Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, 4 minutes is not adequate for my amendment. There are a couple of speakers, including the cosponsor, Senator Barrasso.

Is that agreeable to the manager?

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the time would be either on the don't ask, don't tell or the START treaty.

I thank the Chair.

How much time do I have?

I will reserve at least the last 3 minutes for my colleague, Senator Kyl.

As we all know, we will vote very quickly on the amendment to the New START treaty. I have offered this amendment along with the Senator from Wyoming, and this amendment is an important and seminal one. It is focused on a key flaw in the treaty--the inclusion in the preamble of the following clause. I wish to read it in full. We have read it before, and I don't understand how the letter the Senator from Massachusetts just read would not then force us to negate this part of the treaty, which says:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between

strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that

this interrelationship will become more important as

strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and the current strategic

defensive arms do not undermine the viability and

effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

This language carries a lot of historical significance and strategic weight because it recognizes an interrelationship between nuclear weapons and missile defense. Some believe this type of linkage was appropriate during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union were existential enemies, with the means to annihilate each other. But it is not appropriate for today, when the United States and the Russian Federation, for all our differences, are not devoted to one another's destruction and when one of the greatest threats to our national security comes from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, which are developing nuclear weapons and increasingly better means to deliver them. In today's world, with so many new and constantly evolving threats, the United States can't be limited in the development, deployment, and improvements of missile defense systems that we deem to be in our national security interest.

I am concerned, as are many of my colleagues, that the Russian Government believes this clause from the preamble confers a legal obligation on the United States which constrains our missile defenses. Ever since President Reagan proposed a Strategic Defense Initiative, the Russians have sought to limit our strategic defensive arms. They have sought to limit our missile defense programs through legal obligations, and failing that, with political commitments or agreements that could be cited to confer future obligations. Words matter. Words matter.

To open ourselves to this type of political threat by accepting an outdated interrelationship between nuclear weapons and missile defense is wrong. Furthermore, by saying that ``current'' missile defenses do not undermine the treaty's viability and effectiveness, this clause from the treaty's preamble establishes that future missile defense deployments could undermine the treaty, thereby establishing a political threat the Russian Federation could use to try to constrain U.S. missile defenses. In short, we have handed the Russian Government the political tool they have sought for so long to bind our future decisions and actions on strategic defensive arms.

Imagine a world, a few years from now, when--God forbid--an Iran or North Korea or some other rogue state has developed and deployed longer range ballistic missiles and a deployable nuclear capability much earlier than we assessed. Imagine we are faced with a situation where unforeseen events compel us, for the sake of our national security and that of our allies, to improve our current systems or to develop and deploy new systems in order to counter a new and far greater threat than we expected. Then consider what the Russian Federation said in a unilateral statement at the signing of the treaty.

This is the statement of the Russian Federation--something that if the Senator from Massachusetts is correct, we should be able to clarify by asking for a statement from the Russian Federation repudiating what they said at the time of the signing statement. This is what they said:

The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United

States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and

Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed at Prague on

April 8, 2010, may be effective and viable only in conditions

where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the

missile defense system capabilities of the United States of

America.

That is clear language. That is clear, unequivocal language, and I will repeat it:

. . . where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup

in the missile defense system capabilities of the United

States of America. Consequently, the extraordinary events

referred to in Article XIV of the Treaty also include a

buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the

United States of America such that it would give rise to a

threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the

Russian Federation.

That is a very clear statement. It is unequivocal as to what the Russian Federation is saying. One of the things Senator Graham and I and others have said is: Hey, why don't we just drop a letter to the Russian Ambassador or to Vlad or whomever and ask them, clarify this, will you? Are you standing by your statement you made at the signing? Is that the Russian Federation's official policy that has not been revoked?

This is the Russian interpretation of what our two governments have agreed to in the preamble. They seem to believe this clause limits U.S. missile defense systems. They seem to believe the language in this clause about ``the effectiveness and viability of the Treaty'' means that any buildup or improvement in U.S. missile defense systems would undermine the treaty.

They seem to believe there is a clear and legally binding connection between what was agreed to in this clause of the preamble and article XIV of the treaty, which establishes the rights of the parties to withdraw from the treaty and the conditions under which they may do so.

In short, the Russian Government seems to believe this nonbinding political agreement is the pretext for a legal obligation under the treaty itself, and if the United States builds up its missile defense, Russia will withdraw from the treaty.

Let's listen to what the Russian leaders have said. I mean, this is not made up. This is what they have said.

The Russian Foreign Minister, on March 28, 2010--this year--said this:

The treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only

within the context of the levels which are now present in

the sphere of strategic defensive weapons.

What could be more clear? Here he says again, in April of 2010--April this year.

Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the

accord and is legally binding.

I mean, if there is any clarification for that statement from the preamble, he just gave it--at least what the Russian version is.

Here is President Dmitry Medvedev on November 30--18 days ago.

Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create

a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to

a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of

the arms race. We will have to make a decision to deploy new

strike systems.

Finally, here is Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on ``Larry King Live.'' Larry, we will miss you. I have quoted him so many times. This was on ``Larry King Live'' on December 1, 2010.

If the counter missiles will be deployed in the year 2012

along our borders, or [2015], they will work against our

nuclear potential there, our nuclear arsenal. And certainly

that worries us. And we are obliged to take some actions in

response.

This is a troubling situation. And it must be corrected by this body. Let me quote again from the recent op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the Wall Street Journal:

The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying

this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold

War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New

START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes

the interrelationship of the two.

Now that is a statement by our former Secretary of State, who, by the way, wants this treaty ratified, but she also wants us to fix this. This amendment fixes it--this amendment.

I appreciate the letter from the President of the United States. I am very grateful for it. But the fact is, letters are letters and Presidents don't last forever. But binding treaties do, until they are either broken or they are revoked. To have right in the beginning, at the preamble, a clear and unequivocal statement that any improvement in our defensive weapon missile systems will then be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty is not anything we should let stand.

The simplest way--

I thank the Chair. Let me finish.

The Senator from Wyoming and I are proposing the amendment which will simply strike the language from the preamble itself. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: What is the parliamentary situation as it exists on the floor at this time?

Is there not other business before the Senate at this time?

What about the filing of petitions for cloture on what is known as don't ask, don't tell and what is known as the DREAM Act?

That is part of the legislative session and we are in executive session.

But time is still pending on the matters in legislative session; is that correct?

I understand. So here we are, the date is Friday, December 17, and we are on the START treaty, a treaty--any treaty is a serious matter before the Senate. This is of the utmost seriousness. Meanwhile, there is a cloture motion.

Will the Parliamentarian please correct me. Both these that the time is running on are both privileged messages, which means there is no vote on the motion to proceed; is that correct?

What, we are about 6 weeks after the last election, now discussing the START treaty, and I will have an amendment I will be proposing in a moment that I think is important. Meanwhile, two other issues, both of which are very controversial, cloture has been filed on and the clock is running.

There are also threats that we may have, again, other votes on things such as relief for the New York 9/11 people, the firefighters issue, and a couple others. Online gambling has been mentioned in the media as one of the majority leader's proposals.

Again, here we are. People spoke clearly on November 2. It was, in the words of the President of the United States, a ``shellacking.''

What are we doing on December 17? We are in one session of the Senate, the executive session. Meanwhile, the legislative session will go on. Who knows what issue the majority leader will bring--another issue before the Senate, maybe get a couple more privileged messages from the other side, file it, run the clock, 30 hours, and then force the Members of this body, of which there will be five additional Members beginning January 5--and at the same time my friend from Massachusetts and the President of the United States and proponents of the treaty are saying: Put partisanship aside, put your concerns aside, trust us because this is very important for the Nation.

What possible good does it do when the majority leader continues to bring up issues and force us to have votes on them, which is clearly in keeping with the majority on the other side's political agenda? It is kind of a remarkable situation.

I have been around this body for quite some years. I have not seen a degree and intensity of partisanship that I see today in the Senate. All of us want to do what is right for the country. That is why this START treaty deserves serious consideration. It deserves serious consideration by itself. But this body operates in an environment of cooperation and comity. That very much is not in existence today.

We will then, tomorrow, I take it--on Saturday we will go off the executive calendar, onto the legislative calendar, force votes on these two very controversial issues, and then maybe, if it moves him so, the majority leader will bring up another issue as he has in the past to force votes, most of which of those votes he knows very clearly will not succeed but will give him and the other side some kind of political advantage. That was not the message of the last election.

So I think a number of us are growing weary of this on this side of the aisle. We are just growing weary. And we believe the people of this country spoke--in the words of the President of the United States: a shellacking--and we ought to perhaps keep the government in operation, go home, and, in less than 2 weeks or a little over 2 weeks, let the newly elected Members of Congress on both sides of the Capitol address many of these issues.

Now, I do not know if we will get through all the amendments and all of the debate that a solemn treaty deserves before the Senate. I really hope we can. I would also remind my friend from Massachusetts that my colleague from Arizona, certainly the most respected person on this issue on this side of the aisle, has offered a date certain of January 25, with a final vote on February 3, to the other side. That, obviously, has not been acceptable to them. By the way, that would be with the input of the newly elected Senators, not of those who are leaving.

So I look forward to continuing this debate and discussion. And who knows what other issue the majority leader may bring before the Senate--maybe a privileged message again, which would only then require one cloture vote, and we will then be forced to take another politically impactful vote.

So I tell my colleagues that we are getting tired of it. We grow weary. And it is not that we want to ``be home for Christmas.'' I spent six Christmases in a row away from home. But what it is about is responding to the American people.

Yesterday, the American people, in a resounding victory for those who voted November 2, rejected the Omnibus appropriations bill. I believe some of the issues before the Senate deserve the participation of the newly elected Members of the Senate and House.

Amendment No. 4814

(Purpose: To amend the preamble to strike language regarding the

interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic

defensive arms)

So, Mr. President, at this time, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, I call up amendment No. 4814.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso. It has been a great privilege for me, since he has been a Member of the Senate, to be with him side by side in a number of battles.

I am particularly proud of the work Senator Barrasso continues to do on the issue of ObamaCare. If anyone wants to really be brought up to date, I would commend his Web site, Second Opinion, that Dr. Barrasso has, and he continues to be incredibly knowledgeable and effective not only here in this body but with the American people.

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Barrasso has taken on this issue as well, and I am pleased to be joined with him.

I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I know there are a number of Senators who want to speak. I will try to get those lined up and time agreements so that we do not take an inordinate amount of time on this issue, and I think we can do that, say, within the next hour or so.

