Floor Statements

Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion about modernization this morning. I have listened to much of it and was not going to come to the floor, but I do want the record to show clearly what the numbers are on modernization. It is important to the future for us to understand what has been done and what is being done and what will be done.

I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds nuclear weapons activities. I have spoken about this previously. It is very important going forward that we all understand what not only this administration but the previous administration has proposed with respect to modernization. I agree with my colleague from Kentucky. It is encouraging, at the end of this debate, that two bipartisan amendments represent the conclusion of this very important debate. We often debate things that are of lesser importance or of greater importance and sometimes don't always see the difference between the two. But this is one of those cases where if we ratify the START agreement today, when all is said and done, more will have been done than said. That is very unusual in a political body.

When I say ``more will have been done than said,'' it is so unbelievably important to try to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. But there is a subtext to all the other things we have discussed, which is why I want to put in the record the funding for the nuclear weapons issues. That subtext is money, money related to national security. We are a country with a $13

trillion debt. Modernization is expensive. Yet it relates to our national security. National missile defense, which we have heard a lot about, is very expensive. I understand that also relates to national security. But this issue of getting our debt under control and our fiscal policy under control is just as much a part of the national security interests of this country.

The subtext to these discussions--modernization, missile defense--is about funding as well and getting this country's economic house in order.

Let me mention the issue of nuclear weapons modernization. In fiscal year 2010, we were spending $6.3 billion on the modernization program on nuclear weapons activities. In fiscal year 2011, it went to $7 billion, up 10 percent--so a 10-percent increase for the nuclear weapons activities in President Obama's budget request. That 10-percent increase was unusual because most accounts were flat or some had cuts. But nuclear weapons got a 10-percent increase. The proposal for 2011, a $600 million increase but $7 billion total, was actually short- circuited and put in the continuing resolution. All the other funding in the CR is flat funding from the previous year. But the funding for the nuclear weapons programs at 10 percent higher was put into the CR. Those programs and those programs alone get the higher funding. That $7 billion was not all that was to be spent. Another $4 billion emerged. I heard about that on the radio while driving in North Dakota, that another $4 billion had been put into this pot for modernization. The additional funding from the 1251 report, which was produced in the fall, means 2012 funding would go from $6.3 billion in 2010, $7 billion in 2011, to $7.6 billion in 2012. That is a $1.2 billion increase in 2 years.

Linton Brooks, the fellow who ran the National Nuclear Security Administration and who did a good job in that role, said:

I would've killed for this kind of budget.

He is referring to $1.12 billion increase and two 10 percent increases, while much of the other budget was flat. We are talking about $85 billion for the next decade on these weapons activities, an increase of $8.5 billion in the next 5 years over what was portrayed in the 2010 budget. We are talking about a lot of additional money that has been committed. It shows a commitment to build two nuclear facilities that were discussed earlier. I want to mention them because it is important to understand what we are doing, the uranium processing facility at the Y-12 production complex and the chemistry and metallurgy research replacement facility at Los Alamos. There were moneys in the 2012 budget in construction funds for these two facilities, not as much as some would want in the Senate. But the fact is, the design of these two facilities is only 45 percent complete. We don't fund things that are 45 percent designed. To come out here and say we ought to be providing robust funding for buildings that are not even designed just makes no sense. Why, NNSA can't have confidence in its funding needs until it reaches about a 90-percent design point and that will be in 2013.

I listened this morning to this discussion and I think what the chairman has done and what Senator Kyl has done in reaching an agreement is fine. But I want the record to show that this administration has proposed robust increases in 2010, 2011, 2012, and for a 5-year period in these modernization accounts, life extension programs--robust increases. Even that is not enough for some. They want to put money into buildings that are not yet designed. That doesn't make much sense to me.

My point is, when we add up all of this, the subtext is how are we going to pay for it. Because it is easy to talk about authorizing, to talk about appropriating. The question is, Where does the money come from at a time when we are borrowing 40 cents of everything we spend in this government? The subtext of money and debt is also a significant part of this country's national security. If we don't get our fiscal house in order, all these debates will pale by comparison. We can't lose our economy and have a future collapse of the economy because the rest of the world has very little confidence in our ability to make smart decisions. We can't risk all that and believe we are going to be a world economic power moving forward. If we are going to remain a world economic power--and we can, and I believe we will--it will be because we start making some smart, tough, courageous decisions. That is more than just calling for more money, more spending, which was most of this morning's discussion.

