Floor Statements

Mr. President, Tom Brokaw, in his book ``The Greatest Generation,'' describes the generation that survived the Great Depression and World War II. He notes that their sacrifices made possible the many comforts and conveniences we enjoy today. On October 27, 2010, America and Alabama lost one of the best examples of that generation with the death of Hall Williams Thompson of Birmingham, AL.

That Hall Thompson was a very successful family man, businessman, civic leader, and philanthropist, there can be no doubt, and much could be said about a host of areas where he served, giving back to his State and his Nation. But I want to share a few remarks about one of his most notable qualities--his patriotism. Hall Thompson loved his country. He had fought for it, serving in the Pacific during World War II in the Army Air Corps. And that commitment to serving his country never abated.

Indeed, while he had strong views about our country and the exceptional nature of the American experience and was never afraid to express them, he was ever anxious to respect those who may disagree. He would, with sincerity, ask questions about the subject which concerned him and at the end of the conversation would say something like, ``Well, I just think . . .'' or, ``I am just concerned.'' He made his point clearly but courteously.

On a personal note, I called Hall and asked him to support a political event. Quickly, he assured me he could come and asked if Lucy, his wonderful wife and partner of 66 years, could attend. The answer, of course, was yes, as everyone loves Lucy. But in asking that question, Hall showed his humility and courtesy.

So, we gathered on October 19, and I took the opportunity during the event to personally thank Hall for his support for me in 1994 when I ran for attorney general of Alabama and for his support of many great causes. He did not know me well in 1994 but had heard good things about me, and he was very generous in his support. I thanked him for that and noted that he had never asked for a single thing personally, only for good government. The fact that there are others in our country like Hall who support their candidates, Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, because of values and principles and not for personal gain, is important to our country's political health. They should be appreciated. They make the country a better place.

Later during that same meeting, Hall Thompson suffered the stroke that would sadly take his life 9 days later. He had lived a full life of 87 years. He left an accomplished and loving family and a host of friends and admirers. He loved America, closely monitored her progress, and was ready to help whenever possible.

He was a true patriot. Our State and Nation will miss him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Kyl, who is this body's premier student of the nuclear strategic posture of the United States. I served and have served as chairman of that subcommittee of Armed Services. I share his concern. I am thankful that he is here and is keeping up with these matters year after year. Most of us would rather not talk about them, but they represent the serious responsibilities of a great nation that must be able to defend itself, to be able to live freely and prosperously. So I thank the Senator for his remarks, and I value his friendship and enjoy following his leadership.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report that--our Congressional Budget Office's leadership is selected by the majority in the Congress, the Democratic majority--that report showed our deficit for this year, which will end September 30, will be $1.5 trillion. That is the largest deficit the Nation has ever had. The last 2 years have been $1.3 trillion and $1.4 trillion. This year's deficit is projected to come in at $1.5 trillion. We complained--I have--that President Bush spent more money than he should have, but his highest deficit was one- third of that, or $460 billion. So we are at unprecedented levels of annual deficit and debt. Our gross debt, the total United States debt, internal and external, will equal, by the end of the year, 100 percent of GDP. Annual interest payments--we borrow money; people loan us their money, and we give them Treasury bills and bonds in exchange, and we pay them interest on the debt. The amount of interest we pay will rise to $750 billion by the end of this decade. That means a 1-year interest payment will cost us nearly as much as 20 years of current highway construction spending. We spend about $40 billion a year, for example, on Federal highway expenditures. We are talking about interest payments going from $180 billion or so a couple of years ago to $750 billion, and our debt will triple in that time--from $5 trillion to over $15 trillion.

The total amount of interest we expect to pay between now and the end of the decade is $5.5 trillion in interest, which is enough money to fund our entire government for 18 months.

The situation is so serious that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned very recently that we may face a bond market crisis in the next 2 to 3 years. He said it is a little better than a 50-50 chance that it won't happen, but not much better. That was his comment.

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf testified last week before the Budget Committee, where I am ranking member, that we were entering ``unfamiliar territory for all developed nations over the last several decades.'' He is talking about financially, debt.

Analysts for Standard and Poors stated that ``absent a credible plan, the rating on the U.S. Federal Government will come under pressure''-- in other words, the rating on our debt, which is AAA. If that happens, our interest rate, as I have been suggesting, will go up, because if our ratings go down, people will demand higher interest before loaning us money. The International Monetary Fund urged the United States to take much stronger action. This is on the Washington Post business page of a few days ago:

U.S. Must Reduce Deficit, IMF Warns.

They are not perfect, but they claim to be the conscience of the world and warn profligate nations to get their houses in order before it creates systemic problems for other nations. It says:

European countries have begun a pointed dialog with their

residents about what government can and cannot afford. Moves

to cut public salaries, trim services, and curb public

pensions have touched off strikes and protests, but also puts

the deficits of those countries on what seems to be a

``securely downward path,'' the IMF said. Those are the

choices the United States has been hesitant to make.

Two prominent economists, Carmen Reinhart, who testified before our committee, and Dr. Kenneth Rogoff, issued a paper explaining the negative impact of excessive debt on economic growth. He actually wrote a book. They have studied countries in the last 200 years that have had their economies collapse as a result of debt--a lot of South American countries at various times, such as Argentina and others. They caution that there is a point beyond which you do not want to go. That point is when your debt equals 90 percent of your economy, 90 percent of GDP. That is a very respected study--the first time anybody ever studied the economies that have had economic collapse. This is a key factor in that. We are now at 94 percent of GDP, and by the end of the year, the CBO projects we will be at 100 percent. Our debt will equal 100 percent of the entire goods and services produced in this economy.

Our Nation is on a dangerous--as everybody we have had testify before the committee and virtually anybody who has expressed themselves calls it--unsustainable path. The President said we are on an unsustainable path. We need strong leadership from our President. The day before his State of the Union, I wrote an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post. I called on him to present a broad vision for reducing spending. I said, ``his proposals cannot be timid'' and that this was ``a defining moment for his Presidency.''

I have to say that he did not rise to that occasion. Instead of a bold vision, he put forward a meek plan to continue spending at current levels for 5 more years, calling that a freeze. But we have had a surge in spending in the last 2 years. Freezing at that level cannot be acceptable. These are the levels that produced the $1.5 trillion deficit.

The President's speech, I must say, was disconnected from reality. Nowhere in that speech did he enter into a dialog with the American people about the severity of the crisis we face, or make any attempt to call on them in a serious way to understand why it is that we can't continue at this level of spending. He failed to present a credible plan.

This is what the Washington Post said in an editorial yesterday. They weren't mean spirited about it, but you could tell they were disappointed:

In his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, President

Obama failed to present a credible plan for a long-term debt

reduction. It's no secret that we think he made a big

mistake. If America can't get a handle on its finances,

everything else is at risk.

But not only has the President failed to lead with ideas, he has set about to thwart, to block others from taking action. This is concerning to me. This

Sunday, on one of the big news programs, his new Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, balked at a Republican plan to cut spending for the rest of the year. He said any budget cuts must be paired with new spending-- ``investments,'' as he and the President called them. He taunted the Republicans, I think, with, ``Where's the beef? Let's see the cuts they're talking about.''

The President refuses to lead and then sends his emissaries to attack any Republican who makes a serious proposal and, I assume, as being heartless and wanting to throw children in the streets, and so forth. For instance, the President's chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, lashed out at Republicans for wanting to reduce discretionary spending before we raise the debt ceiling. We have to have some sort of bipartisan agreement before we agree to raise this debt ceiling that we are going to reduce some of the spending, clip back on the credit card a little bit, something significant.

The President's own Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, recently argued that it was too early to begin cutting the deficit. So it is unsustainable, but it is too early to start cutting it now--maybe in 2012, or after that, maybe. Geithner's comments ring all too similar to those of his predecessor, Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush, who said the housing downturn was under control, before the Wall Street firms began falling like dominoes.

But ignoring the reality of our situation does not change it. The money simply isn't there to support the President's spending agenda that he announced at the State of the Union Address. We don't have the money. Our Nation cannot afford another era of big government.

In 2 weeks, on February 14--just 2 weeks from now--the President will submit a new budget to Congress. He will go to our Budget Committee. This may be--and I say this seriously--his last chance to get it right, for the President to be a credible voice in this debate. He must put forward a budget that significantly lowers spending levels. He cannot present Congress with the same unserious plan he presented last Tuesday night.

Three years into his turn, I think this budget he will be submitting is a defining act of what he views and how he views the debt we face. I think if this budget fails to meet the necessary demands for curtailing spending, we will know pretty conclusively where the President is.

Numbers count. You can have rhetoric and we can disagree, but at some point you have to put out your budget that says what you are going to do, how much you are going to spend, and where you are going to get the money--in this case, how much we are going to borrow to carry on the government at that time. So we are going to see whether the President is moving with the American people to fiscal and economic sanity or whether he will continue his ideological commitment to big government. I think that is it. I think we will know in 2 weeks. It is a serious matter.