But this is an important amendment. This is really one of two major issues that concern many Members of this body and many Americans. One is the modernization of our nuclear inventory, which I think continues to be a subject of discussion, agreements, some disagreements, but is important, and my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, of course, has been following that issue since the 1980s. I know of no one who has been more heavily involved in that side of the issue. The other is, of course, this whole issue of defensive weapons--how the provisions of the treaty affect the entire ability of the United States, unconstrained by this treaty, to move forward where it deems necessary to put defensive missile systems to protect the security of this country.

I would like to remind you how vital this is. We are living in a world where the North Koreans have nuclear weapons and missiles. The Iranians have missiles and the ability to deliver nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis have nuclear weapons. Other countries throughout the world are developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. So our concern is not so much what the Russians will do in the form of offensive nuclear weaponry--

and I will be glad to discuss Russian media reports about the Russians building a new missile and moving ICBMs to the borders of Europe and all that--but the main problem here is, can the United States, under the treaty, have the ability to put into place defensive missiles which will protect the security of the United States of America?

We all know that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them is one of the major challenges of the 21st century. So I think it is vital--it is vital--that we make it perfectly clear that there is nothing in this treaty that constrains our ability to pursue that aspect of America's defense. So it is deeply disturbing to so many of us when the preamble of the New START treaty says:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between

strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that

this interrelationship will become more important as

strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that ``current''--

I am going to emphasize the word ``current''--

strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and

effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

. . .

The operative word there, my friends, is ``current.''

I have been around long enough to have lived through the history of missile defense. It is not that old of an idea. In the middle of the last century, the idea that we could develop and deploy strategic defensive weapons sounded like science fiction and wishful thinking. For the most part, it was.

A few decades later, it was with this view of missile defense's fantasy that opponents of the idea mocked President Ronald Reagan, who was more committed than any American President before him to the prospect of developing viable missile defense systems--what President Reagan called his Strategic Defense Initiative, which became known to all of us as SDI.

This idea scared the Soviet leaders to death because they realized how serious he was about it and because the idea represented a threat to the very balance of terror that threatened all of mankind during the Cold War. Arms control theorists saw this terror stabilizing--mutual assured destruction as stabilizing--and believed that missile defenses could therefore be destabilizing.

As a result, the key pillar of Cold War arms control was the established interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons. This linkage was codified in the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, among other treaties and agreements. It established that effective missile defenses, if developed, could threaten the strategic offensive capabilities of the United States and the Soviet Union. For that reason, it limited the development and deployment of such defensive weapons.

President Reagan believed that viable missile defense systems--in particular, his Strategic Defense Initiative--held out the opportunity to eliminate the threat of nuclear holocaust and thereby render nuclear weapons irrelevant. President Reagan was one of the leading proponents of a world without nuclear weapons, and he believed that it was missile defense, not just arms control agreements, that would make that world possible.

My friends, if I may take you on a trip down memory lane, the debate on that subject was spirited, it was passionate, and it was a fundamental debate that took place in this country during the 1980s. That is why, at the Reykjavik Summit of 1986, when Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev cited the ABM Treaty as legal grounds for imposing what President Reagan believed was a critical limitation on the strategic defense initiative, the President broke off the negotiation and walked out--one of the most remarkable acts in recent history. You can imagine the initial response of the media and others to President Reagan walking out of arms control talks.

With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the evil empire, the United States and Russia were no longer mortal enemies with the means to threaten one another's existence. But the proposal of missile defense, this was an opportunity to break once and for all the long- accepted linkage, the interrelationship between strategic offensive and defensive weapons.

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal dated December 7, 2010, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explains why breaking this linkage between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defense was so important in the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world. I quote:

When U.S. President Bush and Russian President Putin signed

the Moscow Treaty in 2002, they addressed the nuclear threat

by reducing offensive weapons as their predecessors had. But

the Moscow Treaty was different. It came in the wake of

America's 2001 withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile

Treaty of 1972. And for the first time, the United States and

Russia reduced their offensive nuclear weapons with no

agreement in place that constrained missile defenses.

Breaking the link between offensive force reductions and

limits on defense marked a key moment in the establishment of

a new nuclear agenda no longer focused on the Cold War face-

off between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The real threat was

that the world's most dangerous weapons could end up in the

hands of the world's most dangerous regimes--or of terrorists

who would launch attacks more devastating than 9/11. And

since those very rogue states also pursued ballistic

missiles, defenses would (alongside offensive weapons) be

integral to the security of the United States and our allies.

This brief background helps explain a key concern I have with the New START treaty as it relates to missile defense: that because of one clause agreed to by the parties in the treaty preamble, the Russian Government could use the treaty in its present form as a tool of political pressure to limit U.S. decisions about our missile defense systems.

I have followed this issue of missile defense pretty closely while the treaty was being negotiated. As I have said before, I am concerned by the series of events that led to the treaty's handling of missile defense. First, the Senate was told that this treaty would in no way reference the development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems.

Here is what Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher said on March 29, 2010, and I quote:

The treaty does nothing to constrain missile defense. This

treaty is about strategic weapons. There is no limit on what

the United States can do with its missile defense systems.

But then, for some reason, after being told this treaty was not about missile defense, the Senate was then told there would be a reference to missile defense after all, but that it would only be in the preamble of the treaty which, of course, is not legally binding. That was worrisome enough, but then we saw the treaty and not only was there a reference to missile defense in the preamble, but there was also a limitation to our missile defense deployments in the body of the treaty itself in article V. This may not be a meaningful limitation, but it is a limitation nonetheless and a legally binding one at that. This sets a very troubling precedent.

What I want to focus on this afternoon is the reference to missile defense that appears in the preamble, because that language carries a lot of historical significance and strategic weight, and it has been the root of mine and other Senators' concerns about how the Russian Federation could use this treaty as a de facto veto against U.S. missile defense systems. This is what the eighth clause of the preamble says, and I quote from the preamble:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between

strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that

this interrelationship will become more important as

strategic arms nuclear arms are reduced, and that current

strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and

effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

There are many problems with this statement, and more that stem from it. First, it reestablishes--after what I told my colleagues about what happened during the Reagan administration because we worked very hard over the past--I mean over the Bush administration, and I say reestablishes because we worked very hard over the past decade to decouple these two concepts, our offensive nuclear weapons and our missile defenses. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was always terrified of the prospects of U.S. missile defense. Ever since President Reagan proposed the strategic defense initiative, the Russians have sought to limit development and deployment of our strategic arms because they knew they could never compete. They sought to bind our actions on missile defense through legal obligations in treaties,

and when that didn't work, through political commitments or agreements that could be cited to confer future obligations, and thus transformed into as a political threat. In short, the Russians have always understood that U.S. missile defenses would be superior to any defensive system the Russian Federation, and the Soviet Union before it, could ever deploy, so they have been relentless in trying to block it.

It is for this reason and because the Bush administration worked so hard to break the linkage between strategic offensive and defensive weapons that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice concluded her recent op-ed which I cited earlier with the following counsel to this body:

[T]he Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying

this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold

War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New

START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes

the 'interrelationship' of the two.

The reestablishment of the interrelationship is one problem with this clause in the preamble, but there are others. A second problem comes in the next line which states:

that this interrelationship will become more important as

strategic arms are reduced.

This is only enhancing and strengthening the linkage between our offensive nuclear weapons and our missile defenses. Because this treaty will modestly reduce our strategic nuclear arms, and if the President is serious about his vision of a nuclear-free world--and I believe he is serious--then the importance of this agreed-upon interrelationship will only deepen in the years ahead. This takes an already problematic idea and makes it even more potentially damaging.

The third problem, and the one which potentially has the most direct consequences, comes in the next line which states:

that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the

viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms

of the Parties.

This clause lays the groundwork for the political threat the Russian Federation wants to hold over the United States with regard to its missile defense deployments. By saying that current missile defenses do not undermine the treaty's viability and effectiveness, this agreed- upon language in the preamble establishes that future missile defense deployments could undermine the treaty, thereby establishing a political argument that the Russian Federation will surely use at a future date and try to keep us from building up our missile defenses. In short, we have handed the Russian Government the political pressure they have sought for so long to bind our future decisions and actions on strategic defensive arms.

Imagine a world a few years from now when, God forbid, an Iran or North Korea or some other rogue state has deployed longer range ballistic missiles and a deployable nuclear capability much earlier than we assessed they could. Imagine we are faced with a situation where unforeseen events compel us for the sake of our national security and that of our allies to qualitatively and quantitatively build up our missile defenses to improve our current systems, or develop and deploy new systems, to counter a new and far greater threat than we expected. And then imagine that the Russian Government tells us that if we consider taking these actions that we deem to be in our national security interests, then such an action to improve our missile defenses would undermine the treaty's effectiveness and viability. This is an unacceptable constraint on U.S. decisionmaking.

As if to drive home the large potential problems that stem from this clause in the preamble, the Russian Government issued a unilateral statement at the time the treaty was signed. I realize this statement is not legally binding either, but it certainly adds to the political commitment that the Russian Federation believes the United States has made on limiting our missile defenses. This is a remarkable statement, and it deserves to be read in full, and I quote:

The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United

States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and

Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed at Prague on

April 8, 2010, may be effective and viable only in conditions

where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the

missile defense system capabilities of the United States of

America. Consequently, the extraordinary events referred to

in article XIV of the Treaty also include a buildup in the

missile defense system capabilities of the United States of

America such that it would give rise to a threat to the

strategic nuclear force potential of the Russian Federation.

That is a very clear statement made by the Russian Government about the linkage between defensive missile systems and offensive arms. This is the Russian interpretation of what our two governments have agreed to in the preamble. They explicitly draw the connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms. They explicitly state that the United States is limited in its development and deployment of missile defense systems. They explicitly refer to the language in the preamble about the ``effectiveness and viability'' of the treaty in order to claim that any buildup or improvement in U.S. missile defense systems would undermine the treaty. Then they go one step further. They draw a logical connection between what was agreed to in this clause of the preamble to article XIV of the treaty, which establishes the rights of the parties to withdraw from the treaty and the conditions under which they may do so. In short, the Russian Government has effectively turned a nonbinding political agreement into the pretext of what it believes is a legal obligation under the treaty itself.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to what Russian leaders themselves have said. Here is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov speaking on March 28, 2010:

[T]he treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only

within the context of the levels which are now present in the

sphere of strategic defensive weapons.

