table, and I hope she knows I didn't either. This year, in working with Senator Hoeven--also a former Governor, as I am--who is now ranking member on the subcommittee, I have every reason to believe he also will be serious and fair as we reduce spending in next year's budget.

Cutting the spending for Congress--for our offices, committees and staff, our buildings, our police--and our efforts on this Hill is an effort to lead by example. Our committee's bipartisan example could serve as a model for how the other 11 spending bills are handled. Our message, to paraphrase Harry Truman, is: The buck shrinks here.

Soon, we will vote on the two spending bills. One has done nothing to attract Republicans; the other has done nothing to attract Democrats. In the end, we have bills that will divide. They do not unite Congress. For the reasons I have given, I will vote against both.

Then what is next? Washington needs to put aside all the games and gimmicks, the treats and tricks, and come together and do what is right for the American people by passing the budget. They deserve it, they are owed it, and it is now time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose a provision included in the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act that would eliminate the Essential Air Service Program at those airports boarding 10 passengers or less per day. Essential Air Service, EAS, truly is essential to the communities of Alliance, Chadron and McCook in my home State of Nebraska being impacted by this provision. In all, there are 40 rural airports in several States across the country which would no longer be a part of the EAS Program if this provision is included in any piece of legislation signed into law.

The adoption of this amendment to the FAA bill is bad for Nebraska and bad for rural America. The communities and surrounding areas being served by these airports use them as

economic development tools and rely on having commercial air service in order to stay connected to our Nation's transportation network. The many Nebraskans who have contacted me about this attempt to cut off EAS funding for their rural airports have expressed great concern about how losing EAS support would be devastating to their communities' ability to attract employers and create jobs. During a time when our country is starting to see glimpses of economic recovery, cutting off EAS support for these airports is not the answer.

As a supporter of the EAS Program and someone who always considers the impact any legislation will have on rural Nebraska, I once again express my opposition to this provision and will work to see that it is not included in any final legislation authorizing our Nation's aviation programs.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today in order to speak in support of the Essential Air Service Program and explain why the program truly is essential, especially in rural States. In Nebraska, our two largest airports are separated by only 63 miles in a State that covers 77,000 square miles.

This means that thousands of Nebraskans are hours away from a large or even medium-sized airport requiring them to drive several hours to take a flight.

Due to these geographical barriers, many Nebraskans rely on Essential Air Service to keep themselves and their communities connected to the Nation's transportation network.

In Nebraska, we have Essential Air Service airports in many communities including my hometown of McCook, Alliance, Chadron, Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff. Without the EAS Program, you would see the many hours it already takes to get to any type of air service increased significantly for people in rural areas.

The cost to travel on one of these EAS flights would become so cost- prohibitive that many would not even be able to afford to travel. And, quite frankly, there would probably be many cases where EAS airports would struggle to exist.

But the EAS Program isn't simply about cutting hours off a driver's time to make a flight. It is also about economic development in rural areas and job creation.

EAS promotes accessibility and growth in rural communities and in the surrounding rural areas--and I have seen the impact air service can have on a community's ability to attract employers firsthand.

When I was Governor of Nebraska, one of the first questions many companies would ask when they wanted to bring a manufacturing plant or warehouse distribution complex to town would be what is the air service situation in the area.

Because of these EAS airports, I could respond that the area provided an air service transportation option which gave these communities a job creation recruiting edge. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to other Nebraskans who are saying the same things about how important the essential air program is to their communities.

For example, John Chizek, the mayor in Chadron, NE has said:

As the Mayor and lifetime resident of Chadron I believe it

is essential to continue support of the Essential Air Service

Program. As a community we are active in the recruitment of

new business. I firmly believe we have a unique atmosphere to

offer to businesses looking to move or expand. Our county was

recently identified as the poorest in the State and any

limitations place on us by reducing EAS support will only

hinder our hopes of growth.

Darwin Skelton, the airport director at Western Nebraska Regional Airport, has said:

Essential Air Service is very important to Western Nebraska

Regional Airport and Western Nebraska as a whole, without

this funding we would not have commercial air service to our

community. We have many businesses in this community that use

this airport (i.e. Aurora Loan Service, Vertex, Regional West

Medical Center, Twin City Development, just to name a few).

When they are told of this plight, I am sure you will be

receiving letters of support from many businesses/

organizations from around the area . . . small, more rural

markets need air service to grow and maintain connections

with larger hubs and doing away with Essential Air Service

would be saying to rural America that they are not valued as

an important part of air service in the United States.

Kyle Pothoff, public works director for the city of McCook, said:

Having access to commercial air service is critical to the

economic stability of communities like McCook and without

this service it would make recruiting new businesses very

difficult.