I don't object to the amendment. My colleagues have raised important issues. But it is important to understand we have made great progress on the modernization funding programs in the past months, and this administration has moved very aggressively to meet those needs and meet those concerns. That is important with respect to the public record.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was not going to speak again, but I was prompted to by my colleague from Alabama, a friend and someone for whom I have great respect. The presentation by my colleague from Alabama suggested that President Obama is moving in the direction of disarming us, the implication is that of injuring our national security by proposing that we have fewer nuclear weapons. Let me make a point that I think is so important for the record.

I hope it is not now or ever considered a source of weakness for this country to aspire to have a planet with fewer nuclear weapons. It ought to be a source of strength that we understand it becomes our burden as a world leader--an economic leader and nuclear power--to try to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this Earth.

This President has not proposed anything that would injure our national security. He is not proposing anything that is unilateral. He has negotiated and his team has negotiated a very strong arms reduction treaty with the Russians.

I know there has been great discussion about modernization, whether there is enough money, about why tactical nuclear weapons were not included, the issue of whether it limits us with respect to missile defense. All of those issues have been answered. All have been responded to.

The question, it seems to me, for us now and for all Americans, and particularly those who serve in Congress in the future, is will we be a world leader in pushing for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons on this planet?

There are some 25,000 nuclear weapons on this planet. The loss of just one of those weapons, into the hands of a terrorist or rogue nation who might then explode it in a major city on Earth would change everything.

My colleagues are probably tired of hearing me say it, but in my desk I have kept a piece of a Soviet Union bomber, a very small piece of a wing strut from a Soviet Union bomber. We did not shoot it down. We negotiated that bomber down by paying money to saw the wings off.

Nuclear arms reduction treaties work. We know they work. There are Russian submarines that were not destroyed in battle. We ground them up and took them apart. The wings were sawed off bombers, and they were sold for scrap. Nuclear missiles in silos with nuclear warheads aimed at American cities are gone.

I will give an example. One was in Ukraine. Now sunflower seeds adorn that pasture where there was a missile with a nuclear weapon aimed at America.

We know these arms reduction treaties work because we have seen them work. Fewer nuclear weapons, fewer delivery vehicles, bombers, submarines, missiles--we know this works.

My colleague seemed to suggest that it would be a horrible thing if the entire world were rid of nuclear weapons. I hope that every Senator would aspire to have that be the case, a world in which there was not one weapon left, for almost surely every offensive weapon on this planet has always been used. We need to be very concerned about the number of nuclear weapons, the spread of nuclear weapons, the need, the desire for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons. That is why these treaties and these negotiations on arms reduction are so unbelievably important.

Never has it been more important because now there is a new threat. They do not wear uniforms. They do not belong to one country. It is the terrorist threat. And they strive mightily to acquire nuclear weapons.

This treaty negotiated at the start by the previous President and concluded by this President, in my judgment, strengthens this country, represents our best national security interests.

I ask the question of anyone who believes that it is a threat for us to begin reducing nuclear weapons through arms negotiations with others who have nuclear weapons: Who, if not us, will lead the way to do that? If not us, who? Is there another country they think will aspire to provide leadership to reduce the number of nuclear weapons? If there is, tell us the name because we all know better than that.

This responsibility falls on our shoulders. We are the leading nuclear power on this Earth. It is our responsibility, it is this country's responsibility to lead. I don't ever want anybody to suggest it is some sort of weakness for this President or any President to engage in arms reduction negotiations. That is a source of strength.

This treaty was negotiated carefully. I was on the national security working group. We had briefing after briefing in top-secret venues. This treaty was carefully negotiated. It represents our best interests. It represents a reduction of nuclear weapons, a reduction of delivery vehicles and represents, in my judgment, another step in reducing the nuclear threat. It is not even a giant step, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

This represents our best national security interests, and this President has demonstrated, yes, he wants a world with fewer nuclear weapons. He wants a world, as would I, with no nuclear weapons at some point. But this President would never allow negotiations or never allow circumstances in which this country is unarmed or unprepared or unable to meet its national security needs. He has not done that, not in this treaty, and will not do it in the future.