Here is Foreign Minister Lavrov again on April 6, 2010:

Russia will have the right to exit the accord if the U.S.'s

buildup of its missile defense strategic potential in numbers

and quality begins to considerably affect the efficiency of

Russian strategic nuclear forces . . . Linkage to missile

defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally

binding.

I would remind my colleagues these are the statements of the Russian Foreign Minister. And here is everybody's favorite President, Dmitry Medvedev, speaking to the Russian Parliament on November 30--November 30, 2010.

Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create

a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to

a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of

the arms race. We will have to make a decision to deploy new

strike systems.

Finally, here is my favorite, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, speaking on ``Larry King Live'' on December 1, 2010:

I want you and all the American people to know this. At

least those spectators who will follow our program here. It's

not us who are moving forward our missiles to your territory.

It's you who are planning to mount missiles at the vicinity

of our borders, of our territory.

We've been told that you'll do it in order to secure

against the, let's say, Iranian threat. But such a threat as

of now does not exist. Now if the rudders and counter

missiles will be deployed in the year 2012 along our borders,

or 2015, they will work against our nuclear potential there,

our nuclear arsenal. And certainly, that worries us. And we

are obliged to take some actions in response.

Unfortunately, at the time the treaty was signed, after agreeing to this problematic clause in the preamble, the U.S. negotiators did not use the opportunity to make a unilateral statement of their own to decisively and unequivocally discredit the Russian Government's claims. Instead, this is the statement the U.S. Government issued in response to the statement I read, the signing statement:

The United States of America takes note of the Statement on

Missile Defense by the Russian Federation. The United States

missile defense systems are not intended to affect the

strategic balance with Russia. The United States missile

defense systems would be employed to defend the United States

against limited missile launches, and to defend its deployed

force, allies and partners against regional threats. The

United States intends to continue improving and deploying its

missile defense systems in order to defend itself against

limited attack and as part of our collaborative approach to

strengthening stability in key regions.

My friends, I understand diplomacy, and I understand statements that are equivocal. That certainly stands out as one of those.

We could have stated that the development and deployment of U.S. missile

defenses are in no way limited by the treaty, its preamble or anything the Russian Government says about them. We could have stated that the United States does not recognize decisions about its missile defense systems as a legitimate and valid reason for the Russian Federation to withdraw from the treaty, as is its right under article XIV. We could have stated affirmatively that the United States will continue to make both qualitative and quantitative improvements to our missile defense systems, regardless of whether the Russian Federation threatens to or actually chooses to withdraw from the new START treaty. We could have said all that and more. Instead, we simply took note of what the Russians had to say and then spoke passively about our intentions, without addressing the heart of the matter.

What does all this mean? What it means is that the Senate needs to fix the problem presented by this clause in the treaty's preamble. One way to do that--the easiest way--is to simply strike the eighth clause from the preamble text. That is what this proposed amendment would do. It will remove any recognition of an interrelationship between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defense, and it would undercut the logical and political foundation of the Russian unilateral statements, as well as the clearly and repeatedly stated Russian position that this treaty imposes a legally binding limitation on U.S. missile defenses.

I see I am joined on the floor by my friend and cosponsor of this amendment, the Senator from Wyoming. Again, I take this opportunity to thank him for taking the lead in offering this amendment within the Committee on Foreign Relations during the markup of the resolution of ratification. I have had the opportunity to travel overseas with the Senator from Wyoming, to Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and many other places. I appreciate his consistent leadership on matters of national security.

I ask unanimous consent that, since it is our amendment, he be recognized next.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

The amendment, as you know, strikes the language in the preamble. There are some who allege that a letter from the President--a strong letter from the President--would suffice to address this issue. I wonder what the view is of the Senator from Arizona as to how binding and how impactful that would be as opposed to the existing language which exists in the preamble?

While the Senator still has the floor, one additional question for my colleague. As we all know, there is nothing more important, probably, that comes before this body than the ratification of treaties. Our Founding Fathers reserved it for the Senate alone.

This treaty is obviously of significant importance--not just the treaty itself but the impact it has around the world. There is certainly something to the allegations that are made, the comments that are made that this could affect U.S.-Russian relations. I think the Senator from South Carolina and you and I--every Member of this body is very aware of the absolute importance of this treaty and for us to make the decision strictly based on the merits or demerits of this treaty.

The reason I ask my colleague this question is that allegations continue to swirl that there is going to be a vote for or against because of another piece of legislation or for other reasons, for other political reasons. I reject that allegation. I wonder if my colleague from Arizona does as well. I know every Member of this body is making a judgment on this treaty on its merits and their view of its merits or demerits and its importance to the future security of this Nation. And I hope, my colleague from Arizona, that I cleared that up, and I hope my colleague from Arizona will too.

Could I ask unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with the----

Mr. President, in deference to Senator Lugar, I will be very brief. Also, Senator Sessions is here who would like to speak, as well as Senator Barrasso again, so I will be very brief. I believe the Senator from Illinois is also here.

I regret we can't at this time. This is one of the seminal aspects of whether the United States is going to ratify this treaty. To have a time agreement, after all of the fooling around we have been doing on the DREAM Act, on New York City, on all of these other issues that have taken up our time, we will not have a time agreement from this side until all Members on this side have had an opportunity to express their views on this issue.

Mr. President, was the floor yielded before the Senator spoke?

I thank the Chair. Under any circumstances, I wanted to clarify that. I am glad to answer any question my friend from Massachusetts has. I cannot tell him at this time.

What the Senator from Massachusetts has done is sparked a strong response from this side. So this is not a situation where we come down and everybody just gives a statement. I had not planned on talking again, until I heard the comment of the Senator from Massachusetts. I am sure the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from Wyoming feel the same way. I will try to get a list of speakers. I certainly cannot tell the Senator from Massachusetts when we will be done. Obviously, in the spirit of debate, I have to challenge the assertions of the Senator from Massachusetts because that is what I think this ratification process should be all about. I am sure my colleague understands that.

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to drag this out. I want to make sure, because this is one of the most important parts of this debate--I don't want it to be short-circuited. I promise the Senator from Massachusetts that I am not trying to drag this out.

I will try to get a limit on the number of speakers.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I know Senator Lugar is waiting, as are two or three of my colleagues. I appreciate what the Senator from Massachusetts just said because it is the best argument for this amendment I have seen.

It says the preamble is nothing, meaningless, doesn't have any effect. If that is the case, then let's get rid of it. Fine, let's throw it away. In fact, he called it a throwaway. Isn't that true, I ask the Senator from Wyoming?

Then what could be the problem? Let's get rid of it.

The second point, of course, the Senator from Massachusetts gave various quotes from Russian leaders about the whole aspect of missile defense. Yet, again, on December 1, 16 days ago, Vladimir Putin, speaking on ``Larry King Live''--I am not making this up--said this:

I want you and all the American people to know this. . .

.It's you who are planning to mount missiles at the vicinity

of our borders, of our territory. We've been told that you'll

do it in order to secure against the, let's say, Iranian

threat. But such a threat as of now does not exist. Now if

the rudders--

Whatever that means--

and the counter missiles will be deployed in the year 2012

along our borders, or 2015, they will work against our

nuclear potential there, our nuclear arsenal. And certainly

that worries us. And we are obliged to take some actions in

response.

That was 16 days ago from the Prime Minister and, we know, the most powerful man in Russia. ``We are obliged to take some actions in response.''

Of course, one day earlier, President Medvedev said:

Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create

a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to

a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of

the arms race. We will have to

make a decision to deploy new strike systems.

That was 17 days ago. Who are we to believe? What are we to believe? Well, we can clarify it. Take that out of the preamble, and we can clarify that. There are other statements--one by the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov--and on and on. I don't think there is any doubt.

Also, there are recent press reports saying that ``Russia develops new indestructable ICBM to replace Satan.'' That is on 16 December. There is another news report that says that ``Russia has moved Russian missiles; fuels U.S. worries.'' That is the Wall Street Journal.

U.S. believes Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear

warheads to facilities near North Atlantic Treaty

Organization allies as recently as this spring, adding to

questions in Congress about Russian compliance with

longstanding pledges ahead of a possible vote on a new arms

control treaty.

One of the reasons this is very important, I argue, is that, back in 1991, the Russians agreed they would not move any of their tactical nuclear weapons. That was a commitment they made.

So, again, I am befuddled by the reluctance of the Senator from Massachusetts to just simply remove this preamble.

Finally, I will mention the difference between this administration and START I on this same issue. In fact, if you look at the statement the United States made, it is interesting. It says:

The United States intends to continue improving and

deploying its missile defense systems in order to defend

itself against limited attack--

That word ``limited'' is interesting--

and as part of our collaborative approach to strengthening

stability in the key regions.

Now, contrast that with what the United States said at the time of the ratification of START I. The United States said:

While the United States cannot circumscribe the Soviet

withdrawal from the START Treaty, if the Soviet Union

believes its supreme interests are jeopardized, the full

exercise by the United States of its legal rights under the

ABM treaty, as we have discussed with the Soviet Union in the

past, would not constitute a basis for such withdrawal. The

United States will be signing the START Treaty and submitting

it to the United States Senate for advice and consent with

this view. In addition, the provisions for withdrawal from

the START Treaty based on supreme national interests clearly

envision that such withdrawal can only be justified by

extraordinary events that have jeopardized the parties'

supreme interests. The Soviet statements on a future

hypothetical that a U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty could

create such conditions are without legal or military

foundation.

I ask my colleagues to look at the differences between the two comments. Finally, I emphasize, again, there is clearly room for some disagreement as to what the Russian intentions are. Should it not be clarified? Should we not have it clear and ask the Russians? Couldn't we ask them tonight and say: What are your intentions regarding missile defense systems? There is contradiction.

On ``Larry King Live,'' your Prime Minister made a strong statement about it, so has the Foreign Minister and others. We have constant communications with the Russians. We can clarify some of this if we just ask the Russians for a statement of clarification.

I hope the Senator from Massachusetts might do that. That also would not change the fact that, given the contradictions in the Russian statements, we should get rid of that meaningless, throwaway provision that this amendment requires.

I thank my colleagues and yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Reserving the right to object, I think the way I have it is that following Senator Sessions is Senator Graham and then Senators Kirk and DeMint. Senator Kyl will also want time that is not specified at this time, and I would want time. But could I say to my friend, there will be no more--by unanimous consent there will be no more speakers from this side.