A statement that I have recently heard is that economic

development does not come by bus or train, it comes by air.

This statement could not be more true.

Finally, Dave Glenn, CEO of Pathology Services in North Platte, said:

With the economy finally showing signs of improvement, loss

of EAS funding for airports like North Platte (LBF) would be

disastrous. Pathology Services, P.C. serves 18 hospitals and

over 50 clinics in Central and Western Nebraska, Northwest

Kansas, and Northeast Colorado. To provide the Medicare

required pathologist services, we rely on using our general

aviation plane based at the North Platte airport.

Our hospital has also recently started a medical helicopter

service which helps meet the health care needs of patients.

Without EAS funding our business and the health of our

citizens would be negatively impacted.

I am well aware that the Essential Air Service does have its critics who are concerned about providing government funding support to keep air service in rural America. Certainly a review of all government supported programs to find efficiencies and ways we can make a program run better and spend less I am always open to. But to simply try and eliminate the Essential Air Service Program which is a driver of economic activity in my State, as you can clearly see from these Nebraskans' stories, is the wrong approach. Essential Air Service truly is essential to rural Nebraska and rural America and why I oppose any efforts to eliminate this important program.

Mr. President, the amendment which Senators Schumer, Akaka, Shaheen, Tester--our Presiding Officer--Whitehouse, Menendez, Bill Nelson of Florida, and I have offered, which we will be voting on shortly, is a commonsense approach to addressing the serious issue of protecting an individual's privacy when they pass through security checkpoints at airports and public buildings.

Nebraskans and Americans understand that every step must be taken to keep Federal buildings and air travel safe in America, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. However, as we promote security, safeguards are necessary to protect everybody's privacy from misuse of images generated by body scanning machines.

Our legislation sends a commonsense message: We will not ignore people's privacy as we make sure air travel and Federal buildings are safe. The amendment is very straightforward.

It would, No. 1, make it a crime to photograph or record a body scan image or distribute a body scan image, taken at either an airport or any Federal building, without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation.

Second, it imposes a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and $100,000 fine on violators.

Third, we provide an exception from prosecution if the actions taken occur while an individual is engaged in their official duties during the course of an authorized intelligence investigation or criminal prosecution. This language, which was worked out with officials at the FBI and DNI, is important. This is not an abstract concern. There has already been a case where these images have been taken and posted on line inappropriately. So it is my hope that by creating a very strong deterrent and establishing criminal penalties for those who take and distribute body scan images inappropriately, we will help prevent that from occurring again.

By adopting this amendment, we are telling our constituents we are not going to ignore their privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal buildings.

I ask my colleagues to support our amendment.

Amendment No. 85, As Modified, to Amendment No. 58

Mr. President, I call up my second-degree amendment No. 85 which is at the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. I believe other colleagues are here to respond.

Mr. President, I believe other colleagues are here to speak. I notice Senator Schumer is here. I appreciate very much his support. Working together very carefully with total collaboration, we have been able to, with our colleagues, bring about what I think is important privacy legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to amendment No. 58 as an original cosponsor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

I call up the amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the amendment Senators Schumer, Akaka, Shaheen, Tester, Whitehouse, Menendez, and I have offered is a commonsense approach to address the serious issue of protecting individuals' privacy when they pass through security checkpoints at both airports and public buildings. Senator Schumer and I have been working on this issue for some time, and I appreciate very much his input and counsel in taking this approach. I appreciate the support of the additional sponsors as well as the Presiding Officer, who is one of those sponsors.

By creating a deterrent and establishing criminal penalties for those who take and distribute body scan images inappropriately, we will help protect the American people's privacy while making sure we are using every resource available to try and assure their safety at the same time.

This is not an abstract concern. There has already been a case where these images, some 30,000, have been taken and posted, some of them, online inappropriately. It is our hope this amendment will help prevent that from occurring again.

By including this amendment in the FAA reauthorization, we are telling our constituents we will not ignore their privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal buildings. That is what they are asking of us. That is what we are going to deliver. I ask my colleagues to support our amendment when it comes up for a rollcall vote.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 34

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman, for this opportunity to discuss an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill which I will be offering shortly. We are currently working with the minority on some language changes. This amendment will be proposed before long. When it is, I will be seeking a rollcall vote.