So I think we need to turn back from the cliff toward which we are heading and get on a new road. We need to reduce both the size of the deficit, and we will have to reduce the size of the government somewhat. We are not going to sink into the ocean. If we go back to 2008, 2006 levels of Federal spending, will the country collapse? Give me a break. Certainly, it is not going to collapse, but it will put us on a road to fiscal sanity. It will restore not only public confidence in our economy, but it will restore the foundations of American prosperity.

I truly believe one of the clouds over the American economy is the perception--unfortunately, too true--that we are spending at a reckless rate, that we are irresponsibly running up the debt, and that could cause us to inflate the value of our currency, that could cause a debt crisis, which Mr. Greenspan said was almost a 50-50 chance in the next 2 to 3 years. If you have money to invest, what does that say to you? Maybe you better sit back and see a little more until we get this debt--that is spiraling out of control--under control. Until we are headed on a downward path toward a balanced budget, we are not going to see the economic growth that is possible. I think that is where we should be heading.

So strong, sustained reductions in spending will not be easy. It will take us down a tough road, but it is the only road, the only course that will lead to a better financial future for ourselves and our children and preserving the integrity of the U.S. economy in a way that is necessary for growth to occur.

I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Just briefly on the remarks about the missile defense, I have served as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and ranking member and have been involved in it for quite a few years. I think the language affirms the continued development of the two-stage, ground-based interceptor. Then, I guess, I accept the language that says ``as a technological and strategic hedge.''

But I would just say to my colleagues, the reason we are at this point is because, during the negotiations with the Russians concerning the New START treaty, the administration, responding to Russian objections about missile defense--which were so unfounded and I could never fathom--the administration agreed, in September of last year, unilaterally, and to the utter surprise of Poland and the Czech Republic, to cancel the planned two-stage GBI that was to be deployed in 2016 in Poland.

It was a great embarrassment to our allies. They had been negotiating with us for many years on this project. They had stood firm for it, and the administration then promised this phase four SM-3 Block 2B. But it was not on the drawing board, not under development, and cannot be completed until 2020 if we as a Congress fund it over that decade. The President certainly will not be in office at that time. So I am uneasy about this whole matter of missile defense.

I think the administration made a colossal error in giving up on the planned two-stage strategic policy. But this language is better than no language. I thank my colleagues for moving forward with it.

Mr. President, I have given a lot of thought to the treaty, and having been involved in missile defense and nuclear issues serving on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services, as ranking member and chairman, many of the provisions in the treaty are acceptable and should pose no threat to our national security. But considered as part of the administration's stated foreign policy and strategic policy and in relation to the reality of the world situation today, I do not believe the treaty will make us safer. I think that is a good test.

I disagree with my colleagues who are overly confident that this is going to make the world safer. I believe the treaty, for that reason, should be rejected.

Some say a defeat for the treaty would harm the United States. I think the entire world would see the Senate action as a resurgence of America's historical policy of peace through strength and a rejection of a leftist vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The negotiating posture statements and actions of Russia indicate it is regressing sadly into an old Soviet mindset as it views the outside world. This is disappointing and indicative of anything but the positive reset we hope to achieve with them. It is extremely important for Russian and U.S. security and world security, that Russia sees its role as a positive force for peace and security. These negotiations, however, show the face of the old Soviet Union. They have been so relentless in the way they have negotiated.

Negotiations with any mature power, especially Russia, are difficult and serious. This administration began with a naive expectation that a treaty could be quickly achieved that would show their leadership towards peace and a nuclear-free world. The Obama administration wanted to set an example for other nations to reduce their nuclear weapons towards a world without any nuclear weapons. We have heard this leadership and this setting of an example theme repeatedly from the President and the administration. But Russia has not the slightest interest in such vague concepts, nor in eliminating all nuclear weapons. They have no idea or intention ever of relinquishing nuclear weapons. They are focused on their own national interest, on coming out ahead in the negotiations for military, political, psychological, and hegemonic reasons.

It seems clear to me that Russia got what it wanted and President Obama got a treaty paper which strategically means very little but can be touted as a victory for peace.

So this is what I have concluded during this debate--and the debate has been helpful--the debate has caused me to think through a good bit of this. A longer debate at a different time of the year, I think, could have helped all of our colleagues. I do not believe the success in negotiation of the treaty will in any way make the Russians more cooperative, as the administration has repeatedly suggested.

Russia has been inconsistent at best in helping the United States with the danger of nuclear Iran and North Korea--the gravest threats to peace in the world, with military action being undertaken against our ally, South Korea, in recent weeks, and with the real possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons that, hopefully, can be avoided.

Why has Russia not been more cooperative? They blocked a resolution condemning North Korea Sunday in the U.N. Russia attacked Georgia, a sovereign nation, and continues to occupy Georgian territory. This shocking act

of aggression condemned by independent bodies goes without any real U.S. response. Georgia is a pro-American, free market, independent nation whose attack was calculated and deliberate.

Russia continues to work to undermine the pro-Western democracy movement in the Ukraine. They continue a host of actions that evidence a long-term plan to effect a real or de facto reabsorption of these three nations into what was the old Soviet Union.

So these ominous trends, it seems to me, have not been seriously considered throughout this quest for the treaty. The events do not give me confidence that the treaty, therefore, is a positive step for the United States, the world, or for peace.

Secondly, as I noted, and I will not go into detail now, the administration conceded the two-staged, ground-based interceptor site that would have been established in Poland, that would provide redundant protection to the United States from an Iranian missile and protected virtually all of Europe from an Iranian missile. That was given away unilaterally by the administration without prior warning to our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic. They heard about it in the paper. They realized the United States had gone behind them, our allies, and made a deal with the Russians. It was a very unfortunate event, indeed.

The plan that has been talked about--the fourth phase of the SM-3 Phased Adaptive Approach--is not even on the drawing board and is unlikely to actually survive. It would be difficult to see it surviving in five different budget cycles over the next 10 years it would take to develop that system. We walked away from one that could be deployed soon.

I offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to make clear the Senate does not concur in an ill-conceived vision of the administration that would move us to a world without nuclear weapons. I thank Senators Kyl, LeMieux, Cornyn, Chambliss, and Inhofe for cosponsoring the amendment. While I will not insist on a vote at this hour, this matter will be a significant subject for the future.

Thirdly, I would suggest the treaty is promoted as a step towards a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a fantastical idea that goes beyond insignificance, it is dangerous. Basing any policy, especially a nuclear policy, on an idea as cockamamie as zero nuclear weapons in the world can only lead to confusion and uncertainty. Confusion and uncertainty are the polar opposites of the necessary attributes of security and stability. These are the essentials of good strategic policy: security and stability.

Thus, the Obama policy creates a more dangerous world. Some say the President's zero nukes policy is just a distant vision, some vague wish, so don't worry. The situation would be much better if that were so, but it is not. President Obama has made zero nuclear weapons a cornerstone of our defense policy. It has, amazingly, already been made a centerpiece of our military policy, being advanced by concrete steps today. Presidents, Commanders-in-Chief, have the power to make such monumental changes in policy, and this President is certainly doing so.

The change is seen most seriously in the critically important Nuclear Posture Review produced in April 2010 by the Defense Department. This document is a formal document produced by the new administration's Defense Department. The determination to pursue the zero nuclear weapons vision is seen throughout this review. Amazingly, there are 30 references in that document to a world without nuclear weapons.

The NPR begins with an introductory letter from Secretary of Defense Gates, the second sentence of which says this:

As the President said in Prague last year, a world without

nuclear weapons will not be achieved quickly, but we must

begin to take concrete steps today.

The Executive Summary further drives the issue home. The first sentence in the Executive Summary recalls that President Obama, in Prague, highlighted nuclear dangers and said:

The United States will seek the peace and security of a

world without nuclear weapons.

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the NPR is particularly ominous and even chilling to me. Posture Reviews are defense reviews, and by their nature are bottom-up reports, driven by threat assessments and the requirements necessary to defend America. These reviews historically are objective analyses from experts, not political reports. The troubling line reads:

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) outlines the

Administration's approach to promoting the President's agenda

for reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world

without nuclear weapons.

This statement reveals the whole truth. The NPR is the President's policy, sent from the top down, not the bottom up. Stunningly, the report lacks a clear focus on the only objective that counts: Securing a nuclear arsenal second to none that can, under any circumstances, deter attacks on and defend the United States and its allies.

Fourthly, the Obama vision of a world without nuclear weapons has not been well received. Indeed, the breadth of the criticism from experts and world leaders is noteworthy.