I did want to stand up and say that because of the comments earlier by the Senator who suggested there is some sort of weakness for a country that aspires to have a reduction of nuclear weapons on this planet.

Let me finally say, I have spoken at length on this floor about the severity of losing even just one nuclear weapon. I have told the story about a CIA agent code-named Dragonfire who reported 1 month after 9/11 that a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen from Russia and that nuclear weapon had been smuggled into New York City and was to be detonated. There was an apoplectic seizure in this town about it because no one knew what to do about it. They did not even notify the mayor of New York.

They discovered a month later that was probably not a credible piece of information. But as they did the diagnosis of it, they discovered it is plausible someone could have acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from Russia, it was plausible; if they had done that, they could have smuggled it into an American city and if terrorists did that they could have detonated it. Then we are not talking about 3,000 deaths, we are talking about 100,000, 200,000 deaths.

The work we have done in so many areas, the work in this administration, let me say, to secure loose nuclear materials, circumstances where plutonium or highly enriched uranium in the size of a liter or, in one case, in the size of a small can of soda, enough to kill tens and tens of thousands of people with a nuclear weapon--this is serious business. At a time when we debate a lot of issues--serious and not so serious--this is serious business.

I think the work that has been done by the chairman and ranking member in recent days--I watched a lot of this and watched it over this year--is extraordinary work. But so too is the work by this President, by the negotiators. My colleague described the folks at the State Department who had a significant role as well.

Let us not ever think it is a source of weakness to be negotiating verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons among those who possess them. That is a source of strength, and it is important for our kids and grandchildren who can succeed by continuing to do that with treaties that make the best sense for this country's national security interests.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts does not yet have a unanimous consent request, but I know all my colleagues are anxious to see one.

I yield the floor, and I expect, as the majority leader indicated, within the next half hour or so we will be voting, and I think that is good news. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as Congress begins next year to consider a range of policy choices in both domestic and foreign policy areas, I hope that at long last, we will decide that the war in Afghanistan must end.

That war has lasted 9 years and we are now engaged in nation building in a country with a government that I believe is both incompetent and corrupt.

We began the actions in Afghanistan to capture or kill the terrorist groups that had launched the 9/11 attack on our country.

Now, many years later, we are bogged down in a war in Afghanistan where our intelligence officials tell us there is only a minimal presence of the terrorist group al-Qaida. Some estimates put the number of al-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan at fewer than one hundred.

We are now engaged in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and, frankly, there are a number of foreign armies that have tried and failed in Afghanistan over many centuries.

I don't believe there is any chance of our ever controlling the tribal regions of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, we ought to be fighting terrorism where terrorists, are rather than where terrorists were. We know that al-Qaida has reconstituted training camps in Northern Pakistan, and we suspect that is where their leadership is. We know al-Qaida is in Somalia and Yemen and other places. But, we are bogged down fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. And frankly, that is not where the terrorists are.

It is time for our country to understand that this is an effort that will continue to drain our treasury and will result in the deaths of more American troops, but will not result in our controlling the territory of Afghanistan. We will be stuck for a long period of time with a permanent military presence at great cost and we will be paying for Afghanistan's defense even while failing to control the tribal regions of Afghanistan.

Recognition of those facts ought to persuade us to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan as soon as possible and begin pursuing terrorists where terrorists are now, not where they were then.

Madam President, first of all, let me say that there are big issues and small issues, some of substantial consequence, others that are of minor importance that are debated here on the floor of the Senate.

This is one of those big issues, one of significant importance, not just to us but to the world. While we get involved in a lot of details in this discussion, the question to be resolved in all of the efforts that are made here dealing with nuclear weapons is, Will we be able to find a way to prevent the explosion of a nuclear weapon in a major city on this planet that will kill hundreds of thousands of people?

The answer to that question comes from efforts about whether we are able to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations, and then begin to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

Let me read, for a moment, from Time magazine in 2002. It refers to something that happened exactly 1 month after 9/11, 2001--the terrible attack that occurred in this country by terrorists that murdered over 3,000 Americans.