Reserving the right to object, the understanding, I ask my friend from Massachusetts, is that Senator Kyl can be recognized at certain points after this, without a particular time agreement, if that is agreeable?

Senator Sessions with 30 minutes; Graham for 10 minutes; Kirk, 15; DeMint, 15; Kyl and myself, unspecified time; and Senator Sessions an additional 30 minutes when it is appropriate, understanding that there will be speakers from the other side intervening in this sequence.

And Senator Sessions for an additional----

Mr. President, point of personal privilege. I understand the Senator from New York had some comment. I said--I will be glad to have the record quoted. I said fooling around with the bill concerning New York. The majority leader keeps bringing up that and other pieces of legislation for votes which don't get enough votes. For the Senator from New York to somehow interpret that as my being critical of the bill itself, of course, is an incredible stretch of the imagination and, frankly, I resent it.

He asked unanimous consent that the three of us be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

My only answer to that is, yes. There was a lot of work and effort and time spent on that issue, yes.

I would say, Madam President, that not only on the don't ask, don't tell has the tree been filled but also on the DREAM Act. I have obviously been heavily involved in immigration issues for some years, including things that have happened including the murder of a Border Patrol agent just in the last couple days in Arizona, obviously by someone from the drug cartels. So, yes, there will be, again, a vote with no amendments allowed, again, on either one of those pieces of legislation.

I would also like to share, Madam President, my words of appreciation for the Senator from Connecticut. I am just not so sure that is his last speech.

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

Mr. President, we are discussing the New START treaty at this time. I look forward to continued debate and discussion on this vital and important national security issue. I wish to, however, remind colleagues that, as with any other issue that relates to this treaty and the Russians, it

can't be totally considered in a vacuum. Events that have transpired in the last several years in Russia should bring great concern and pause to all of us.

I will speak about the situation in Russia today and specifically the continued imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate, Platon Lebedev, and the imminent verdict by a Russian judge to likely extend that imprisonment which was delayed from yesterday to December 27. If we needed any more reason to know what verdict is coming, this is it.

The Russian Government seems to be trying to bury some inconvenient news by issuing it 2 days after Christmas and after this body will probably be finished debating the possible ratification of a treaty with the Russian Federation. Some may see this as evidence that the Russian Government is accommodating U.S. interests and desires. I would be more inclined to believe that if these prisoners were set free. Until that time, I will continue to believe that when Prime Minister Putin says Khodorkovsky should sit in jail, as he said yesterday, that this is exactly the verdict the Russian court will deliver.

The fact is, the political fix has been in for years on this case. Mr. Khodorkovsky built one of the most successful companies in post- Soviet Russia. And while I am under no illusions that some of these gains may have been ill-gotten, the subsequent crimes committed against him by the Russian State have exceeded the boundaries of human decency, equal and lawful justice, and the God-given rights of man.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in Yahoo from yesterday that says ``Russia's Putin: Khodorkovsky `should sit in jail'.'' That is what the Prime Minister of Russia said about an ongoing judicial situation.

Quoting:

I believe that a thief should sit in jail.

With more than a touch of sarcasm, Khodorkovsky's lead

lawyer, Vadim Klyuvgant, thanked Putin for speaking his mind

``because it directly and clearly answers the question of

who, with what aims and with what powers is putting pressure

on the court as the judge is deliberating.''

In 2003, when Mr. Khodorkovsky became increasingly outspoken about the Russian Government's abuses of power, its growing authoritarianism, corruption, and disregard for the law, he was arbitrarily arrested and detained under political charges. His company was stolen from him by authorities, and he was thrown in prison through a process that fell far short of the universal standards of due process. Mr. Khodorkovsky was held in those conditions for 7 years, and when his sentence was drawing to a close, new charges were brought against him which were then even more blatantly political than the previous ones.

Mr. Khodorkovsky, along with Mr. Lebedev, was charged with stealing all of the oil of the company that had been so egregiously stolen from them. The trial has now concluded. So what will happen next? It seems rather clear. After spending 7 years in prison, Mr. Khodorkovsky will likely face many more, which I fear is tantamount to a death sentence.

This case is a travesty of justice for one man, but it is also a revealing commentary on the nature of the Russian Government today.

Yesterday, the Senate voted to take up the New START treaty. To be sure, this treaty should be considered on its merits to our national security. But it is only reasonable to ask--and I ask my colleagues this question--if Russian officials demonstrate such a blatant disregard for the rights and legal obligations owed to one of their own citizens, how will they treat us and the legal obligations, be it this treaty or any other, they owe to us?

What is worse, the sad case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky now looks like one of more modest offenses of corrupt officials ruling Russia today.

I would like to quote from a recent article in the Economist dated December 9, 2010, entitled ``Frost at the core,'' which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. Khodorkovsky, the Economist writes, is a symbol of the injustices perpetrated by corrupt bureaucrats and members of the security services who epitomize the nexus between power and wealth.

The article goes on to describe the staggering scale of corruption in Russia today.

Shortly before his arrest Mr. Khodorkovsky estimated state

corruption at around $30 billion, or 10% of the country's

[gross domestic product]. By 2005 the bribes market,

according to INDEM, a think-tank, had risen to $300 billion,

or 20% of GDP. As Mr. Khodorkovsky said in a recent

interview, most of this was not the bribes paid to traffic

police or doctors, but contracts awarded by bureaucrats to

their affiliated companies.

I go on to quote from the Economist:

Their wealth is dependent on their administrative power,

rather than newfangled property rights. The profits are often

stashed away in foreign bank accounts or quickly spent: on

luxury property in European capitals, or on their children's

education in British private schools.

Unsurprisingly, surveys now show that the young would

rather have a job in the government or a state firm than in

private business. Over the past 10 years, the number of

bureaucrats has gone up by 66%, from 527,000 to 878,000, and

the cost of maintaining such a state machine has risen from

15% to 20% of GDP.

Other figures point to the same conclusion as the Economist. In its annual index of perceptions of corruption, Transparency International ranked Russia 154 out of 178 countries--perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. One of those countries is Georgia, which the World Bank ranks as the 12th best country to do business with.

President Medvedev speaks often and at times eloquently about the need for Russia to be governed by the rule of law. Considering the likely outcome of Mr. Khodorkovsky's show trial, it is not surprising that President Medvedev himself has lamented that his anticorruption campaign has produced, in his words, ``no results.''

Russians who want better for their country and dare to challenge the corrupt bureaucrats who govern it are often targeted with impunity.

One case that has garnered enormous attention both within Russia and around the world is that of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax attorney for an American investor who uncovered the theft by Russian officials of $230 million from the Russian treasury. Because of Mr. Magnitsky's relentless investigation into this corruption, the Russian Interior Ministry threw him in prison to silence him. He was deprived of clean water, left in a freezing cell for days, and denied medical care. After 358 days of this abuse, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37. Not only has the Russian Government held no one accountable for his death, several officials connected to Mr. Magnitsky's imprisonment and murder have actually received commendations.

Then there is the tragic case of Russia's last remaining independent journalist. Last month, Russian journalist Oleg Kashin, who had written critically of a violent youth movement associated with the Kremlin, was beaten by attackers who broke his jaw, both his legs, and many of his fingers--a clear political message to other writers.

No one has been charged for this crime, and writing in the New York Times this Sunday, Mr. Kashin suggests that no one ever will.

``[I]t seems indubitable,'' he writes, ``that the atmosphere of hatred and aggression, artificially fomented by the Kremlin, has become the dominant fact in Russian politics, the reset in relations with the United States and talk of economic modernization notwithstanding. . . . A man with a steel rod is standing behind the smiling politicians who speak of democracy. That man is the real defender of the Kremlin and its order. I got to feel that man with my own head.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire article be printed in the Record.

An earlier New York Times news story, dated May 17 of this year, and entitled ``Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in Blood,'' describes the fate of other independent journalists in Russia. One is Mikhail Beketov, who exposed corruption in a Moscow suburb. This is what happened to him.

"Last spring, I called for the resignation of the city's

leadership,'' Mr. Beketov said in one of his final

editorials. ``A few days later, my automobile was blown up.

What is next for me?'' Not long after, he was savagely beaten

outside his home and left to bleed in the snow. His fingers

were bashed, and three later had to be amputated, as if his

assailants had sought to make sure he would never write

another word. He lost a leg. Now 52, he is in a wheelchair,

his brain so damaged that he cannot utter a simple sentence.

No one has been charged or held responsible for this crime either.

The same article mentions another journalist, Pyotr Lipatov, who was attacked while covering an opposition rally. As he was leaving, the article says:

[T]hree men pushed him to the ground and punched him

repeatedly on the head. ``Even when I was unconscious, they

didn't let me go,'' Mr. Lipatov said. This beating was

recorded on video by protesters. Mr. Lipatov's colleagues

used the video to track down the men who beat him. They were

police officers. While Mr. Lipatov, 28, was recovering in the

hospital, he said two other police officers visited and urged

him to sign a statement saying that he had provoked the

attack. . . .

Officials later acknowledged that police officers had been

involved in the attack, but they still brought no charges.

Instead, they raided Mr. Lipatov's offices, seized computers

and brought a criminal extremism suit against him. They

asserted that he had sought to foment ``negative stereotypes

and negative images of members of the security forces.''

Fearing for his safety and more criminal charges, he quit.

Sadly, I could go on and on like this, to say nothing of the many unsolved murders. So I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Russia's beleaguered political opposition, unfortunately, fares no better than its journalists. I have met a few times this year with former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, who organizes peaceful political rallies to protest a lack of democracy in Russia, a right granted under the Russian Constitution. But these rallies are often targeted and violently broken up by Russian authorities.

Considering that this is how Russian officials treat their fellow citizens, it is not hard to see a profound connection between the Russian Government's authoritarian actions at home and its aggressive behavior abroad. The most glaring example of this remains in Georgia. Over 2 years after its invasion, Russia not only continues to occupy 20 percent of Georgia's sovereign territory, it is building military bases there, permitting the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia, and denying access to humanitarian missions--all in violation of Russia's obligations under the cease-fire agreement

negotiated by President Sarkozy. In a major recent step, President Saakashvili even renounced the use of force to end Russia's occupation, pledging only to defend nonoccupied Georgia in the event of a Russian attack. And yet Russian officials responded hostilely and dismissively.

I ask my colleagues, when the Russians illegally, in violation of all international law, occupy a sovereign nation--a sovereign nation--and have recognized these two provinces within the international boundaries of Georgia as independent nations, how in the world are we going to trust them to adhere to a treaty?