Two years ago, Congress adopted an amendment I proposed that called for a commission to review the strategic posture of the United States. It was bipartisan and chaired by former Secretaries of Defense Dr. William Perry and Dr. James Schlesinger. The commission powerfully dismissed the idea of a world without nuclear weapons. In somewhat diplomatic but clear and strong language, they said this:

The conditions that might make possible the global

elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today and

their creation would require a fundamental transformation of

the world political order.

They went on to say this:

All of the commission members believe that reaching the

ultimate goal of global nuclear elimination would require a

fundamental change in geopolitics.

Maybe the Second Coming.

Others have dismissed this concept as a wild chimera. French President Sarkozy, from one of our European allies, France, said this:

It [our nuclear deterrent] is neither a matter of prestige

nor a question of rank, it is quite simply the Nation's life

insurance policy.

He made clear they had no intention of giving that up.

Secretary James Schlesinger, back when President Reagan was meeting in Reykjavik over nuclear issues, made this wise comment:

Nuclear arsenals are going to be with us as long as there

are sovereign states with conflicting ideologies. Unlike

Aladdin with his lamp, we have no way to force the nuclear

genie back into the bottle. A world without nuclear weapons

is a utopian dream.

Keith Payne, who served on this nuclear commission, writing recently in the National Review, said:

The presumption that United States movement toward nuclear

disarmament will deliver nonproliferation success is a

fantasy. On the contrary, the United States nuclear arsenal

has itself been the single most important tool for

nonproliferation in history, and dismantling it would be a

huge setback.

Remember the commission.

Jonathan Tepperman, in Newsweek, said:

And even if Russia and China (and France, Britain, Israel,

India, and Pakistan) could be coaxed to abandon their

weapons, we'd still live with the fear that any of them could

quickly and secretly rearm.

Gideon Rachman, in Financial Times, said:

The idea of a world free of nuclear weapons is not so much

an impossible dream as an impossible nightmare.

William Kristol, writing in the Washington Post, in October, said:

Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama

would really have to envision is a world without war, or

without threats of war. . . .The danger is that the allure of

a world without nuclear weapons can be a distraction--even an

excuse for not acting against real nuclear threats. . . .So

while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the

trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear--and missile-

capable North Korea and Iran--and a far more dangerous world.

Others have also written about this.

David Von Drehle, writing in Time Magazine, said:

A world with nuclear weapons in it is a scary, scary place

to think about. The industrialized world without nuclear

weapons was a scary, scary place for real. But there is no

way to un-ring the nuclear bell. The science and technology

of nuclear weapons is widespread, and if nukes are outlawed

someday, only outlaws will have nukes.

Kenneth Waltz, leading arms controller and professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley, said:

We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's

striking and against all historical precedent that for that

substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear

states.

Importantly, the administration's planned further diminishment of our nuclear stockpile--further diminishing it from these numbers--and President Obama's hostility to the utility of nuclear weapons generally has caused a great deal of unease among our non-nuclear allies. These nations are not so open about their concerns, but the problem is a very real one.

The American nuclear umbrella, our extended deterrence, has allowed our allies, free democratic nations, to remain nuclear free, without having nuclear weapons. But if the Obama policy continues, the Perry- Schlesinger report concludes real dangers may await:

If we are unsuccessful in dealing with current challenges,

we may find ourselves at a tipping point, where many

additional states conclude that they require nuclear

deterrents of their own. If this tipping point is itself

mishandled, we may well find ourselves faced with a cascade

of proliferation.

The nuclear commission--President Obama appointed a number of the Members on the Democratic side--said that if our allies who feel they have been protected by our nuclear umbrella become uncertain, we could be faced with a cascade of proliferation. Is that what we want? I know the President wants nonproliferation. I know that is what he wants. I am not attacking his goal. Throughout my remarks, I am raising the question of whether these goals will be furthered by the actions of this treaty and these policies or whether they will not.

One final concern. The administration has made it clear that this treaty's nuclear reductions are just the first step in a long march to a nuclear-free world. Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, who negotiated the treaty, said in April:

We will also seek to include non-strategic, non-deployed

weapons in future reductions.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and former Ambassador Alexander Vershbow a few weeks ago said that the administration, in follow-on talks, will seek further reductions in strategic, nondeployed, and nonstrategic weapons. And the President has said that repeatedly.

We Senators, in the end, only have our judgment. My best judgment tells me that if our weapons fall too low in numbers, such an event could inspire rogue and dangerous lesser nuclear powers to seek to become peer nuclear competitors to the United States--a dangerous event for the entire world. Thus, I must conclude that the Obama plan is to diminish the power and leadership of the United States. Carefully read, this is what the goal does. I think this conclusion cannot be disputed. The leader of the one nation that has been the greatest force for freedom and stability in the world, with our large nuclear arsenal, is displaying a naivete beyond imagining.

Since this treaty is a calculated step in the President's plan to achieve dangerous and unacceptable policies, this treaty must not be ratified. The treaty and the policy behind it must be rejected.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I object.

Madam President, I appreciate the loyalty of my colleague from Washington for the Boeing facility that is there. I just want to say that other workers are involved, including 48,000 new jobs that would be created if the plant in Alabama were to be the one selected in this competition.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I would note that we voted a number of years ago unanimously to have a competition. There are only two companies in the world that can make this kind of aircraft. It is a commercial aircraft, not a highly sophisticated defense system such as a fighter. The EADS team committed to build that in America--bringing jobs not just to Alabama but jobs all over the Nation, far more around the Nation than just in Alabama--and to create a third major world aircraft facility. Congress asked that the bids be competitively let and that these two competitors be given a chance to submit the best proposal.

I am highly convinced that the EADS aircraft is superior--is larger, it is newer--and more effective in the role it is asked to fulfill.

I will wrap up, briefly, if I could.

Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the chair.

I wish 1 additional minute to wrap up, if I could, and then I will yield the floor.

Madam President, I have the floor, I believe.

Madam President, after this competition has been going on for quite a number of years, and both parties have been very seriously competing for this contract, it is expected to be awarded in March of next year. The Defense Department has considered every one of these issues, including the WTO issue. The lawyers talked about it and we have talked about it in the Senate and the House.

At this very last minute, on the eve of awarding the competition, a House bill was passed without any debate. We have not discussed it or had a hearing on it. It should not be approved. I object.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see my other colleagues. I do wish to talk about one or two judicial nominees, but I want to say first how much I appreciate Senator Specter.

I have had the honor to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Senator Specter the entire time I have been in the Senate--going on 14 years, I guess. No one has a clearer legal mind. The clarity of his thought and expression is always impressive to me. And as someone who practiced law, I see the great lawyer skills he possesses.

Also, I note that he has not just today but throughout his career defended the legitimacy of the powers of the Senate. He was very articulate over the past number of years in criticizing the abuse of filling the tree, where bills can be brought up and amendments are not allowed. He has believed that is an unhealthy trend in the Senate, and he has been one of the most effective advocates in opposition to it.

He sponsored and helped pass the Armed Career Criminal Act. He was one of the leaders in that. Having been a longtime prosecutor in Philadelphia, I like to tease our good friend Senator Leahy that he was a prosecutor, but it was in Vermont. Senator Specter had to deal with a lot of crime in Philadelphia and was consistently reelected there for his effectiveness and is a true source of insight into crime in America and has been an effective advocate for fighting crime.

I note also that he has a good view about a Senator. He respects other Senators. He was talking with me one time or I was sharing with him my concern about a matter, and he used a phrase I heard him use more than once: Well, you are a U.S. Senator. In other words, if you do not like it, stand up and defend yourself. He respected that, even if he would disagree.

I remember another time Senator Specter was on the floor. I had just arrived in the Senate. I wanted him to do something--I have long since forgotten what.

I said: Senator Specter, you could vote for this, and back home, you could say thus and so.

He looked right at me, and he said: Senator, I don't need your advice on how to conduct myself back home politically.

I learned a lesson from that. I never told another Senator that, I say to Senator Specter. Who am I to tell you how to conduct yourself politically back home in the State of Pennsylvania?

Senator Specter chaired the Judiciary Committee during the confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. He was the leading Republican chair at that time. He raised questions about the nominees. But as chairman of the committee, with the votes and support of his Republican colleagues, he protected our rights, he protected our interests. He did not back down one time on any action by the other party that would have denied the ability to move that nomination forward to a vote and protect the rights of the parties on our side.

Those are a few things that come to mind when I think about the fantastic service he has given to the Senate. He is one of our most able Members, one of our most effective defenders of senatorial prerogative and independence, one of our crime fighters without par, and one of the best lawyers in the Senate, a person who is courageous and strong. Even when he was conducting those very intense Alito and Roberts hearings--it was just after he had serious cancer treatment, the chemotherapy. I know he didn't feel well, but he was fabulous in conducting himself at that time. Throughout all of that treatment, his work ethic surpassed by far that of most Senators in this body. It has been an honor to serve with him.

I see my other colleagues. I know Senator Coburn wanted to come down. He was told he might be able to speak around noon.