One month later, October 11, 2001, something happened. It was described in Time magazine because it was not readily known around the rest of the country what had happened. Let me read it:

For a few harrowing weeks last fall--

Referring to October 2001--

a group of U.S. officials believed that the worst nightmare

of their lives, something even more horrific than 9/11, was

about to come true. In October, an intelligence alert went

out to a small number of government agencies, including the

Energy Department's top secret Nuclear Emergency Search Team

based in Nevada. The report said that terrorists were thought

to have obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian

arsenal and planned to smuggle it into New York City. The

source of the report was a mercurial agent code named

dragonfire, who intelligence officials believed was of

``undetermined'' reliability. But dragonfire's claim

tracked with a report from a Russian general who believed

that his forces were missing a 10-kiloton nuclear device.

Detonated in lower Manhattan, a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb would kill about 100,000 civilians and irradiate 700,000 more, flattening everything--everything--for a half a mile in diameter. And so counterterrorist investigators were on their highest alert.

I continue the quote:

``It was brutal,'' a U.S. official told Time magazine. It

was also a highly classified and closely guarded secret.

Under the aegis of the White House's Counterterrorism

Security Group, part of the National Security Council, news

of the suspected nuke was kept secret so as to not panic the

people of New York. Senior FBI officials were not even in the

loop. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he was never told

about the threat. In the end, the investigators found nothing

and concluded that dragonfire's information was false. But

few of them slept better. They had made a chilling

realization: If terrorists had, in fact, managed to smuggle a

nuclear weapon into a city, there was almost nothing anyone

could have done about it.

Here is the number of nuclear weapons on this planet. The story I just read was about one small nuclear weapon, a Russian 10-kiloton nuclear weapon. There are roughly 25,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. I just described the apoplectic seizure that occurred over the potential of one 10-kiloton nuclear weapon missing, potentially acquired by a terrorist, smuggled to New York City, to be detonated in one of our largest cities.

Russia has about 15,000 nuclear weapons, the United States about 9,000, China a couple hundred, France several hundred, Britain a couple hundred; and the list goes on.

Now the question is, What do we do about all that? Will we just waltz along forever and believe that somehow, some way, we will be lucky enough to make sure nobody ever explodes a nuclear weapon in the middle of a city on this Earth? Because when they do, all life on this planet is going to change. What do we do about that? My colleagues say, let's ratify the START treaty. I fully agree. And there is so much more that needs to be done beyond that. The work that has been done here on the floor of the Senate by my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar is extraordinary work.

Senator Lugar is here, and I do not know that he has been here previously when I have done this--and people are tired of my doing it, but it is so important--I have always kept in my desk a small piece of the wing of a Backfire bomber that was given to me. Senator Lugar is responsible for this. This is the piece of a wing of a Backfire bomber. No, we did not shoot it down. Senator Lugar did not shoot it down, nor did our Air Force. We sawed it up. We sawed the wings off the bomber.

How did that happen? It was done by a the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program in which we actually paid to destroy a Soviet bomber. It makes a whole lot more sense than being engaged in warfare to shoot down this bomber.

I have--and I will not show it--in my desk a hinge from a missile silo that was in the Ukraine that contained a missile with a nuclear weapon on its tip aimed at the United States of America. It is not there anymore. Sunflower seeds grow where a missile once resided. Because of Nunn-Lugar, the American taxpayers and, especially, importantly, arms negotiations that work. We know this works. This is not a theory. We know it works to reduce the number of nuclear weapons by engaging in negotiations and discussions.

I have heard lots of reasons for us not to do this: too soon; not enough information; not enough detail; more need for consideration--all of those things. I have always talked about Mark Twain who said the negative side of a debate never needs any preparation. So I understand it is easy to come to the floor saying: Do not do this. Do not do this. But it is those who decide to do things who always prevail to make this a safer country when you are talking about weapons policies, nuclear weapons, and arms reduction.

Let me describe why we should do this. First of all, this was negotiated over a long period of time with the interests of our country at heart and with substantial negotiation. I was on the National Security Working Group here in the Senate, and we sat down in secret briefings on many occasions, having the negotiators themselves come back and say to us: Here is what we are doing. Let us explain to you where we are in the negotiations. This treaty did not emerge out of thin air. All of us were involved and had the ability to understand what they were doing.

They negotiated a treaty, and we needed to negotiate that treaty because the circumstances that exist now are that we do not have, given the previous treaties' expiration, the capability to know what the other side is doing--the inspection capability.