I have met with the people in Georgia who have been displaced from their homes--the sorrow and the misery inflicted on them. President Sarkozy of France flew in and arranged for a cease-fire. The Russians agreed to it. They are in total violation of it. They are occupying 20 percent of the country of Georgia. I think Nicaragua and one other country have also recognized these two ``independent'' states in which the Russians are now carrying out ethnic cleansing and stationing Russian military. But not to worry, we can trust the Russians to adhere to solemn treaties and abide by international law.

When we consider the various crimes and abuses of this Russian Government, it is hard to believe that this government shares our deepest values. This does not mean that we cannot or should not work with the Russian Federation where possible. The world does not work that way. What it does mean is that we need a national debate about the real nature of this Russian Government, about what kind of a relationship is possible with this government, and about the place that Russia should realistically occupy in U.S. foreign policy. The Senate's consideration of the New START treaty offers a chance to have this debate, as does Russian accession to the WTO. Some may want to avoid it, but we cannot.

I believe we need a greater sense of realism about Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or demonization. I am an optimist, even about Russia. I often find sources for hope in the most hopeless of places. Mikhail Khordokovsky has languished in prison for 7 years, and on December 27, he will likely be forced to endure many more. Yet, in a final appeal to the judge in his case, Mr. Khordokovsky gave one of the more moving speeches I have heard in a long time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

This is how Mr. Khordokovsky saw the broader implications of his trial:

I will not be exaggerating if I say that millions of eyes

throughout all of Russia and throughout the whole world are

watching for the outcome of this trial. They are watching

with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of

freedom and of the law. . . . Where supporting opposition

parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. Where the

special services will protect the people and the law, and not

the bureaucracy from the people and the law. Where human

rights will no longer depend on the mood of the tsar--good or

evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will truly be

dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law and God.

For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and I do

not want to die there. But if I have to I will not hesitate.

The things I believe in are worth dying for.

That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is a cause for hope. Eventually maybe not this year, or next year, or the year after that, but eventually these Russians will occupy their rightful place as the leaders of their nation--for equal justice can be delayed, and human dignity can be denied, but not forever.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to note that we just saw a rather extraordinary event on the floor of the Senate. I first came to the U.S. Senate in 1987, and I saw the practice of earmarking and porkbarrel spending grow and grow and grow, to the point where last November 2 the American people overwhelmingly rejected this practice of out-of-control spending and debt that we have laid on our children and our grandchildren.

I also, along with the Republican leader, would like to thank our members of the Appropriations Committee, who clearly heard that message and heard the outcry when the American people began to become aware of what was contemplated to be done in the Congress of the United States. This outcry reverberated all over America, including the State of Arizona. And the outcry was finally heard by at least 42 Members on this side of the aisle.

So I appreciate the fact the majority leader has agreed to a continuing resolution. But have no doubt as to why it happened. It happened because the majority leader didn't have the votes. He didn't have 60 votes that would have then allowed for this monstrosity to be foisted off on the American people.

So I wish to thank Members here on this side of the aisle, and some on the other side, who also said they were ready to stand up against this. But most of all, I wish to thank the American people. I thank those who made the calls, those who sent the e-mails, those who stood up and called in to the talk shows all over America and said: We have had enough. Haven't they listened to the message we were trying to send on November 2?

So I think this is a great victory for the American people today because we would have spent $1.1 trillion, at least $8 billion of it, $8.3 billion, in earmarks that had never had a hearing, that had never had any scrutiny, had never seen the light of day, but had been put in by very powerful Members of this body on the Appropriations Committee.

So I would like to extend my gratitude to the American people, the tea partiers, those who have aligned themselves with the cause to stop the spending and the mortgaging of our children's and grandchildren's future. We have amassed a $40,000 debt for every man, woman, and child in America. The latest commission that reported out clearly indicated we are on a collision course that could bring down the very economy of this country.

So I am encouraged greatly by the action taken tonight to do away with this monstrosity and go back to maybe a one-page continuing resolution to keep the government in business until the new Members of Congress and the new Members of this body who were elected last November can have their voices heard in the deliberations of this body and how their tax dollars are dispensed with and how those that are borrowed are dispensed.

I see the Senator from Missouri is about to speak. I wish to thank her for her efforts in trying to bring about an end to this spending spree.

So I again wish to express my gratitude to all Members, including especially the tough decision made by the Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, to stand so we could stop this thing in its tracks. I want to thank the American people whose voices were heard in this body, and that forced the decision that was made today.

Yes.

I think there is very little doubt. The majority leader of the U.S. Senate would not have taken the action he just took if he didn't have 41 votes to stop this monstrosity.

A 1,924-page bill just died.

Yes. I feel badly about some of those earmarks because I had so much fun with them.

I have no doubt.

I am not finished. Do I have the floor?

I appreciate the regular order.

This may be a seminal moment in the recent history of the Senate. This may be a seminal moment that stops the practice which has moved power all to the appropriators in this body--a few--and taken it away from the rest of us and may return us to an authorizing and then appropriating process. But most importantly, I think it is a seminal moment because for the first time since I have been here, we stood up and said: Enough. Stop.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. President, according to my calculations, it has been 42 days since the people of this great Nation of ours spoke, and they spoke in a very strong fashion. It was described by the President of the United States as a ``shellacking.'' It was described by others as a tsunami.

The House of Representatives, as we know, passed to Republican hands. In this body there were six additional Members from my side. I thought the message was pretty clear--that the American people said: Enough with the spending. Enough with the porkbarrel earmark spending. Enough of mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's futures.

I do not know of a single pundit or observer of the chattering class who did not say the message was clear from the American people. The phenomena of the tea party was ``taxed enough already,'' but they were against the spending, the earmarking. The approval rating of Congress is somewhere at, depending on which poll you look at, 10, 12, 14, 16 percent--overwhelming disapproval of the way we do business.

At 12:15 today my office received this appropriations bill, 1,924 pages long, and containing funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills, for a grand total of $1.1 trillion. It is important to note of this 1,924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language which contains the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks, and I am sure major policy changes written without a hearing, written without scrutiny, written without the input of the majority of the Members of this body, written by a handful of Senators who happen to be members of the Appropriations Committee.

The American people said just 42 days ago: Enough. Are we tone-deaf? Are we stricken with amnesia? What is going on? We have just begun to look at this monstrosity, and we are beginning to uncover which earmarks the appropriators decided to fund.

Thanks to a new online data base, we at least know what earmarks were requested by Members and how much those projects would cost the American people if they were all funded. Organizations such as Taxpayers Against Earmarks, Washington Watch.Com, and Taxpayers for Common Sense joined forces to create a database. According to the data they compiled for fiscal year 2011, Members requested over 39,000 earmarks totaling over $130 billion--those were requested.

I encourage every American to go to the Web site, endingspending.com, study it, and make yourselves aware of how your elected officials seek to spend your money.

In the short time I have had to review this massive piece of legislation, we have already identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion when we are running record deficits. When there is a $40,000 debt for every man, woman, and child in America, we are going to have 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. Here

is a small sample: $277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin-- you will notice there is a location for every one of these earmarks-- $246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota; $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey; $500,000 for oyster safety in Florida.

One of my favorites that pops up all the time is $349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina. Another one of my all-time favorites that is always in there, $413,000 for peanut research in Alabama; $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes in Washington; $208,000 for beaver management in North Carolina; $94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana; $165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont; $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. That is another one that, when you total it up over the years, comes into millions.

One hundred thousand dollars for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor's Center in New York. Another of my all-time favorites that is always on here every year, $300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii. If some people are watching, you are thinking I am making this up. I am not making it up. Three hundred thousand dollars for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii; $400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas.

Additionally, the bill earmarks $720,000 to compensate ranchers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan whenever endangered wolves eat their cattle. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Grey Wolf Program is under intense scrutiny for wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars every year to ``recover'' endangered wolves that are now overpopulating the West and Midwest. My State of Arizona has a similar wolf program. But ranchers in my State are not getting $727,000 in this bill.

I will have a lot more to say about this bill this week. I assure my colleagues, we will spend a lot of time talking about this bill and the outrageous number of earmarks it contains. But let me say this: It is December 14, 22 days away from the beginning of a new Congress, and nearly 3 full months into fiscal year 2011. And yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments to cut costs or to get our debt under control.

Furthermore, the majority decided that they did not feel like doing a budget this year. How is that responsible leadership? This is the ninth omnibus appropriations bill we have considered in this body since the year 2000. That is shameful. We should be embarrassed by the fact that we care so little about doing the people's business that we continuously put off fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities until literally the last minute.

One thing is abundantly clear. The majority has not learned the lessons of last month's election. The American people could not have been more clear. They are tired of the wasteful spending. They are tired of big government. They are tired of sweetheart deals for special interests. They are tired of business as usual in Washington. And they are certainly are tired of massive bills, like this one, put together behind closed doors, and rammed through the Congress at the last minute, so that no one has the opportunity to read them and no one knows what kind of waste that is in them.

Let me be clear about one thing: If the majority leader insists on proceeding to this monstrosity, the American people will know what is in it. I will be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor.

I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to rethink their strategy. Let's move forward with a clean, continuing resolution, keep the government in operation for 45 days, let the new Congress, that reflects the will of the American people, address these issues in the long term. Let's not go out the door of this Congress with a whole bunch, 6,800-some earmark projects that the rest of us have not read. I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to rethink their strategy. Let's move forward with a short-term continuing resolution, 45 days. Senator Gregg has an amendment pending to do that.

The majority may be able to strong-arm enough Members into voting for this omnibus, but they will not win in the end. The American people will remember, and I predict we will see a repeat of last November 2 in the very near future.

Here we are on December 14, after last year being in session on Christmas Eve. Apparently we may be in session again on Christmas Eve. If I might point out, having not been in session a single Friday the entire year--not being in session a single Friday the entire year--yet this afternoon the majority leader said, well, we can be here on Christmas and New Year's and that we could be in session until January 4, before the new Congress is sworn in.

Obviously the majority leader and the majority can do that. But I do not think the American people think very much of what we are doing here. In fact, I think they are going to be deeply disappointed and greatly angered because we have, with the consideration of this bill, repudiated all they thought they were standing for and voting for: an end to this kind of behavior, an end to the earmarking and porkbarrel spending, an end to the mortgaging of our children and our grandchildren's future.