Senator Specter

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

Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield to the majority leader for that. And if I could ask consent to be recognized afterward. I would note I did have time set aside for these remarks.

Mr. President, I was pleased to yield to the majority leader and just observe that although we do fuss a lot around here, many things are done by agreement. Senator Reid has obviously talked with the Republican leaders and reached this agreement on how we can proceed on some of these matters, and I was pleased to yield to him.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the President's nomination of Mr. William Martinez to the United States District Court for Colorado. I will oppose the nomination, and I have several reasons for doing so. He has a lot of good friends and people who respect him and like him, but we are trying to make a decision about a lifetime appointment to the federal district court. There are some concerns with this nomination that are serious and, in particular, trends of the President to nominate individuals with judicial philosophies outside the mainstream.

There is one reason in particular that concerns me about Mr. Martinez. It is his longtime affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union and the questions we asked him about that were answered insufficiently for me. We have had a number of ACLU nominations. I have supported some and opposed others. The ACLU is a very leftwing organization. It seeks openly to defy the will of the American people in many lawsuits while at the same time they endeavor to undermine and oppose traditions and institutions that make up the very fabric of our culture, our national identity, and who we are as a people, assuming those things are insignificant and only pure philosophical approaches, as they have, of an extreme nature should guide our Nation.

Mr. Martinez has been a member of the ACLU in Colorado for nearly a decade, and since 2006 served on its legal panel. In this role he reviews memorandum prepared by ACLU staff and attorneys and decides whether to pursue litigation, a very significant post in that organization. Of course that is not disqualifying. One can be a member of an organization, even though some of us might not like it or agree with the organization. But any nominee from a conservative organization who takes extreme positions would certainly have to answer those positions and justify why they might take them. Likewise it is fair and appropriate to ask questions about this nominee and about this organization and whether the nominee agrees with them or why, if they don't agree, they are a member.

A lot of people say they didn't agree with this position or that position. I was left asking: Why are you a member? It is on their Web site.

When asked about some of the positions on important issues, he failed to

clearly respond and repeatedly refused to answer questions in a direct and clear manner. For example, at his hearing I asked whether he agreed with the ACLU's position that the death penalty was unconstitutional in all circumstances. He refused to answer. Instead he noted that the Supreme Court has held the death penalty constitutional, adding:

What my view would be as a sitting Federal district judge

is something that would be quite different from my views as a

personal citizen or an advocate or a litigant and member of

the ACLU.

I asked him whether he personally thinks the death penalty violates the Constitution and whether he had ever expressed that view. He again failed to answer, stating only that he had never expressed any view.

So I put the question to him again, and again he did not answer.

Let me stop and say why I think this is a very important issue. The Constitution was passed as a unified document with 10 amendments. The American people ratified it. Some people, in recent years, have come up with the ingenious idea that they could disqualify and eliminate the death penalty without a vote of the people, without the popular will to change laws that exist all over the country. They decided they could change it by finding something in the Constitution that would say the death penalty is wrong, and they reached out to the provision that says you should not have cruel and unusual punishment. They said the death penalty is cruel and unusual and is unconstitutional, which is not sound. Let me be respectful.

Why is that not a sound policy? There are multiple references in the Constitution to a death penalty. It talks about capital crimes, taking life without due process. it is in the Constitution. How could one say, when there are multiple provisions explicitly providing for the death penalty, how could we reach over here and take a position on cruel and unusual punishment which was designed to prevent people from being hung on racks and tortured and that kind of thing? But that is the ACLU position.

This nominee, who is going to be given a lifetime appointment, the power to interpret the Constitution on this very real issue of national import that good lawyers know about, refused to state that the Constitution is clear, that the death penalty is legal.

In fact, I note parenthetically that every Colony, every State had a death penalty at the time, and so did the United States Government. Surely the people, when they ratified it, had no idea that somebody coming along in 2000 would create the view that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty.

I also asked Mr. Martinez whether he agreed with the President's so- called empathy standard, but rather than state flatly that empathy should play no role in decisionmaking, as did Justice Sotomayor when she came up--she flatly said no, a judge has to be impartial; one should decide it on the facts and the law, not on feelings--he said that empathy ``can provide a judge with additional insight and perspective as to the intent and motivations of the parties appearing before the court.'' Empathy, to me, is far too much like politics, far too much like something other than law. It is certainly not law.

When a nominee such as Mr. Martinez, who has dedicated so much time and legal expertise to the ACLU, refuses to answer basic questions about these issues, it is fair and appropriate to conclude that perhaps he agrees with the other positions of the ACLU. I have done a little checking on that.

What is this organization of which he is a member? Some people like the position they take on this issue or that issue. But what overall are some of the policy and legal positions taken by the ACLU? Over the last several decades it has taken positions far to the left of mainstream America and the ideals and values the majority of Americans hold dear. Roger Baldwin, the ACLU's founder, was openly vocal about his support and belief in ``socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.''

He was quoted as saying:

I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the

profited class and sole control by those who produce wealth.

Communism is the goal.

Mr. Baldwin's influence and impact on the ACLU could not be overstated. As former ACLU counsel Arthur Hays says:

The American Civil Liberties Union is Roger Baldwin.

As I mentioned earlier, the ACLU opposes the death penalty under any circumstances, even for child rapists. They filed a brief recently in Kennedy v. Louisiana arguing that a State could not apply the death penalty to a child rapist regardless of the severity of the crime or the criminal history unless the child died from his or her injuries. Here the defendant had raped his own 8-year-old stepdaughter and caused horrific injuries that a medical expert said were the most severe he had ever seen. The defendant had done the same thing to another young girl within the family a few years earlier. Even President Obama, when the case came before the Supreme Court, said he opposed that view. Yet President Obama continues to nominate a host of ACLU lawyers to the Federal bench and presumably has some sort of sympathy with the views they have been taking.

In recent years, the ACLU has litigated on behalf of sex offenders, including suing an Indiana city on behalf of a repeat sex offender who was barred from the city's park after he admitted stalking children who played there. Even though the convicted offender had admitted that he thought about sexually abusing the children in the park, the ACLU sued to give him full access to the park and the children. I agree with the mayor of the city who said:

Parents need to be able to send their children to a park

and know they are going to be safe, not being window shopped

by a predator.

I would hope all nominees would share this view rather than the ACLU's position on the subject. Although many view the ACLU as a neutral defender of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU takes a very selective view of the rights it advocates.

That is just a fact. Otherwise, if they were defending the Constitution and what it says plainly, they would defend the constitutionality of the death penalty. It should not take them 2 seconds to figure that out. They have an agenda.

As it explains on its Web site, the ACLU openly disagreed with the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Heller case--the right to keep and bear arms--in Washington because the ACLU does not believe the second amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. Well, OK. So the lawyers might disagree on that. But if this institution, this ACLU, is so committed to constitutional rights and opposes the power of the State, why would they not read the plain words of the second amendment: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why wouldn't they defend that individual right of free Americans to be armed and oppose the power of the State to take away what has historically been an American right? I think it represents and reveals a political agenda as part of this organization.

It also has a selective view of what exactly is protected by the first amendment. It has done some good work on the first amendment, the ACLU has, but it has gone to great lengths to limit freedom of religion, as provided for in the first amendment, suing religious organizations and groups such as the Salvation Army and even individuals and supported the removal of ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and ``in God we trust'' from our currency. It sued the Virginia Military Institute to stop the longstanding tradition of mealtime prayer for cadets. You do not have to bow your head if you go to lunch and somebody wants to have a prayer. Nobody makes you pray. But if other people want to take a moment before they partake of their meal and, say, acknowledge a bit of appreciation for the blessings they have received, what is wrong with that? I do not believe it violates the first amendment.

The Constitution says that you cannot establish a religion in America, and we cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion either. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause are both in that amendment. But the ACLU only sees one. They see everything as an establishment of religion.

The ACLU has also argued for the removal of religious symbols and scriptures from national parks and monuments and cemeteries that have stood for years regardless of how innocuous they may be.

I am very surprised we do not have the ACLU filing a lawsuit to deal with those words right over that door: ``In God We Trust.'' It won't be long. They will want to send in gendarmes with chisels to chisel it off the wall. It is an extreme view of the first amendment, and has never been part of what we understood the Constitution to be about. The reference in a public forum to a ``higher being'' is not prohibited by the Constitution--except in the minds of some extremists.

So the ACLU has argued for the removal of all vestiges of Christmas, going so far as to sue school districts to bar them from having Santa Claus at school events and threatening to sue if Christmas carols are sung anywhere on school grounds. Give me a break.

In addition, the ACLU has sought to limit or remove the rights of children to salute the U.S. flag, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and openly pray.

It has sued the Boy Scouts--I am honored to have been an Eagle Scout at one time in my life--and government entities that have supported this honorable institution. It has sued them.