Let me describe who supports this treaty. Every former Secretary of State now living, Republican and Democrat: Kissinger, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger, Christopher, Albright, Powell, Rice--all of them support the treaty. They say it is the right thing for this country, it is important for us to do.

Let me put up especially the comment of Henry Kissinger because he said it this way:

I recommend ratification of this treaty. . . . It should be

noted I come from the hawkish side of the debate, so I am not

here advocating these measures in the abstract.

He said:

I try to build them into my perception of national

interest. I recommend ratification of this treaty.

I just mentioned my colleague Senator Lugar. He had a partnership with our former colleague, Senator Nunn, and it is properly called Nunn-Lugar, and we have talked a lot about it. I have talked about it many times on the floor of this Senate. It is one of the things we should be so proud of having done. I am sure Senator Lugar--I have not talked to him about this--but I am sure he regards it as one of the significant accomplishments of his career, the Nunn-Lugar program.

As a result of that program, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are now free of nuclear weapons. Think of that--free of nuclear weapons. Albania has no more chemical weapons. Madam President, 7,500 nuclear warheads have been deactivated as a result of this program. The weapons of mass destruction that have been eliminated: 32 ballistic missile submarines, 1,400 long-range nuclear missiles, 906 nuclear air-to- surface missiles, 155 bombers that carried nuclear weapons.

It is not hard to see the success of this. I have shown before--and will again--the photographs of what Nunn-Lugar means and its success. You can argue with a lot of things on this floor, but not photographic evidence, it seems to me. Shown in this photograph is the explosion of an SS-18 missile silo that held a missile with a nuclear warhead aimed very likely at an American city.

The silo is gone. The missile is gone. The nuclear warhead is gone. There are now sunflower seeds planted. It is such an important symbol of the success of these kinds of agreements.

This next photograph shows the Nunn-Lugar program eliminating a Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine.

We did not track it in the deep waters of some far away ocean and decide to engage it and succeed in the engagement. We did not do that at all. We paid money to destroy this submarine.

I have the ground-up copper wire in a little vial in this desk from a submarine that used to carry missiles aimed at America.

Here is an example of what happened under Nunn-Lugar, dismantling a Blackjack bomber. We paid to have that bomber destroyed. We did not shoot it down. We did not have to.

Now this START agreement. ADM Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--I want everybody to understand this because there are some people coming to the floor saying: Well, from a military standpoint, this might leave us vulnerable, short of what we should have. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says:

I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as our

combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind

this new treaty, having had the opportunity to provide our

counsel, to make our recommendations, and to help shape the

final agreements.

We stand behind this treaty, representing the best

strategic interests of this country.

Finally, with respect to the issue of funding, I want to make some points about that because I chair the subcommittee that funds nuclear weapons here in the Congress. There has been some discussion that there is not ample funding here for modernization of our current weapons programs. That is not the case. It is not true.

Let me describe where we are with respect to funding, and let me predicate that by saying Linton Brooks was the former NNSA Administrator; that is, he ran the program dealing with nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons complex. Here is what he said:

START, as I now understand it, is a good idea on its own

merits, but I think for those who think it is only a good

idea if you only have a strong weapons program, this budget

ought to take care of that.

He said:

Coupled with the out-year projections, it takes care of the

concerns about the complex, and it does very good things

about the stockpile, and it should keep the labs [the

National Laboratories] healthy.

He says: ``I would have killed for this kind of budget.'' I would have killed for this kind of budget. This is the man who understands the money needed to make sure our stockpile of nuclear weapons is a stockpile you can have confidence in.

So this notion that somehow there is an underfunding or a lack of funding for the nuclear weapons life extension programs and modernization programs is sheer nonsense.

Let me describe what we have done. As I said, I chair the subcommittee that funds these programs. The President in his budget proposed robust funding. While most other things were held constant-- very little growth, in many cases no growth at all; in some cases, less funding than in the past--the President said for fiscal year 2011, he wanted $7 billion for the life extension programs and modernization for the current nuclear weapons stock, and that is because people are concerned if we were to use our nuclear weapons, are we assured they work. Well, you know what. I don't mean to minimize that, but the fact is we have so many nuclear weapons, as do the Russians and others, that if one works, unfortunately, it would be a catastrophe for this world. In fact, if they are used, it will be a catastrophe. But having said that, the proposal was $7 billion. That was a 10-percent increase over fiscal year 2010.