So it is with great regret that I again have to come to the floor, as I have for many years, and be critical of my colleagues who are good and honorable and decent Americans. But this process, this process of earmarking, which this is an example of, is not honorable behavior.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 4758 to H.R. 4853.

Mr. President, I think it is very clear the vote today will result in a significant majority vote for the pending legislation--the so-called tax extenders--and I will be one of those who will be voting for it as well. But I must say, in the brief time I have, there is almost an Orwellian experience on the floor of the Senate as compared with the rest of America. Here we are, about to pass these necessary tax extenders--necessary to give some kind of certainty to businesses across America, small and large, and to give tax breaks to people in these most difficult times, including my home State of Arizona. But rather than just extending the tax breaks, which is what a majority of Americans want, we have engaged in the continuing practice--a practice that has alienated the majority of American people--of loading up with unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted sweeteners in order to, I guess, get votes or satisfy special interests.

The Wall Street Journal, this morning, had an article entitled ``The Hawkeye Handouts,'' stating the tax bill is becoming a ``favor festival,'' starting with ethanol. It goes on to talk about the ethanol extension being the bipartisan handiwork of people who direct subsidies and trade protectionism plus mandates that force consumers to buy ethanol. This is a trifecta of government support and for an industry that is 30 years old and that even Al Gore now admits serves none of its advertised environmental purposes.

I would like to quote for my colleagues on this side of the aisle what the Wall Street Journal says:

The greater political risk is for Republicans, who should

worry that the tax bill is turning into a special interest

spectacle. The bill revives a $1 a gallon biodiesel tax

credit at a cost of nearly $2 billion, and there is $202

million for ``incentives for alternate fuel,'' $331 million

for a 50 percent tax credit for maintaining railroad tracks,

and so on. These credits are a form of special interest

spending via the tax code, which is precisely the business-

as-usual behavior that Republicans told tea party voters they

wouldn't engage in. These business subsidies are grease for

Senate votes in favor of the deal, so the only chance to

remove them would be

the kind of public outcry that attacked the Cornhusker

Kickback and other ObamaCare fiascoes. Call these ethanol

favors the Hawkeye Handouts.

That is what this bill is all about. I say to my colleagues, I will vote for it, but it is not what the people said they wanted done on November 2.

I understand that unless online gaming, poker playing, gambling legalization comes up, we will probably go to an omnibus bill, and that omnibus bill will be loaded down with earmarks and porkbarrel spending, which is a direct--a direct--betrayal of the majority of the voters on November 2 who said stop the earmarking, stop the spending, stop the outrageous porkbarrel projects.

If this omnibus bill comes up loaded down with porkbarrel spending, we owe it to the American people to stop it. What we owe the American people is a clean continuing resolution, with no additional spending on it, that would be good for 45 days so the new Congress, in response to the American people, will act in a responsible fashion.

This bill we are going to pass contributes to the debt and the deficit, it contributes to the mortgaging of our children's futures. I say to my colleagues, we should rise against any Omnibus appropriations bill, and we should only enact a continuing resolution. To my colleagues on this side of the aisle who may not have gotten the message of November 2, vote to have a clean continuing resolution. That is what the American people have said they want and that is what they deserve. The American people deserve to be heard. Let us reconnect Washington and the American people.

I thank my colleague from Iowa for the time, and I yield whatever remaining time I have.

I object.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about a friend and colleague whom I will miss very much when he leaves the Senate after we adjourn, Senator Russ Feingold. I cannot thank him for his service without mentioning the outstanding work of his capable staff: Mary Irving, his chief of staff; Sumner Slichter, his policy director; Bob Schiff, chief counsel; and Paul Weinberger, his legislative director, a loyal and outstanding team.

Without intending it as a commentary on his successor, I have to confess I think the Senate will be a much poorer place without Russ Feingold in it. I know that in my next term I will experience fewer occasions of inspiration because of the departure of Russ Feingold, a man whose courage and dedication to the principles that guided his Senate service often inspired me.

I will also miss the daily experience of Russ Feingold's friendship, and the qualities that distinguish his friendship, his thoughtfulness, kindness, humor and loyalty. I have treasured that friendship all the years we have served together, and while friendship does not end with a Senate career, I will sorely miss his presence. I will miss seeing him every day. I will miss traveling with him. I will miss the daily reminder of what a blessing it is to have a true friend in Washington.

Our first encounter with one another was in a Senate debate in which we argued about an aircraft carrier, somewhat heatedly, if memory serves. Russ thought the U.S. Navy had one too many. I thought we did not have enough. It was, I am sorry to admit, not a very considerate welcome on my part to a new colleague, whom I would soon have many reasons to admire. But to Russ's credit, he did not let my discourtesy stand in the way of working together on issues where we were in agreement. And to my good fortune, he did not let it stand in the way of our friendship either.

We are of different parties and our political views are often opposed.

We have had many debates on many issues. But where we agreed on wasteful spending, ethics reform, campaign finance reform and other issues, it was a privilege to fight alongside and not against Russ Feingold.

We do not often hear anymore about Members of Congress who distinguish themselves by having the courage of their convictions; who risk their personal interests for what they believe is in the public interest. I have seen many examples of it here, but the cynicism of our times, among the political class and the media and the voters, tends to miss examples of political courage or dismiss them as probable frauds or, at best, exceptions that prove the rule. In his time in the Senate, Russ Feingold, every day and in every way, had the courage of his convictions. And though I am quite a few years older than Russ, and have served in this body longer than he has, I confess I have always felt he was my superior in that cardinal virtue.

We were both up for re-election in 1998. I had an easy race. Russ had a difficult one. As many of our colleagues will remember, Russ and I opposed soft money, the unlimited corporate and labor donations to political parties that we believed were compromising the integrity of Congress, and we were a nuisance on the subject. Russ 's opponent in 1998 was outspending him on television, and the race became tighter. It reached a point where most observers, Democrats and Republicans, expected him to lose. The Democratic Party pleaded with Russ to let it spend soft money on his behalf. Russ refused. He risked his seat, the job he loved, because his convictions were more important to him than any personal success. I think he is one of the most admirable people I have ever met in my life.

We have had a lot experiences together. We fought together for many things, important things. And we have fought many times on opposite sides. We have been honored together and scorned together. We have traveled abroad together. We could not be farther apart in our views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we traveled there together as well, to gain knowledge that would inform our views and challenge them. We have listened to each other; debated each other; defended each other; joked and commiserated together.

And in my every experience with Russ Feingold, in agreement and disagreement, in pleasant times and difficult ones, in heated arguments and in the relaxed conversation of friends, he was an exemplary public servant; a gentleman; good company; an irreplaceable friend; a kind man; a man to be admired.

I can not do justice in these remarks to all of Russ's many qualities or express completely how much I think this institution benefited from his service here and how much I benefited from knowing him. I lack the eloquence. I do not think he is replaceable. We would all do well to keep his example in our minds as we serve our constituents and country and convictions. We could not have a better role model.

I have every expectation we will remain good friends long after we have both ended our Senate careers. But I will miss him every day. And I will try harder to become half the public servant he is. Because his friendship is an honor and honors come with responsibilities.

God bless my friend Russ Feingold.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn. I also express my appreciation to Senator McCaskill and Senator Udall for joining in this very important amendment. As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, this issue has been debated many times on the floor of the Senate. There have been efforts to repeal certain most egregious earmarks. A ``bridge to nowhere'' in Alaska was one of those that became more famous than others.

I have to say to my colleagues that I have seen with my own eyes--and I say this with great regret--the influence of money and contributions in the shaping of legislation. I have seen that come in the form of earmarks. One of the individuals I admired a great deal, a former Member of the House of Representatives, now resides in Federal prison because of earmarking. Another Member of Congress recently got out of prison. It was earmarking. We just saw that the former majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives was convicted in court in Texas, and earmarking played a major role. The system of rewards for campaign contributions was an important factor in that conviction.

So for many years I have been coming to this floor to express my frustration with this corrupt practice. It has been a lonely fight and hasn't won me many friends in this body. I understand that. But I also want to point out that my criticisms have not been directed just from the other side of the aisle. Earmarking is a bipartisan disease, and it requires a bipartisan cure. After so many years in the trenches to eliminate this practice, I am pleased the American people are demanding that they stop this practice.

As my colleagues know, earlier this month the Senate Republican caucus unanimously adopted a nonbinding resolution to put into place a 2-year earmark moratorium. I applaud my fellow

Republicans in the Senate for joining our Republican colleagues in the House in sending a message to the American people that we heard them loud and clear in the election on November 2 that we will get spending under control and we will start by eliminating the corrupt practice of earmarking.

Mr. President, I have had a lot of communications and relations with and even attended tea party rallies across my State. There is very little doubt that a real revolt is going on out there. I can't call it a revolution because I don't know how long it is going to last. I don't know how it is going to be channeled. I don't know exactly where this movement will go. But I do know it involved millions of Americans who had never been involved in the political process before because of their anger and frustration over our practices here, and they believe earmarking is a corrupt practice. They believe their tax dollars should not be earmarked in the middle of the night, without any authorization, without hearings.

The Senator from Oklahoma just pointed out $380 billion in earmarks. Some of those earmarks are worthy. If they are worthy, then they should be authorized. So what has happened? What we have seen in the last 30 years or so is an incredible shift from the hands of many to the decisions of a few. We don't do authorization bills anymore. We don't do an authorization bill for foreign operations. We don't do an authorization bill for all of these other functions of government for which there are requirements because, what do we do? We stuff them all into the appropriations bills. Then the members of the Appropriations Committee make decisions that are far-reaching in their consequences, with incredibly billions of dollars, without the authorizing committees carrying out their proper role of examination, scrutiny, and approval.

The way the system is supposed to work--and did for a couple hundred years--is that projects, programs, whatever they are, are authorized, and then the appropriators appropriate the certain dollars they feel necessary to make this authorization most effective and efficient. So we don't authorize anymore. We only appropriate. That is wrong. That really puts so much power in the hands of a very few Members of this body and, inevitably, it leads to corruption--inevitably.

The Heritage Foundation wrote a report I urge my colleagues to read. It is entitled ``Why Earmarks Matter.'' The first point they make is this:

They invite corruption. Congress does have a proper role in

determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for

federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select

exactly who receives government grants invites corruption.

Instead of entering a competitive application process within

a federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a

lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists

who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments

have become hooked on the earmark process for funding

improvement projects.