It has fought for the rights of child pornographers and against statutes seeking to stop its production and distribution or limit children's exposure to it. The ACLU absolutely not only opposes adult pornography laws, they oppose laws that prohibit child pornography, which is where so much of the problem of pedophilia occurs.

The ACLU has sought to overturn the will of the people by challenging numerous State laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman and has encouraged city mayors across the country to openly defy State law by granting same-sex marriage licenses, even in contradiction to law.

It has vehemently opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, calling it ``a deplorable act of hostility unworthy of the United States Congress.'' That passed a year before I came here--not too long ago. It just said that if one State allows a marriage to be between members of the same sex, another State would not be forced to acknowledge it and recognize it. That is what the Defense of Marriage Act did, and it passed here not too many years ago.

The ACLU has consistently opposed all restrictions on abortion--all restrictions--including partial-birth abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and statutes requiring parental notification before a minor child can have an abortion. If they want to defend the innocent against wrongdoing, what about defending a child partially born whose life is taken from them? The ACLU's extreme advocacy on abortion would force even religious health care providers--doctors and nurses--to perform abortions as a condition of Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement eligibility. A doctor could not say: I will treat you, but I don't do abortions. Oh, if you take Medicare or Medicaid money, then under the ACLU's position, you would have to do so.

According to the ACLU:

There is no basis for a hospital to impose its own

religious criteria on a patient to deny [her] emergency care.

So this type of religious liberty is not, I think, what the Founders said. I do not think a hospital that is founded on personal values and has certain moral values should be required to give them up as a capitulation to State domination, which is what they were asking for actually, having the State be able to tell a hospital that did not believe in abortion.

What about other issues that may come up, such as end-of-life issues. Hospitals ought to be able to have--and doctors and nurses should be able to have moral views about those matters and not do something they think is wrong and not have to give up their practice or their hospital in order to comply with what this group thinks is the right way to do business.

So those are some of the examples of the ACLU's out-of-the-mainstream point of view. It is no secret that this administration shares this kind of legal reasoning. This is, of course, one of a long line of ACLU nominees whom we have seen, and this kind of reasoning and legal thought is well to the left of and out of touch with the American people and, I think, for the most part, established law. It seeks to impose its liberal progressive agenda any way it can, including by filing lawsuits and having judges--unelected lifetime appointed judges who have been popped through the Senate--ratify what the people who filed the lawsuits want to achieve as a matter of policy, not being neutral umpires who adjudicate disputes and decide them narrowly but to try to use the courts as a vehicle to advance an agenda. That is what has really been at the core of the debate in recent years over judicial nominations.

So it is not surprising that many of the President's judicial and executive branch nominees have been deeply involved in the ACLU--many of them. For example, President Obama's first nominee, Judge David Hamilton, who was confirmed to the Seventh Circuit last year, was a leading member of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union for 9 years, where he served as a board member and its vice president for litigation. Judge Gerard Lynch, who now sits on the Second Circuit, was a cooperating attorney and member of the ACLU for 25 years. Judge Rogeriee Thompson, who was confirmed to the First Circuit earlier this year, had been a member of the ACLU for 10 years. Judge Dolly Gee, who now sits on the District Court for the Central District of California, had been a member of the ACLU for 9 years. Carlton Reeves, who was confirmed two days ago to the Southern District of Mississippi, was a member for 12 years and served as a board member.

Three of President Obama's most controversial judicial nominees have had extensive involvement with the ACLU. Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California, was a staff attorney on staff and member of the ACLU of Northern California for 16 years. Goodwin Liu, a professor, one of the most extreme nominees now pending, was nominated to the Ninth Circuit, already the most activist circuit in America. He was a member of the board of directors of the ACLU of northern California for years. Jack McConnell, nominated to the district of Rhode Island, was a volunteer lawyer for the ACLU as recently as last year.

A number of nominees who were recently considered by the Judiciary Committee also have significant ties to the ACLU. Amy Totenberg, nominated to the Northern District of Georgia, has been a member for 21 years. Robert Wilkins, nominated to the District of DC, was also a member. Michael Simon, nominated to the District of Oregon, has been a member since 1986. He served on the lawyers committee and the board of directors and as its vice president for legislation and vice president for litigation.

That is more than I thought when we started going back and looking at this. I am sure less than 1 percent of the lawyers in America are members of the ACLU, but it seems if you have the ACLU DNA, you get a pretty good leg up on being nominated by this President. It is clear the President, our President, a community activist, a liberal progressive, as his own friends have described him, and former law professor is attempting to pack the courts with people who share his views and who will promote his vision of, as he has said about judges, what America ``should be.'' That was his phrase. He said, We want judges who help advance a vision of what America should be.

But that is not good. We all have visions of what America should be. I wish to see us be a more frugal nation, more local government, more individual responsibility. I do not support cradle-to-grave government. His vision is what? That we want judges on the bench promoting an agenda because they were picked by a President who shares that agenda? That is not the classical American heritage of what judges should be about. Judges should take the bench and they should attempt, as objectively as they possibly can, having put on that robe and having taken an oath to do equal justice to the poor and the rich, and to be not a respecter of persons, but to analyze that case objectively and decide it based on the law and the facts, not on their empathy and not on what their vision of what America should be because it may not be what the people's vision is.

Democracy is undermined if a judge gets on the bench and feels that they

can promote visions. I have to tell my colleagues, they are not appointed to be vision promoters. They are appointed to decide the strict matters of law and fact, to the best of the ability the Lord gives them.

We can't stand idly by and allow that heritage of law that benefits us so greatly, the American rule of law and the greatest strength this Nation has, in my opinion, to be altered by promoting a Federal judiciary that is agenda oriented. Any individual--regardless of the position to which they have been nominated, to what kind of court position they are nominated to--who demonstrates unwillingness to subordinate his or her personal views, religious, political, ideological, social, liberal, or conservative. Conservatives can't promote their views, either--if they can't be faithful to the law and the Constitution, they should not be on the bench.

I am not going to support such nominees and no Senator should support them. I have given it a lot of thought. I know Mr. Martinez has had a long affiliation with the ACLU. He refused to give clear answers to these questions I posed to him. I am not convinced that those views, which I think are outside legitimate constitutional theory, have been objected to and are not by Mr. Martinez--indeed, it appears he supports them because he has not with clarity rejected a single one. He has not made any defense to participating in an organization that openly advocates these kinds of legal views.

We ask a lot of the nominees: Do you believe the Constitution prohibits the death penalty? They said, No. Even though they were part of an organization and some of them--a lot--have been confirmed and I have voted for a number of them, but I am not able to vote for this one.

I have to say this: We are paid to judge and to vote, and when it comes down to some of the positions taken by the ACLU--let's take the one that the Constitution prohibits the death penalty--are so extreme and are so nonlegal that if a person can't understand that, I have serious doubt that they can understand any other significant constitutional principle.

Therefore, I have concluded I would not be able to support the nominee, although I respect my colleagues who think he will do well. I certainly don't think he is a bad person. I think he is an able person who has a wonderful background, but his legal history evidences an approach to law that I think is outside the mainstream and I will oppose the nomination. We are not blocking a vote. We will allow him to have his up-or-down vote and Senators will cast their vote based on how they conclude it should be decided.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is there an agreement as to the time?

Mr. President, I would assume the chairman, who will be speaking in favor, would want to go first, and I yield to Senator Leahy.

Mr. President, the two nominees today are nominees who came out of the Judiciary Committee with substantial negative votes. Mr. Martinez is a long-time member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He has refused, when asked at the hearing, by myself and in written questions, to state whether he believes the Constitution of the United States prohibits the death penalty--not whether he believed in it. That is his prerogative. He hid behind the answer that the Supreme Court says it is. But the ACLU holds to the view that the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and, therefore, it is unconstitutional.

He refused to answer that question, and I believe that is an untenable view. There are four references, at least, in the Constitution to the death penalty, and I do not know how somebody could take the cruel and unusual clause to override specific references to the death penalty which was provided for in every Colony and the Federal Government when the Constitution passed.

With regard to the other nominee, Mrs. Benita Pearson, she has some very extreme views on animal rights. When asked by Senator Coburn whether it would be in the best interests of a steer to be slaughtered--she was asked that in the committee--she said probably not in the best interests of the steer, sir. But then you have to look beyond that. I mean, the steer is going to lose its life. It is a painful situation. And steers, evidence has shown, may have some idea or apprehension about the slaughter that is impending. But the next step is, is it necessary to slaughter the steer in order to provide food for those who might otherwise go hungry or perhaps be malnourished without the sustenance that this steer's flesh and hide could provide in terms of clothing and matters necessary for the well-being of animals.

Basically, what I understand this to be is that she is suggesting a court should enter into some sort of balancing test on whether it is legitimate to slaughter a steer, and also she is a member of the ALDF, the defense of animals group, that is very extreme in its views.