So then the President came out with a budget for the fiscal year we are now going to be in and he said, All right, in response to the people in the Senate--there were some who were insisting on much more spending--he said, All right, we did a 10-percent increase for that year on the programs to modernize our existing nuclear weapons stock, and we will go to another 10-percent increase for next year, fiscal year 2012. So we have a 10-percent increase, and another 10-percent increase.

I was out in North Dakota traveling down some county highway one day and was listening to the news and they described how money from my Appropriations Committee was going to be increased by another $4 billion for the next 5 years. I am thinking, that is interesting, because nobody has told me about that: $4 billion added to this; first 10 percent, then 10 percent, now $4 billion more. And we have people coming to the floor who have previously talked about the difficulty of the Federal debt, $13 trillion debt, $1.3 trillion annual budget deficit, choking and smothering this country in debt. They are saying, you know what, we don't have enough money. We are getting 10-percent increases, plus $4 billion; still not enough, we want more. And the people who run the place say, I would have killed to get a budget like that.

Someplace somebody has to sober up here in terms of what these numbers mean. I swear, if you play out the numbers for the next 5 years, the commitment this administration has made for the life extension programs and the modernization programs for our existing nuclear weapons stock--there is no question we have the capability to certify that our nuclear weapons program is workable and that we ought to have confidence in it.

I don't understand how this debate has moved forward with the notion that somehow this is underfunded. It is not at all. In fact, there is funding for buildings that have not yet been designed. We don't ever do that. In fact, the money for the nuclear weapons program was the only thing that was stuck in at the last minute in the continuing resolution. All the other government programs are on a continuing resolution which means they are being funded at last year's level, except the nuclear weapons program. That extra money was put in, in the continuing resolution. Why? To try to satisfy those who apparently have an insatiable appetite for more and more and more spending in these areas. We are spending more than at any other time and so much more than anybody in the world has ever spent on these things. So nobody should stand up here with any credibility and suggest this is underfunded. It is not. It is not. The people who understand and run these programs know it is not, yet some here are trying to shove more money into these programs for buildings that haven't even been designed yet. We have never done that before. People know better than that.

Another issue: They say, Well, this is going to limit our ability with respect to antiballistic missile systems. It does not. That has long been discredited. There is nothing here that is going to limit that. They say, Well, but the Russians, they put a provision in that says that they can withdraw because of missile defense--yes, they put that in the last START agreement as well. It doesn't mean anything to us. It is not part of what was agreed to. There is nothing here that is going to limit us with respect to our antiballistic missile programs to protect this country and to protect others.

It is so difficult to think this is some other issue. It is not. One day somebody is going to wake up if we are not smart and if we don't decide that our highest priority is to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and stop the spread of nuclear weapons, one day we will all wake up and we will read a headline that someone has detonated a nuclear weapon somewhere on this planet and killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of a terrorist act. When that happens, everything about life on this planet is going to change. That is why it is our responsibility. We are the leading nuclear power on Earth. We must lead in this area. I have been distressed for 10 years at what happened in this Senate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This country never should have turned that down. We did. We are not testing, but we still should have been the first to ratify the treaty.

The question now is, Will we decide to not be assertive and aggressive on behalf of arms control treaties we have negotiated carefully that have strong bipartisan support? Will we decide that is not important? I hope not. It falls on our shoulders here in the United States of America to lead the world on these issues. We have to try to prevent the issues of Korea and Iran and rogue nations and the spread of others who want nuclear--we have to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who would use them. Then we have to continue to find ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this Earth. My colleague talked about tactical nuclear weapons. This doesn't involve tactical nuclear weapons. I wish it did, but it doesn't. We have to get through this in order to get to limiting tactical nuclear weapons. The Russians have far more of them than we do, and the quicker we get to that point of negotiating tactical weapons, the better off we are.

In conclusion, I was thinking about how easy it is to come to the floor of the Senate and oppose. The negative side never requires any preparation. That is the case. Mark Twain was right. Abe Lincoln once was in a debate with Douglas and Douglas was propounding a rather strange proposal that Abe Lincoln was discarding and he called it ``as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.''

Well, you know, I come here and I listen to some of these debates. I respect everybody. I do. Everybody comes here with a point. But I will tell you this: Those who believe this is not in the interest of this country, those who believe we are not adequately funding our nuclear weapon stock, those who believe this is going to hinder our ability for an antiballistic missile system that would protect our country, that is as thin as the homeopathic soup described by Abraham Lincoln. It is not accurate.