There are small towns in my State that feel obligated to hire a lobbyist to get an earmark here through the Appropriations Committee. They should not have to do that. They should not be spending thousands and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for a lobbyist to come here to get an earmark. They should have their desires and their needs and their requirements considered on an equal basis with everybody else's, not only in their State but in this country. But now they believe the only way they will get their pork or their project done is through the hiring of a lobbyist.

The Heritage Foundation goes on:

They encourage spending. While there may not be a causal

relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved

each year tracks closely with growth in federal spending.

Then the Heritage Foundation says:

They distort priorities. Many earmarks do not add new

spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already

slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by

states into specific projects favored by an individual

member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation

succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle

trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken

out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of

Transportation for that year. So if Nevada had wanted to

spend that money fixing a highway in rapidly expanding Las

Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck.

So what we do is deprive the Governors and the legislators from setting the priorities they feel are the priorities for their States. And all too often, the earmark is not what the State or the local citizenry or town or county needs as their priorities because they are decided with the influence of lobbyists in Washington. I say, with all due respect to the appropriators, they don't know the needs of my State like I know the needs of my State, and not nearly as much as the mayor, the city council, the Governor, and the legislature. Let them make the decision where these moneys should be spent, and not on a bike path instead of improving a highway.

Mr. President, I could go on and on. I come down here year after year and look at the porkbarrel projects and earmarks, and we discuss the ones that are the most egregious and then I am amused and entertained by Members who come down and defend many of these absolutely unneeded and unnecessary projects. I will not go into many of my favorites at this time. I know my colleagues are waiting to speak.

I ask my colleagues to understand the voice of the people of this country. I just read today that more seats were gained by the Republican Party than in any election since 1938. Since 1938, there has not been such a political upheaval in this country. That is not because our constituents have now fallen in love with Republicans. That is not the case. The message is that all of our constituents are tired of the way both Republicans and Democrats conduct their business in Washington, frivolously and outrageously spending their hard-earned tax dollars. They believe we are not doing right by them, that we are not careful stewards of their tax dollars, that we are engaging in practices that need to stop which has disconnected us from the American people. We need to connect again with the American people.

I am going to hear the arguments that it is only a few dollars, not much money, and we don't trust the Federal Government to do it. I have heard all of those arguments year after year. I have watched year after year the earmarks go up and up. I have seen the corruption. Senator Dorgan and I had hearings in the Indian Affairs Committee about a guy named Jack Abramoff. We saw firsthand the effects of unscrupulous lobbyists and the millions and millions of dollars they got in earmarks as a result of their corrupt influence. There are many Jack Abramoffs in this town; they just haven't gotten famous.

Mr. President, again, I thank Senators Coburn, Udall, McCaskill, and others who support this amendment. As I said 20-some years ago, we will keep coming back and back and back to the floor of this body until we clean up this practice and restore the confidence and faith of the American people--the people who send us here to do their work, not our work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming.

I would say to my friend from Wyoming, this seems like old times--what we tried to stop for over a year, and now our predictions came true, beginning with they turned 2 pages of this 2,733-page bill--2 pages--into 121 pages of regulation. Is that correct, I would ask my colleague from Wyoming?

So in a 2,733-page bill, if we have 121 pages of regulation for every 2 pages, that is going to be pretty interesting, isn't it? And the fun has just begun. The fun has just begun.

If the Senator might recall, I ask my friend from Wyoming, President Obama--quote after quote, time after time:

And if you do have health insurance, we'll make sure that

your insurance is more affordable and more secure.

We know that is not true from every estimate. It is neither affordable nor secure.

If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health

care plan. This is not some government takeover. . . . I

don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health

care. . . . That's what reform is about.

I quote from the President of the United States.

So now they have taken 2 pages of a 2,733-page bill, and that is 121 pages of regulation.

Now, isn't it true, I would ask my colleague from Wyoming, who knows as much or more about this than anyone, that it will result in 50 percent of all employees being in plans ineligible for grandfathered status? Is that a correct statement?

According to the administration.

But isn't it also true that is the case for small business and people and entrepreneurs all over America except the unions? Isn't that true? Isn't this a carve-out again, part of this sleaze that went into putting this bill together, part of the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' the buying of PhRMA--all that went into this--the ``negotiations'' that were going to take place on C-SPAN that the President said during the Presidential campaign that went from one sweetheart deal cut to another. Part of one of those sweetheart deals was the unions are exempt; is that correct?

So what you are saying is that unless a health care policy provided by an employer is absolutely unchanged totally for an unspecified period of time, then that health insurance policy can be declared invalid by the Department of Health and Human Services, and they will have to go to a government-mandated health insurance policy or pay a fine. Is that a correct assessment?

So an employer, a small businessperson provides health insurance for their employees. That employer sees health care costs go up,--as everybody knows, and that is every objective estimate--so that employer says to its 10, 50, 60, whatever, employees: Look, we are going to have to increase your copay. We are going to have to increase your copay because, simply, the costs are prohibitive, and we would like to sit down, and I think you would probably agree to it given the overall situation across health care. And the employees agree with that and they change the copay, and then automatically they are finished. Is that correct?

So even though it is obvious that the cost of health care is going up, continues up dramatically--that is estimates of OMB, of literally every objective observer; the curve has not been bent down-- that unless employers keep exactly, with very little wiggle room, basically the same health insurance policy for their employees, then they will then have to comply with a government-mandated health insurance policy. Is that correct?

So I guess it was one of our colleagues and the President who intimated: Well, the American people really don't pay attention. The American people don't really--they are deceived by FOX News, et cetera.

The American people knew this was a bad deal then, and they know it is a bad deal now. The majority of the American people want it repealed. And all of this is suspicions confirmed when you take 2 pages of legislation and turn it into 121 pages of regulation--a 2,733-page bill.

So here we are with an economy that the administration, the President, and his crack economic team said that if you pass this stimulus bill, maximum unemployment will be 8 percent. What is the problem with

investment and hiring and economic growth in America today? The total uncertainty. We have just punted on the extension of the tax cuts or an Obama tax increase. We have just punted on a number of issues, and the American people now are going to have to--this small businessperson the NFIB represents is going to have to thumb through 121 pages of new regulations in order to understand. Big businesses and small businesses are going to say: What are the next 121 pages of regulations that are coming down for 2 pages of the bill? I guess the title page probably would not have regulations associated with it, but the other 2,732 would.

Yes, which our colleagues just voted down. They voted down a resolution by the Senator from Nebraska that would allow them not to have to report every single transaction of $600 or more. No wonder small and large businesses in America are reluctant to invest and hire with this kind of foolishness going on.

The CPAs come to me in Arizona and say: I can't advise my clients. I don't know what the tax structure will be.

So here we are with a new 121 pages of regulation which obviously will affect 50, 60, 80 percent--let's say it only affects 50 percent of businesses in America--and we are going to vote down, probably, with the big-government majority here, this effort to not have this regulation implemented.

All I can say to my colleague from Wyoming is, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your thoughtful dissertation on this issue. And I guarantee you, maybe next January, we can take this up again.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, obviously we are 1 day away from the end of the fiscal year. We have before us a continuing resolution, better known as a CR. It totals over $1.1 trillion to fund the operations of the Federal Government through December 3, after the elections.

In addition to continuing appropriations, this measure also includes numerous authorizing provisions from the fiscal year 2011 Defense authorization bill. We shouldn't have to selectively tack important, defense-related provisions on to appropriations bills in order to meet the pressing needs of the Armed Forces.

The majority has decided to wait until the very last minute to bring this stopgap measure to the floor with the hope that Members will simply vote yes so that we can all go home and focus on the upcoming elections. I will not be voting yes. I will be voting no. If we pass this resolution, we can be assured that we will be considering yet another massive omnibus spending bill in December. The simple fact that we are considering this continuing resolution is evidence of the majority's inability to lead effectively and do the people's business.

As I said, we are 1 day from the end of the fiscal year. This body has not considered a single one of the annual appropriations bills on the floor. We have a $13.5 trillion debt and a deficit of nearly $1.4 trillion. Yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments that would cut costs or get our debt under control.

Furthermore, the majority decided they just didn't feel like doing a budget this year, so we didn't do a budget this year.

On top of all of this, the majorities in both Houses have decided there will be no debate, no vote on extending the tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of this year. On Monday of this week, the New York Times published an editorial called ``Profiles in Timidity.'' The editorial stated, in part:

We are starting to wonder whether Congressional Democrats

lack the courage of their convictions, or simply lack

convictions.

Last week, Senate Democrats did not even bother to schedule

a debate, let alone a vote, on the expiring Bush tax cuts.

This week, House Democrats appeared poised to follow suit.

The New York Times goes on to say:

This particular failure to act was not about Republican

obstructionism . . . This was about Democrats failing to

seize an opportunity to do the right thing and at the same

time draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the

Republicans.

Those are not my words; those are the words of the New York Times.

Anyone who converses with people in the business community around this country, whether it be small businesspeople or whether it be the largest, all of them will say the same thing: We have no certainty about what the financial future will hold, whether we will see tax increases or whether we will see tax cuts. What about the estate tax? What about all of these other ``tax cuts'' that will or will not be extended?

So rather than act one way or the other, we have now punted the ball down the field until after the election. At least we should have taken it up and debated and voted. I will stand by my vote to extend all the tax cuts because I don't believe we should increase anybody's taxes in tough economic times. But instead we will punt, go home, campaign, and then sometimes be curious why the approval rating of Congress is somewhere in the teens.

We have no business at the eleventh hour considering a continuing resolution so we can pack up and go home. We should stay here, in session, and consider each and every appropriations bill in regular order and give Members ample opportunity to offer amendments. Following that, we should debate the Defense authorization bill and consider all amendments by Members, not just those the majority deems necessary to please their base.

When the authorization bill was proposed to be brought up on the floor of the Senate, on this side, we said: Let's have 10 amendments on either side--10 amendments on each side--and we will move forward with regular debate and votes. The majority leader didn't want that to happen. The majority leader only wanted to consider don't ask, don't tell, secret holds, and the DREAM Act, and then take the bill off the floor and wait until--guess what--after the elections. That is not how this body should operate. We should consider all amendments. We would agree to time agreements. And if there are tough votes to be taken, that is why we are sent here--to take tough votes.

We should debate and vote on whether to extend the tax cuts, as I said. Each day this issue is left unresolved, millions of American taxpayers and small business owners are left without the ability to properly budget for the next year.