For that reason, the National Cattleman's Beef Association and the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition strongly oppose the nomination. I think her views on this issue are out of the mainstream.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. President, Mr. Martinez, I know, has a lot of good supporters and friends, as I have noted. But he did refuse to answer a simple question of whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the death penalty, which I believe the ACLU, of which he was a member and a member of the legal panel, definitely favored.

I do believe Judge Pearson's view that somehow there should be a balancing test about whether we should actually slaughter a steer based on the need for food or hide is an extreme view also.

We have had about 15 members of the ACLU confirmed by this administration. But we expect this President to submit mainstream judges. The ACLU is not mainstream in its positions. I do believe the administration needs to understand that this is going to be a more contentious matter if we keep seeing the ACLU chromosome as part of this process.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

It is agreeable to me.

Madam President, I wish to take a brief moment to express my pleasure in the fact that the continuing resolution that passed and will now be going to the House had within it a provision to allow the Navy to award the littoral combat ship competition to two of the bidders. It took a bit of a modification of the procedure to allow them to do that. It is a product of good news.

At one point in the late nineties, I chaired the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. I have been a member of it. I have seen the development of the littoral combat ship concept. ADM Vern Clark determined it was the future of the Navy. We expect to have 55 of them in the fleet. They would be manned by only 40 sailors. They would be high speed, able to travel in shallow waters, and be effective for pirates or be effective for mine sweeping and other activities of that nature.

The House put in this language. We had a hearing in the committee a few days ago with Admiral Roughead and Navy officials, Secretary of the Navy Mabus, and representatives from the CRS, GAO and CBO--those ABC agencies that evaluate these kinds of proposals--and it has moved forward.

I thank Senator Levin for his leadership. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran on our side and the House leaders also who saw fit to support the Navy's idea. It is not a plan I suggested, but it is one I believe is good.

The good news is this was enabled by the fact that as a surprise, the bids on the ships were very much below what was anticipated. The legislation required that the bids come in under $480 million per ship, and it looks as if these bids are going to be at $450 million. By having both shipyards go forward, the Navy gets a fixed price today. In other words, if aluminum goes up or electricity goes up, the shipyards are going to eat it. We will bring on both ships at the same time.

Not only that, but we would get 20 ships total in this first tranche of ships rather than 19. In addition to that, the Navy scores that it will save $1 billion, and that $1 billion they hope to apply to other ships the Navy needs in their 313-ship Navy of the future.

Ashton Carter, the DOD's acquisition executive, said:

The U.S. Navy's recent decision to buy both classes of

Littoral Combat Ship due to lower than expected bid prices is

an example of what good competition can do.

It was a competitive bid. I think the Navy may have made a mistake in not allowing more benefit to the bidders based on how valuable the ship was, the total value, but they made it a rigorous cost competition and apparently got very good bids. The average bids were, as I said, $450 million.

The Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Gary Roughead, on December 14--a few days ago--testified before the Armed Services Committee. He said:

I think the two different types [of ships] give us a

certain amount of flexibility, versatility that one would

not, and as I talked earlier about this ability to mix the

capabilities of a force that we put in there.

This may have been when I asked a question about it at that same hearing. He said:

I . . . believe that the designs of the ships and the

flexibility of the ships . . . and also the cost of these

ships open up potential of foreign military sales that would

otherwise not be there.

In other words, not only could we create jobs, perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 jobs immediately, but many of our allies, with the approval of the Defense Department, might want to buy these ships for their fleets, and we would have the ability to export these products abroad.

Having been involved in seeing the vision of the Navy over a decade plus and to see that finally come to fruition is good. One Navy official was quoted in one of the major publications as saying the nature of these competitions is such there be a 100-percent chance of a protest, whichever one won the bid, and one reason is because the bid was so close. We will avoid a protest and will be able to move forward, get the ships faster, lock in the lowest possible cost, clearly lower than what would be otherwise, and maybe even be able to save enough money to build an even larger ship with it.

I thank my colleagues who worked on this issue. I believe it will be a good thing. One of the ships will be built in my hometown of Mobile, AL. I know how excited the workers at the shipyards will be to hear they will have jobs in the future producing one of the finest, most modern warships in the history of the Navy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, would the Senator yield for a moment?

Madam President, I want to make a 1-minute comment about a Navy fellow who has been in my office. I am reluctant to interrupt, but the Senator is so eloquent, I know he can handle the interruption almost better than anybody else.

CDR Brent Breining has been assigned to my office for the year by the Navy. I hope it has been beneficial to him. I think it has been. It has certainly been beneficial to us on a host of matters. He is a man of ability, of integrity and hard work, and he symbolizes the kind of bright young men and women we have so many of in our military. I wanted to take this moment to express my appreciation for his fabulous service.

I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for letting me interrupt him.

A Navy officer, yes.

Mr. President, I agree with Senator Kyl and support the Risch amendment. I remember at a NATO conference not too many years ago President Bush was advocating for Georgia being a member of NATO, to show you how serious these matters are. So had we voted to bring Georgia into NATO--and they were on the short list--we would be in a situation in which the Russians would be invading a NATO country. The act of Russia invading Georgia was a dramatic event.

The proponents of the treaty portrayed this matter as advancing our relationship with Russia. I think Senator Kerry has been not so aggressive--that hasn't been one of his themes. But a lot of people have, and I think he was wise not to go down that road.

A lot of people have tried to say we are going to get along with Russia better by signing this treaty with them. That is not a sound basis to sign a treaty. We all need a better relationship with Russia. That I certainly acknowledge. Georgia would certainly benefit from it, and hopefully the world will have a better relationship with Russia.

But I am unable to fathom a lot of the Russian activities, frankly. It is just difficult for me. Why have they negotiated so hardheadedly on this treaty to actually reduce the number of inspections over what we had in the previous treaty? Why? I thought Russia was about wanting to move forward into the world and be a good citizen in the world community. I haven't seen it. I am worried about it.

So the question is, if we abandon or concede too much, are we helping develop a positive relationship? I think Senator Risch is saying: Look, we have a serious problem. They are holding our military equipment. Are we not even going to discuss that?

How do we get to a more positive relationship with our Russian friends? I think the people of Russia are our friends. How do we get there? Is it through strength, constancy, consistency, principle, and position, or is it through weakness, placating, concession, and appeasing? Is that the way to gain respect and move us into a healthier relationship? I don't think so.

I think we have only one charge, and that is to defend our legitimate interests. I believe this administration has been too fixed on a treaty, and, as one observer and former treaty negotiator has said: If you want it bad, you will get it bad. In other words, if you want the treaty too badly, you won't be an effective negotiator. I remember during this process, on more than one occasion, warning and expressing concern to our negotiators that we appeared to be too anxious to obtain this treaty and, if so, the Russians would play us like a fiddle. I am afraid that is what has happened.

I think this Congress would do the President, the world, Russia, and our country a service if we said what Senator Risch says: OK, guys, how about letting our equipment be sent back. If you are not willing to do that, then we have a serious problem.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I will share one thought I remember so vividly before Russia invaded Georgia. We were at a NATO conference. There was a discussion outside the normal meeting. One weak-kneed, I suppose, European explained to the Georgians why it was difficult for the other nations to support Georgia in their idea to be in NATO and suggested it was difficult because Russia was a big and powerful country.

The Georgian replied--and I have never forgotten it--saying: Well, sir, we think it is a question of values. Mr. Putin said last year the greatest disaster of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. We in Georgia believe it was the best thing that happened in the 20th century. It is a question of values. We share your values. We want to be with you.

I have to say it is deeply troubling to me that our Russian friends are being so recalcitrant and so aggressive and so hostile to sovereign states such as Georgia, the Ukraine, the Baltics, and Poland. They used to be a part of the Soviet empire. They are now sovereign nations, independent in every way.

Conceding, as part of these negotiations, the deployment of a ground- based interceptor missile defense system in Poland to comply with Russian demands during this treaty process was a terrible thing, especially when we did not even tell our friends in the sovereign nation of Poland we intended to do it before we announced it with the Russians.

The Senator is just raising a reality. I say to Senator Risch, we have some problems here, and we might as well put it out on the table, be realistic about it, and take off the rose-colored glasses. This amendment is one way to say let's get serious and talk with our Russian friends about some serious difficulties we have.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would ask to be advised after 4 minutes have lapsed.

Mr. President, I think Senator Risch is correct and Senator Chambliss is correct to make the point that tactical nuclear weapons are more available for theft and to transship than strategic nuclear weapons, and it is a high priority of the United States to reduce the risk of terrorists obtaining weapons of this kind, and this treaty does nothing about that. It does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons, which the Russians do care about.

It is a big part, apparently, of their defense strategy, and they gave not one whit on it; whereas our President, who says he wants to move toward zero nuclear weapons in the world--a fantastical view, really, and one that endangers our country and would create instability around the world and create more national security risks--did not negotiate this in any effective way. I think that was a failure of the treaty, a failure of negotiations, and another example of the fact that we wanted the treaty too badly for what, I guess, are primarily public relations matters rather than substantive matters. That is just the way I see it.