The amendment, which I propose along with Senators Schumer, Akaka, Menendez, Whitehouse, Tester, and Shaheen, would make it a crime to photograph, record, or distribute a body scan image taken by a body scan imaging machine at either an airport or any Federal building without express authorization to do so either by law or regulation. I have heard from many Nebraskans who are concerned that the use of body scan imaging machines is overly invasive and their privacy is being ignored. I, too, share these concerns. This isn't an abstract concern. According to news reports, the U.S. Marshals Service acknowledged last year that some 35,000 images from a body scanner at a security checkpoint at a Florida courthouse had been saved. That is despite promises from Federal agencies that these images would not be stored. One hundred of the saved images were leaked, and some are now online for anyone to view. So an invasion of privacy has already occurred.

Nebraskans and the American people understand that every step needs to be taken and every resource needs to be used to ensure the safety of our citizenry. Using technology to scan individuals for hidden weapons is a necessary, albeit sometimes unpleasant, aspect of making sure our airways and public buildings are safe. However, in the scope of doing such things, safeguards can and must be put in place to help deter individuals from collecting and using those images inappropriately. This is the goal of the amendment I and my colleagues are offering.

I am well aware Transportation Security Agency officials have said the agency will not keep, store, or transmit images, but that has not and doesn't ensure compliance. If passing laws or directives ensured compliance, there would be no speeders in America. What is needed is additional consequences to make anyone considering keeping, storing, or transmitting these scanned images think twice about the

fact that they will be committing a felony. If the consequence is enough of a deterrent, we will have better compliance and the privacy of every American will be better protected.

Let me explain specifically what the amendment does. One, it makes it illegal to photograph, record, and subsequently distribute the images taken by body scan machines in an airport or any Federal building.

Two, it imposes a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine for those who inappropriately collect and distribute these images.

Three, it says that any individual who is acting within the course and scope of their employment is not breaking the law by saving these images or sending them if the purpose for doing so is to use these images in a criminal investigation or prosecution.

By adopting this amendment, we will be telling the American people and my constituents that we are not going to ignore or compromise their privacy in the process of making sure we have safe airports and Federal buildings. Our amendment takes a commonsense approach to addressing this issue and why I am seeking its inclusion in the FAA authorization.

I thank the chairman and yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the New START treaty. In the last 40 years, our country has participated in numerous arms control and nonproliferation efforts. They are a critical element of our national security strategy.

If done right, arms control agreements can enhance U.S. national security by promoting transparency and information--sharing that can inform us about the size, makeup, and operations of other military forces.

They also provide other countries with information about our force and capabilities, and that promotes a strategic balance and discourages an attack on the U.S. or its allies.

Transparency and information sharing enable our military planners to better prepare for a real threat. Without such agreements and understandings, our military and the military of countries like Russia must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

That leads to inefficient, runaway defense spending. If that sounds familiar, that is because we have been down that road before--it was called the arms race.

The U.S. and the former Soviet Union poured massive resources into building not only vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but also on the expansive systems needed to defend against incoming bombers and missiles.

Since the late 1960s, arms control agreements and other measures have worked to reduce nuclear forces and systems that support them.

I would note that former President Ronald Reagan, who accelerated nuclear modernization and launched the Star Wars missile defense effort, overcame his initial distaste for arms control agreements. Working with Soviet Premier Gorbachev, Reagan laid the foundation for today's START treaty.

In July 1991, Presidents Bush and Gorbachev signed the START I treaty and the Senate later approved it on an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 93 to 6--a vote which concluded after 4 days of floor debate. Nebraska's Senators at the time, Jim Exon and Bob Kerrey both supported the START 1 treaty.

As we consider New START, it is our constitutional duty to address today's concerns and the treaty's merits.

Now I have heard five main concerns during debate.

They are: No. 1, treaty limitations on missile defense; No. 2, sufficiency of modernization plans for nuclear enterprise; No. 3, adequacy of treaty verification measures; No. 4, force structure changes resulting from treaty reductions; No. 5, and the timing of the Senate's deliberations of the treaty.

First, the New START treaty won't affect any current or planned U.S. missile defense efforts. Some point to language in the treaty's preamble and the inclusion of unilateral statements. But they are not legally binding. And changing the preamble would unravel the treaty.

The only binding restriction on missile defense systems arises in article V. It prevents conversion of ICBM silos into missile defense launchers. That has no practical effect because converting silos is more expensive and less desirable than building new silos.

Second, some have questioned the administration's commitment to modernize our nuclear facilities and forces. As the chairman of the Armed Services' Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I held three hearings this year addressing the health of our nuclear weapons complex.

I would note that the administration asked for $7 billion in Fiscal Year 2011

for stockpile sustainment and infrastructure investments.

That is roughly 10 percent more than 2010 funding.

The administration also plans to invest $80 billion in the next decade to sustain and modernize the nuclear weapons complex. That is the biggest commitment to the nuclear enterprise in more than a decade. On top of that, the administration recently offered an additional $4 billion toward modernization goals.