This is bipartisan. It is important for the country. We ought to do this sooner, not later.

Let me conclude by saying, the work done by my two colleagues is strong, assertive, bipartisan work that builds on some very important work for the

last two decades, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar--I don't know whether there will be ever be a Kerry-Lugar, but there was a Nunn-Lugar that has been so important to this country and to the safety and security of this world. I hope this is the next chapter in building block by block by block this country's responsibility to be a world leader in saying, We want a world that is safer by keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who don't have them, and then aggressively negotiating to try to reduce the nuclear weapons that do now exist.

Some months ago I was at a place outside of Moscow where my colleague Senator Lugar has previously visited, and that facility is devoted to the training and the security of nuclear weapons. I suspect Senator Lugar, because he knows a lot about this and has worked a lot on it for a long time, thinks a lot about those issues, as do I. Are we certain that these 25,000 nuclear weapons spread around the world are always secure, always safe, will never be subject to theft? The answer to that is no, but we are trying very hard. This treaty is one more step in the attempt we must make to exercise our leadership responsibility that is ours. So my compliments to Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar and to all of the others who are engaged in this discussion and who have worked so hard and have done so for decades on these nuclear weapons issue and arms reduction issues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in legislative session and as if in morning business for the purpose of clearing processed legislative language.

For the information of my colleagues, I will run through these unanimous consent requests and then be completed.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 678, H.R. 2142.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 702, S. 3874.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5809 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the substitute at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the title amendment be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4036 introduced earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following postal namings be discharged from the Homeland Security Committee en bloc: S. 3592, H.R. 4602, H.R. 5133, H.R. 5605, H.R. 5606, H.R. 5655, H.R. 5877, and H.R. 6400.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of these bills and the immediate consideration of H.R. 6392 which was received from the House and is at the desk en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read three times and passed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 702 which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I understand there is a joint resolution at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I now ask for its second reading, and in order to place the joint resolution on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on the tax bill compromise that was fashioned by the President and Republican leaders in the Congress.

I voted against the compromise.

I recognize that the Republicans in Congress put the President in the position of having to agree to things in the compromise that he strongly objected to. And I also realize that compromise is essential to move forward and to try to fix what is wrong with our economy.

But here is the dilemma. We have two very serious problems that can undermine America's economic future. First is the crushing debt in our fiscal policy. Our debt is currently over $13 trillion with a yearly deficit of over $1 trillion. This proposal will substantially increase that debt which I believe will continue to undermine the confidence people have in this country's future.

The estimate that this agreement will increase the debt by over $1 trillion is far short of what will actually happen. The tax cut extensions are for 2 years and I am certain that in 2 years, in the middle of an election campaign, the tax cuts will be further extended. The total cost of those tax cuts for a decade will be to add $4 trillion to the Federal debt. Again, I think that will undermine any confidence the American people or, for that matter, others in the world will have about our ability to rein in a fiscal policy that has us borrowing 40 percent of everything we spend in the Federal Government.

The second serious problem that we face is the slow rate of economic growth that is unlikely to create jobs at a pace that we need. I understand that in order to address this problem we would want to have a further economic stimulus to extend the growth of the economy. However, this economy has been about as stimulated as any economy in history. Adding more stimulus through borrowing seems to me is not the way to promote confidence or economic growth.

Earlier in the week I voted for cloture because I did not want to block a compromise on these matters. However, the specific compromise which we voted on yesterday I believe falls short of what the country needs, especially in dealing with what I believe is the controlling issue of a crushing Federal debt and therefore an erosion of confidence in our economy.

The fact that this agreement was flawed was not the President's fault. Rather, it was due to the position of the Republicans insisting on the extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Without that concession, the Republicans made it clear they were going to block any compromise.

If our country is going to remain a world economic power we need to make good decisions and courageous decisions to fix the things we know are wrong. In order to do that, the President is going to need help. It requires more willingness to compromise on the part of the Republicans than they have shown recently.

Madam President, I voted today to move forward with the tax package because I did not want to block the Senate from considering this legislation. But I do not support the bill in its current form, and I will not support it on final passage if there are not additional improvements made to it.

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