So the Russians have been steadily reducing their strategic weapons, we are reducing ours, and this strategic relationship has been moving along. There does not have to be a treaty. We would like to have a treaty. I think the Russians would probably like to have a treaty. But it is not essential that we have one if they will not agree to some of the things that are important, such as tactical nuclear weapons. I do think this is a weakness in the treaty, and I am disappointed our negotiators didn't insist on it.

As Mr. Feith said, who negotiated with the Russians, and they made a number of demands on a previous negotiation over the SORT treaty in 2002: You just have to say no, and then you can move forward once the Russians know we are not going to give. But they will push, push, push until they are satisfied you are not going to give on it, and then they will make a rational decision at that point whether to go forward with the treaty or not go forward with the treaty.

He said no on curtailment of missile defense in 2002. The Russians insisted, insisted, insisted, and he said, finally, no treaty.

We don't have a treaty with China, we don't have one with England, we don't have one with India, and they have nuclear weapons. We don't have to have one. We would like to, but we don't have to. At that point the Russians conceded and agreed. So I don't think we negotiated this well at all. We do not need to continue with this large disparity of tactical weapons between the United States and Russia, and I appreciate Senator Risch's raising it.

I will perhaps talk a little later about the national missile defense question in President Obama's letter, but President Obama's letter----

On my time or yours?

I am not giving up any of mine. I want to finish this 1 minute on the subject of the President's letter.

What it fails to acknowledge is that we were on the cusp of implanting a GBI in Europe by 2016, and that was completely given up in the course of these negotiations. This is the same missile we have in the ground in Alaska and California. That was given up, and we are now proceeding with a phase four theory that might be completed by 2020, if Congress appropriates the money for the next five Congresses and some President who is then in office--not President Obama 10 years from now--is still supportive and pushes it through and Congress passes it.

So this is a big mistake. We made a major concession on national missile defense and even put words in the treaty that compromise our ability to do the new treaty. The statement from Putin that we will be obliged to take action in response did not say just GBI; it also referred to the capabilities of an SM-3 Block IIB, which would be what the President said is going to be deployed in 2020.

I thank the Chair, I thank Senator Risch, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, essential to America's greatness, I truly believe, is our respect for the rule of law. The American people understand this. For years, they have asked Congress and the President to secure the borders and to enforce our immigration laws, but for years Congress has refused to do that. Indeed, as part of this legislative session, there has been no serious movement to do anything that would improve the grievous situation of illegality at our borders. So what we have is contrary to that today, when we will be dealing with the DREAM Act. Leaders in Washington have not only tolerated lawlessness but, in fact, our policies have encouraged it. Americans living near the border are the ones who often pay the steepest price. Illegal drugs, guns, people pour into States such as Arizona and Texas every day. Phoenix has turned into the kidnapping capital of the world. Ranchers in the southern part of the State are forced to accept chaos as a part of their daily lives. Smugglers, traffickers stream across their properties, homes are broken into, livestock killed, families placed in danger. Our government has failed in its duty to protect these citizens in the peaceful possession of their property.

Consider the fate of Robert Krentz, the son of one of Arizona's oldest ranching families working land that had been in the family 100 years. His home had been robbed, their livestock slaughtered. On the night of March 27, he went to mend a fence and check his water line. He reached his brother on the radio to say he was helping someone he believed to be illegally entering the country--helping them--and that was the last time anyone heard from Mr. Krentz. He was found several hours later, shot dead.

The death of Robert Krentz is sadly just one of the many tragedies that could have been avoided if the Federal Government had done its job. Instead, when Arizona tried to support the Federal immigration authorities, they were sued by Attorney General Holder, and the Department of Justice said stay out.

They were sued for trying to protect themselves because the Federal Government would not. Yet here we are in the final days of a lameduck-- some say dead duck--Congress considering a bill that would create a major problem to the effective enforcement of immigration laws. People are not happy with us, Mr. President.

I had a little recognition and recalled in the shower this morning a little event with Oliver Cromwell with the long Parliament in England. He said:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in

this place. You have grown intolerably odious to the whole

nation. In the name of God, go.

I don't think we are odious around here, but I think the American people are not happy with us. I think it is time for us to quit trying to move political bills in a way that is not appropriate, not through the regular process.

The American people are pleading with Congress to enforce our laws. But this bill is a law that, at its fundamental core, is a reward for illegal activity. It is the third time we have tried to schedule a vote on it, and during this lameduck session it is the fifth version of this legislation that has been introduced in the past 2 months. Not one of these bills has gone through committee. Not one of them is subject to amendment.

The House passed a bill after 1 hour of debate, having announced it being brought up 1 day before. In fact, the version we are now considering is the same one that was rammed through the House.

The majority leader has filled the tree. So, once again, the legislation cannot be amended.

For 2 years, Democratic leaders have ignored the public. They have rammed

through a lot of unpopular legislation, and sometimes--and too often-- the process has been skirted, and it has not been healthy for the Republic, which is one reason people have not been happy with it.

So we are at it again, in these last hours, attempting to force through legislation that is not acceptable to the people.

Proponents of the DREAM Act are sincere, and they insist this is a limited bill for young children of illegal immigrants who graduate from high school, get a college degree, and join the military. But the facts of the legislation are different. The DREAM Act would grant legislation to millions of illegal aliens, regardless of whether they go to or finish college or high school or serve in the military. It is certainly not limited to children. It would apply to people here illegally who are as old as 30. Because the bill has no cap or sunset, they will remain eligible at any future time.

Mr. President, I know my good friend, Senator Durbin, who is such an able advocate, challenged me last night, or my staff, saying we were incorrect in saying that the Secretary of HHS would have the ability to waive some of the requirements in the bill. Just for my staff's sake, I want to read this part of the bill. He said it wasn't in there. My staff explained to his staff why they thought it was in there. The waiver section states:

The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of

deportability under paragraph 1 of section 237(a) for

humanitarian purposes or family unity.

Maybe we can disagree how that might all be played out, but I think that is clearly a waiver provision in the bill.

The amnesty provision--and this is an amnesty bill, because it provides every possible benefit, including citizenship, to those who are in the country illegally, and I think that is a fair definition of amnesty. The amnesty provisions are so broad that they are open to those who have had multiple criminal convictions of up to two misdemeanors--just not three--and many criminal cases that are felonies are pled down to misdemeanors, including certain sex offenses, drunk driving, and drug offenses.

But the bill goes further, offering a safe harbor to those with pending applications, even if they pose some risk to the country. In other words, if you have filed and sought protection under the act, this can stay any action against you in any deportation proceedings.

I think it is particularly dangerous because the safe harbor would apply to those even from terror-prone regions in the Middle East. In fact, the DREAM Act altogether ignores the lessons of 9/11, going so for as to open up eligibility to those who previously defrauded immigration authorities, provided false documentation, as did many of the 9/11 hijackers on their visa applications.

Some have suggested this should not be a debate about policy but instead about compassion. But good policy, faithfully followed, is compassion. I ask my friends who support the legislation, what is compassionate about ignoring the public wishes and forcing people to live with a lawless border and a lawless immigration system that must be reformed and Congress refuses to reform? I ask them, is it compassionate to put illegal aliens in front of the line, ahead of those who have patiently waited and played by the rules? Is it compassionate to act in a way that undermines the integrity and consistency of our legal system--a system that is so important to our prosperity and liberty?

The message from the public has never been in doubt. Before we consider regular status for anyone living here illegally, we first must secure the border. My friend, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, has spoken on this for a half dozen years. When he speaks, he has a sign behind him that says ``border security first.'' That is what Senator McCain has said. He has been a champion of immigration reform. He says he has come to understand with clarity that we must have security first.

That is what the American people have told us, I am convinced. If we do not do those actions first, if we pass this amnesty, we will signal to the world that we are not serious about the enforcement of our laws or our borders. It will say that you can make plans to bring in your brother, sister, cousin, nephew, and friends into this country illegally as a teenager, and there will be no principled reason in the future for the next Congress then sitting to not pass another DREAM Act. It will only be a matter of time before that next group that is here illegally will make the same heartfelt pleas we hear today.

It is time to end the lawlessness, not surrender to it. It is time to end the lawlessness that is occurring. This is a decisive vote. I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless bill and commit ourselves, as a nation, to creating an immigration system that is just and lawful and that befits a nation as great as ours.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining that I have not used that has been allocated to the Republicans be divided as follows, and not necessarily in this order: Senator McCain, 10 minutes; Senator Chambliss, 5; Senator Inhofe, 10; Senator Kyl, 5.