Third, some argue that verification measures are less rigorous than for START I.

Its verification measures expired last December. So, as of today, we have gone 376 days without onsite monitoring and verification in Russia.

The less we are allowed to see for ourselves the more uncertainty we will feel about Russian forces.

New START includes verification measures allowing 18 onsite inspections annually. We determine where and when to go, with very little advance notice to the Russians.

As many of you know, this treaty counts every warhead and delivery system and tracks them with unique identifiers. That is a tremendous advancement in transparency over the previous system of attribution. And it certainly is better than no verification system, which exists at the present time.

Fourth, some express concern about the treaty's impact on the nuclear triad--our strategic bombers, missiles, and ballistic missile submarines.

In testimony and in direct conversations with me, our military leaders have assured that the New START retains the triad.

Proposed reductions by the Pentagon aim to spread across all systems and minimize impacts to any one system or base, thus retaining a safe, secure, and effective triad.

Finally, some indicate that considering New START now prevents the Senate from spending adequate time to consider the treaty, or that we would be rushing judgment on the treaty.

New START was signed in April of this year, and the Senate has had it for consideration since May.

Together, the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Armed Services Committees have held 21 hearings and briefings related to the treaty. The truth is that the Senate has been actively deliberating New START for 7 months.

By comparison the 2002 Moscow Treaty took 9 months to complete and START I took a little more than a year. When it came to floor debate, the 1991 START I treaty required 4 days of debate, while START II, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the 2002 Moscow Treaty each took 2 days.

I am confident that the Senate has fulfilled its responsibility to fully consider and deliberate on New START, and our actions are entirely consistent with the past actions of this body in considering previous arms control agreements.

Those are concerns that have been raised. Now let's look now at the merits.

In recent months, I have spoken about this treaty with key military leaders including Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Cartwright, and General Chilton.

Each has expressed full support and participation in this treaty. They also fully support the proposed reductions to the nuclear arsenal and the continued sustainment of the nuclear triad.

In addition, Secretary Clinton and every living former Secretary of State--nine in total--have all publically voiced their support. Five former Secretaries of Defense on both sides of the aisle have endorsed the treaty. Seven former Strategic Command commanders have endorsed the treaty. STRATCOM, headquartered in my State in Omaha, NE, in the Bellevue area, oversees America's strategic nuclear, nonnuclear and cyber defenses.

Also, it is important, I believe, that the U.S. Strategic Command actively played a key role in negotiating the treaty. With that experience, the former STRATCOM commander in chief General Chilton who is recently departed, said:

Our nation will be safer and more secure with this treaty

than without it. What we negotiated to is absolutely

acceptable to the United States Strategic Command for what we

need to do to provide the deterrent for the country.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I am prepared to vote to ratify the New START Treaty because it promotes our national security and can make America and the world safer. It increases transparency between nuclear nations. It promotes cooperation and not suspicion. And it reduces the possibility of a nuclear exchange and still enables America to respond to the terrible threats that continue in the nuclear age.

I would like to elaborate.

America will be stronger if we can continue to look under Russia's hood, and they under ours. Trust but verify still works.

This treaty will help U.S. Strategic Command accomplish its absolutely vital mission for our Nation.

Further, as the chairman of the U.S. Senate--Russia Interparliamentary Group, I have held many meetings with my Russian counterparts about this treaty. It is a step in the right direction to encourage further cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. As we work toward cooperation, the treaty reestablishes verification measures and increases transparency considerably.

That will reduce uncertainty about Russian forces, and increase their predictability. Without this treaty, our understanding of Russian nuclear forces will continue to deteriorate.

We would have a tendency for U.S. forces to overcompensate for what we don't know.

That is a losing strategy in an era of large budget deficits and needed fiscal constraint. Entering into this treaty demonstrates our commitment to modernizing the nuclear stockpile by making the most of what we have to spend and to keep our country safe.

The New START treaty offers the possibility of providing our military with insights needed to efficiently and successfully provide a safe, reliable, and secure nuclear deterrent.

At the end of the day, the New START treaty builds on successes from previous treaties, and paves the way for further bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia.

It moves us further away from a nuclear war no one wants. Even as it does, we will retain a powerful and effective deterrent capability.

And finally, ratification also will send a strong message to those around the world opposed to proliferation and those seeking to proliferate.