Mr. President, we have it within our power to fix the broken immigration system. Last year, approximately 600,000 people were arrested entering our country illegally. That is lower than it has been, but a determined leadership from the President, from the Congress, can, within a matter of 1 or 2 years, end this problem, and then we can begin to wrestle with the difficult question of those who have been in our country for some time.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, under the previous discussion we had, I had been authorized to use 15 of our 45 minutes, and I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes.

I assume this will be counted against our time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would ask to be notified after 6 minutes.

I wish to thank Senator Kyl and Senator McCain for their leadership on this issue and state that I believe the McCain amendment is perhaps the most critical amendment that will be raised during this debate because the future of missile defense is critically important for America.

I chaired the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces in the Armed Services Committee. I have been the ranking member of the subcommittee and a member of the committee for 12 years, and I know all of the history on this issue. It has gone on for a great deal of time.

I believe missile defense is critical to our national security. We have invested billions of dollars over 30-plus years developing it, and now that we are actually deploying it in Alaska and California, it is proving to be a shield that will work.

We had plans for a long time to deploy a site in Central Europe. The Bush administration negotiated with the Poles and Czechoslovakia. They signed agreements that they would allow a radar base in the Czech Republic and a missile base in Poland.

When President Obama was elected, the Russians immediately started pushing back on our missile defense plans for reasons I have never fully understood. We are only talking about 10 defensive missiles against hundreds--hundreds, maybe thousands--of Russian missile and launch vehicles. It would in no way threaten their power. Some experts--and I am inclined to agree--thought it related more to the Russian concern about us having a defense relationship with Czechoslovakia and Poland, but I don't know. For some reason, it has been a big deal for them.

They have pushed back very hard. From the Bush administration, Doug Feith, in a Wall Street Journal article recently said--he negotiated in 2002--that they pushed back on it at that time. They said they would not sign a treaty unless we agreed not to proceed with missile defense. He said no deal. They insisted, and he said no deal. They said: We won't have a treaty if you don't agree. He said: Well, we won't have a treaty. We don't have a treaty with England, India, Pakistan, China, or France, who have nuclear weapons. We don't have to have a treaty with you. We are bringing our numbers down anyway, and you are, too. We would like to have a treaty, but we are not going to limit our missile defense. The Russians signed that treaty.

Now we come and they start the same bluster against the Obama administration, which, unfortunately, gave in. These negotiations started early in the year. The treaty negotiations started in March of 2009. By September of 2009, President Obama unilaterally announced, to the shock of our Polish and Czech allies, that we were not going forward with the Polish site--much to the delight of the Russians, who had achieved a significant victory in a negotiating point that had gone on for many years.

So to say that this treaty has nothing to do with missile defense is not correct. Did the Russians say, thank you, we will be glad to work with you on the treaty? No, they still wanted language in the treaty that put them in a position to walk away from this treaty any time they wanted to if we deployed a missile defense system in Europe. They got it in there, in the preamble. It leaves not just an ambiguity, as I said earlier, it is a misunderstanding, or a disagreement of a central issue. Repeated Russian statements indicate they believe that if we move forward quantitatively or qualitatively with a missile defense system, then they would have a right to get out of the treaty.

I can hear what would happen in the Senate if we start deploying a missile defense system in Europe. A lot of our colleagues would say: If we do that, the Russians will get out of the treaty. We can't do that. It will make it difficult.

In addition, the system we were going to deploy was a GBI two-stage missile in central Europe, Poland. The President stopped this. It was ready and able to be deployed by 2016. It is the same system we have in the United States, except it is two-stage instead of three. The National Intelligence Estimate shows that Iran can reach the United States with a ICBM, and now they are developing nuclear weapons, and they can do it by 2015. We were trying to get this system in by 2016. When they canceled this, it caused an uproar. The White House said: Don't worry, we have a new plan--one I had never heard about. We are going to do an SM-3 Block 2B. We are working on it. Well, have you started? No. Is it under development? We just conjured this up. It is a bigger, rounder missile than the existing SM-3, and it is quite different.

I thank the Chair. It is a different thing. It would be ready only by 2020. So I contend that this administration, as part of the negotiations over this treaty, in their too-anxious-desire to get this treaty, to reset the relationship with the Russians, which we of course want to do, made a very serious error in capitulating on the third site--sending shock waves among our sovereign nation allies in Central Europe, which used to be a part of the Soviet empire. They have made concessions that are significant.

As a matter of fact, they pretend it had nothing to do with the treaty, but I would say there is no doubt that the abandonment of the Polish site was a way to gain support of the Russians as part of the negotiations in this treaty. And we now have this ephemeral, chimeric vision of a 2020 entirely new missile system for Poland that may or may not ever reach fruition.

Those are my concerns. The McCain amendment would say let's get this straight with the Russians and make Congress know that if it requires a new negotiation with the Russians, so be it. Maybe we can reach an understanding. You could never enter into a treaty or any contract in which the parties have a serious misunderstanding or actual disagreement on a critical part.

I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of the time on this side.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I wish to share a few thoughts with my colleagues. I think if they knew the basis for the objection I have, they would be supportive of it, and I do object.

Mr. President, let me say, with regard to this legislation, I have supported free trade probably more than my colleagues. I believe in the Andean Trade Agreement that is a part of this. I support the trade assistance that is in the bill and would be glad to remove my objections to them if they wish to move forward with that.

But I have worked for 2 years to try to obtain a simple justice to close a loophole in the tariff laws that has impacted and will close a sleeping bag textile manufacturer in my State. It is in Haleyville, in Winston County, AL. It is in northwest Alabama. It is a poor county. They have a great history. They call it ``the free State of Winston.'' They claim they seceded from the State of Alabama during the Civil War, and most of their public officials from then until today remain Republicans. But they are an independent, hard-working people. This bill, as written, will close that plant, and it should not happen.

I want to share with you the Chamber of Commerce, NAM and the AFL-CIO have been made aware of this, as we have discussed it over the past years, and they believe this company should receive some relief. But the people who put the bill together did not. And I am very much of the belief--I know my colleagues are--that when you have good people in your State who are being put out of business by a company that was moved to Bangladesh to try to capture this loophole--it is not a little matter.

These are human beings. As I said, I do believe in trade. I think it is best for the world. But I would say to my colleagues, we have to have fair trade. We have to have just trade. And nations around the world, I think, have taken advantage of the overconfidence of the United States in our economy that they can cheat on agreements and manipulate agreements and close down businesses in the United States, and that somehow we are going to pass on by, and that eventually we will get to the point where we just have banking and hospitals in this country.

But manufacturing is an important part of our economy. This company has been able to withstand competition from China and has been successful. But they cleverly figured out how to move it to Bangladesh, using 85 percent Chinese products, and shipping it to the United States and getting around the small tariff that makes a difference between success and failure.

I plead with my colleagues to consider the justice of this matter. Move your bill. I do not think there is any real substantive objection to it. The U.S. Trade Representative expressed a lot of sympathy for this situation, and I thought somewhere the bureaucrats and the politicians were going to put together a bill that would grant relief so this company would have a chance to continue to be very competitive. They are modern, have high-tech equipment, sewing equipment, good employees. They pay them health care and benefits far more than they are paid anywhere else in the world. And they can still win except for this loophole.

I am at a point where I am not going to go for it anymore. I am not going to stand by and allow nations to cheat on their trade agreements and manipulate trade agreements that, in effect, destroy our industries. I am aware that the Smoot-Hawley trade agreement was part of the Depression. I know all that argument, and I am not against free trade. But I am telling you, we need to stand and defend our industries. I know both of my colleagues share that.

I want to say, I feel strongly about it. I believe this is just. And I think this bureaucracy, this Senate, this Congress, ought to listen to what we are saying and give us some relief. Otherwise, I would be willing to move the parts of the legislation that are not directly relevant to this.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I will be glad to discuss it with my colleague, but I would note that the exemption I am concerned about goes to Third World countries. They are given, under the generalized system of preferences, or GSP, the right to import pretty much duty- free, but it comes with a crucial condition. That condition is that you do not get to import into the United States under this zero tariff if you are competing with American companies and American jobs--unemployed

Americans. If we don't have that manufacturing in the United States, they get this exemption. This is a loophole they achieved under the tariff rules by calling a sleeping bag not a textile, and it is a textile and it should be covered by this. That is all I am saying.

I would ask my colleagues, isn't it true that if the leadership of both parties agree to this amendment, there is plenty of time for it to be accepted, go back to the House, and be passed before we recess? That is what I would ask to be done.

I thank Senator Brown and Senator Casey. I do believe that is possible, and I think maybe there is a growing belief that somewhere in this debate about trade, we can reach a common accord across the aisle that, yes, we want to have trade, we want to expand trade that can benefit America, but at the same time we have to not unnecessarily destroy American jobs, and this little part of it is damaging. I tried last year. We spent a year talking about this. It is not something that just got sprung on the floor here at this moment. I think there is a way out of it.

I thank the Senators for being openminded today.