For these reasons, I support the New START treaty and I believe the Senate should ratify it as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Nebraskans want both Republicans and Democrats to work out a bipartisan plan soon that will extend all, or nearly all, of the income and other tax cuts which expire on December 31, 2010. In today's votes, I opposed the first amendment because it would raise taxes for a number of small businesses in Nebraska and nationwide, penalizing the best job creators in our economy. I supported the second amendment extending the tax cuts for most taxpayers because it won't affect most small businesses.

I believe that any revenue generated by ending tax cuts for some Americans should go not for new government spending but to pay down the nearly $14 trillion debt. Debt reduction is essential for all Americans' economic future, and for our Nation to remain the leader of the free world. I will continue pushing for extending all of the tax cuts to provide the certainty, clarity, and continuity we need to get our economy going strong again. I hope the Senate will come together soon to pass major tax cuts.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a historic church in Omaha, NE, which celebrated its 145th anniversary on November 13, 2010. St. John African Methodist Episcopal--A.M.E.-- Church was founded in 1865 and continues to host a thriving congregation in north Omaha's minority community.

The current church structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, having been designed by Clarence W. Wigington, who grew up in Omaha, becoming Nebraska's first African-American architect. He later went on to become the first municipal African-American architect in the United States.

St. John A.M.E. Church was organized at the end of the Civil War, 2 years before Nebraska became a State. This institution endured challenging times of racial bigotry and hatred, which were unfortunately widespread across America at the time. Maintaining the church's presence required the strength, courage, and faith of early African-American leaders.

Today, St. John A.M.E. Church remains a focal point in Omaha, NE; as the congregation continues a 145-year tradition of ministering to the spiritual, intellectual, physical, emotional and environmental needs of the north Omaha community.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor SSG Michael Bock of Springfield, NE.

Sergeant Bock grew up in Springfield, attending Elkhorn Mount Michael High School for 2 years before moving with his family to Leesburg, FL. About a month after graduating from Leesburg High School in 2002, Sergeant Bock joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

Marrying his high school sweetheart, Tiffany, in 2003, Sergeant Bock was very much a family man. According to Tiffany, no matter what he was doing or how long he was working, he would still call his family. He even got up in the middle of the night recently while in Afghanistan to get online and watch Zander, his 3-year-old son, blow out his birthday candles.

Sergeant Bock was also very dedicated to his career in the Marine Corps. He served two tours in Iraq and also served in Australia and Indonesia, where he received a Marine Corps humanitarian ribbon for his help during the tsunami recovery in 2004.

Sergeant Bock's goals of starting a college fund for his son and purchasing a house for his family were interrupted on August 13, 2010. He was on his second deployment in Afghanistan serving with the 3rd Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force when he was killed while supporting combat operations in the Helmand province.

SSG Michael Bock knew the dangers he faced and the risks he took. He also knew the importance of the work he did in the Marine Corps on behalf of his fellow Americans. He risked--and ultimately sacrificed-- his own life so people a world away could have the chance to enjoy the freedoms he had found in America. I join all Nebraskans in mourning the loss of Sergeant Bock and in offering my deepest condolences to this young hero's family.

Madam President, earlier today, I voted in favor of two motions designed to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Let me be clear, I strongly support extending individual income tax rates. While I voted in favor of these motions to show

my support for extending the tax cuts, I do not agree with the tactics being used to advance this goal. The repeated attempts to suspend rule XXII in order to make a motion to commit a bill back to committee are becoming part of an ongoing dilatory effort in the Senate. These tactics are not a serious attempt to come up with a legislative solution but are designed only to score political points and slow the progress of the underlying bill. The American taxpayers deserve more. I believe that instead of looking to score points both parties should work together on a serious effort to extend these expiring tax provisions, not waste time with procedural distractions.

Mr. President, today I bid farewell to a great Nebraskan. Mrs. Mary Wade, affectionately known as ``Mother Wade.'' She has selflessly served thousands of members of the Salem Baptist Church in Omaha for more than 65 years.

At the age of 92, Mrs. Wade is now moving away from Nebraska where she has lived since moving to my home State in 1944. She will be living with her adult children in Los Angeles, CA.

Mrs. Wade is known far and wide for her service to not only Salem Baptist Church but to the entire Omaha community. She worked hand in hand with her late husband, Dr. J.C. Wade, Sr., who was the pastor at Salem Baptist for many years before his retirement in 1988.

After Dr. Wade's death in 1999, Mrs. Wade continued to serve the people of Omaha and to provide counsel to members of Salem Baptist Church, whose membership, under the leadership of the Wades, grew from 250 to more than 2000.

Thanks to her wise counsel, direction, and leadership, Omaha is a better place because of Mother Mary Frazier Wade.

I join all Nebraskans in bidding Mrs. Wade a fond farewell and thanking her for her service. We will miss her, and we wish her well.