At a townhall meeting, a guy stands up and says: I am a CPA. I make a living advising people how they should adjust their estates and their expenses and their investments based on, at least in part, what kinds of tax liabilities they will be facing. I can't do my job because we don't know.

The environment of uncertainty is holding back investment and job creation in this country, and at least the people of this country should have the right to know what their taxes are going to be next year. That won't be the case.

Let me return for a minute to the continuing resolution and the very serious concerns I have about one of its provisions. According to the Appropriations Committee and press reports, section 146 of this bill would authorize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue buying and guaranteeing mortgages up to $730,000 in expensive housing markets through September of next year. Under current law, that amount was scheduled to drop to $625,000 at the end of this year. One would think that by now we would all be sensitive to the disastrous fiscal implications of Fannie's and Freddie's performance and find ways to rein them in rather than maintain or expand their operations. Fannie and Freddie are synonymous with mismanagement and waste and have become the face of too big to fail.

Congress had the responsibility to ensure that Fannie and Freddie were properly supervised and adequately regulated. Congress failed, and the devastation caused by that failure continues to reverberate across the Nation every day.

A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News said:

They--Fannie and Freddie--had long ago evolved from the

modest backer of loans that met high underwriting standards

into full-scale casino players in high-risk mortgages. By

purchasing or backing the loans of mortgage companies and

banks, Fannie and Freddie made it possible for lenders to

create more money for new loans to new homeowners.

But Fannie and Freddie also conveniently benefited from

their hybrid status: They could make loans at advantageous

rates and run to Washington at the first sign of trouble. As

a major political donor, they seldom

heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the Beltway.

That is right. They seldom heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the beltway. Some suggest that because of their deep pockets and generous campaign contributions, Congress routinely overlooked the growing problems at Fannie and Freddie and allowed them to continue operating in the most obscene, corrupt fashion.

So where are we now? To date, the American taxpayer has spent $160 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and experts estimate those costs could rise to over $1 trillion. Isn't it time we phase them out of being a government-supported enterprise? So why in the world would we provide these failing institutions with authority to continue to buy these high-dollar mortgages? It makes no sense.

My colleagues might recall that in May I offered an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill to address the serious problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The amendment was designed to end the taxpayer-backed conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by putting in place an orderly transition period and eventually require them to operate without government subsidies on a level playing field with their private sector competitors. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that amendment failed.

The time has come to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's taxpayer-backed free ride and require them to operate on a level playing field. Fannie and Freddie continue to post loss after loss and are failing right in front of our eyes. For Congress to yet again allow them to continue business as usual is the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would assist several communities in northern Arizona, and any other community in the United States, whose homes were damaged or destroyed in flash flood event caused by wildfires on federal lands. I am saddened to report that the flood in Arizona which is the genesis of this bill also killed a 12-year-old girl and caused an estimated $8 million in damage to the area's public infrastructure. While the flood itself occurred on July 20, 2010, the true account of this disaster actually began one month prior with a wildfire on the Coconino National Forest. The human-caused ``Schultz Fire'' severely burned 15,000 acres of forest land along the steep terrain of the San Francisco Peaks leaving little ground vegetation to absorb and hold back rainwater. After the fire was contained, the U.S. Forest Service quickly determined that residents living near the base of the Peaks would face a daily flooding threat from summer monsoon storms and publically urged them to purchase flood insurance. Less than two weeks later, a monsoon storm created a flash flood of rainwater, mud and wildfire debris that slammed into the homes below the Schultz burn area. Tragically, the affected homeowners who had purchased flood insurance as soon as they were alerted to the danger of flooding were deemed ineligible for coverage because Federal law mandates a 30-day waiting period before the policy takes effect.

This August I had an opportunity to tour the Schultz Fire burn and flood areas and also met with several affected homeowners. Needless to say they are deeply concerned that their homes remain threatened with every severe storm that passes through. This rural unincorporated community simply does not have the resources to cope

with a flood plain that didn't exist before the wildfire. While we were able to get a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers team to study and recommend some interim and long-term flood mitigation measures, much work remains to be done including additional soil and hydrological data collection which would assist in the planning and design of more permanent flood control projects.

This legislation would enable the FEMA Administrator to waive the 30- day waiting period for flood insurance for private property owners affected by wildfires. This bill would also clarify that the recently created FLAME Act Accounts, which were established by Congress to pay for wildfire supersession, can also be used for burn area recovery, including post-fire watershed flood prevention. With respect to the Schultz Fire, the bill would enhance coordination between the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other Federal, State and local government agencies by establishing a Schultz Fire Flood Area Task Force headed by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This bill would also direct FEMA to complete a detailed study of the affected area to evaluate the potential of integrating various federal projects and programs into a long-term flood protection system. Finally, this bill would require that the Attorney General disclose any payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act program that went to activist litigants who blocked the forest thinning project that many experts agree would have prevented the Schultz Fire from occurring.

The flood risk to this community will remain high for many years unless action is taken now. I strongly believe that because the Schultz Fire occurred on Federal land, the Federal Government is obligated to provide an appropriate level of disaster assistance, including Federal flood insurance, to these homeowners. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would assist several communities in northern Arizona, and any other community in the United States, whose homes were damaged or destroyed in flash flood event caused by wildfires on federal lands. I am saddened to report that the flood in Arizona which is the genesis of this bill also killed a 12-year-old girl and caused an estimated $8 million in damage to the area's public infrastructure. While the flood itself occurred on July 20, 2010, the true account of this disaster actually began one month prior with a wildfire on the Coconino National Forest. The human-caused ``Schultz Fire'' severely burned 15,000 acres of forest land along the steep terrain of the San Francisco Peaks leaving little ground vegetation to absorb and hold back rainwater. After the fire was contained, the U.S. Forest Service quickly determined that residents living near the base of the Peaks would face a daily flooding threat from summer monsoon storms and publically urged them to purchase flood insurance. Less than two weeks later, a monsoon storm created a flash flood of rainwater, mud and wildfire debris that slammed into the homes below the Schultz burn area. Tragically, the affected homeowners who had purchased flood insurance as soon as they were alerted to the danger of flooding were deemed ineligible for coverage because Federal law mandates a 30-day waiting period before the policy takes effect.

This August I had an opportunity to tour the Schultz Fire burn and flood areas and also met with several affected homeowners. Needless to say they are deeply concerned that their homes remain threatened with every severe storm that passes through. This rural unincorporated community simply does not have the resources to cope

with a flood plain that didn't exist before the wildfire. While we were able to get a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers team to study and recommend some interim and long-term flood mitigation measures, much work remains to be done including additional soil and hydrological data collection which would assist in the planning and design of more permanent flood control projects.

This legislation would enable the FEMA Administrator to waive the 30- day waiting period for flood insurance for private property owners affected by wildfires. This bill would also clarify that the recently created FLAME Act Accounts, which were established by Congress to pay for wildfire supersession, can also be used for burn area recovery, including post-fire watershed flood prevention. With respect to the Schultz Fire, the bill would enhance coordination between the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other Federal, State and local government agencies by establishing a Schultz Fire Flood Area Task Force headed by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This bill would also direct FEMA to complete a detailed study of the affected area to evaluate the potential of integrating various federal projects and programs into a long-term flood protection system. Finally, this bill would require that the Attorney General disclose any payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act program that went to activist litigants who blocked the forest thinning project that many experts agree would have prevented the Schultz Fire from occurring.

The flood risk to this community will remain high for many years unless action is taken now. I strongly believe that because the Schultz Fire occurred on Federal land, the Federal Government is obligated to provide an appropriate level of disaster assistance, including Federal flood insurance, to these homeowners. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I believe the chairman has agreed that he and I would have 5 minutes each before the vote this afternoon; is that true?

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues on this side, we will recognize in the proper order as we go from one side to the other: On my side Senator Inhofe would be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Brown for 5 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, Senator Chambliss for 5 minutes, and Senator LeMieux for 5 minutes. I believe that comes out to approximately 40 minutes.

Mr. President, I want to make it clear why I am opposed to moving to the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2011 at this time.

I am not opposed in principle to bringing up this Defense bill and debating it, amending it, and voting on it. I am not opposed to having a full and informed debate on whether to repeal the don't ask, don't tell law and then allowing the Senate to legislate.

What I am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now, before the Defense Department has concluded its survey of our men and women in uniform, which gives them a chance to tell us their views about don't ask, don't tell. Whether you agree or disagree with this policy, whether you want to keep it or repeal it, the Senate should not be forced to make this decision now, before we have heard from our troops. We have asked for their views, and we should wait to hear from them and then give their views the fullest consideration before taking any legislative action.

This isn't just my view. This is the view of all force service chiefs: GEN George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army; ADM Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations; GEN James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps; GEN Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

Let me quote from my colleague, GEN George Casey. Remember, these are the service chiefs who are responsible for the training, equipment, morale, and well-being of the men and women in uniform who serve under them. What did General Casey say? He said this:

I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a

better understanding of where our soldiers and families are

on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit

cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military

advice to the President and the Congress. I also believe that

repealing the law before the completion of the review will be

seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our

commitment to hear their views before moving forward.

The survey is not complete and will not be complete for some time.

Admiral Gary Roughead said this:

We need this review to fully assess our force and carefully

examine potential impacts of a change in the law. My concern

is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the

precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of

the law and the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself

by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters.

GEN James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said:

I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary

of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must

make logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term

policies of our Armed Forces--which so effectively defend

this great nation.

GEN Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said:

I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with

those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the

Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before

there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell

law. Such action allows me to provide the best military

advice to the President, and sends an important signal to our

Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do

otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect

an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed,

digested and understood.

It could not be more clear what our uniformed service chiefs are saying: Complete this review before repealing the law.

Then the question is: Why would the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the majority leader ignore the very explicit recommendation of the four service chiefs? One can only draw one conclusion: November 2 is a few days away. The President of the United States, we all know, made a commitment to the gay and lesbian community that he would have as one of his priorities repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. Looking at a bleak electoral situation, they are now going to jam this legislation through--or try to--in direct contravention to the views of our service chiefs.

I spend a great deal of time with the men and women in the military. It is my job. It is my job to do so, both the Guard and Reserve in Arizona and traveling around the world to visit our men and women in places such as Kandahar, Baghdad, and other places around the world. Every place I go, the men and women are saying: Look, let's assess the impact of the repeal of this law. I get that from the senior enlisted men whose responsibilities are great. Why are we now trying to jam this through without the survey being completed and without a proper assessment of its impact?

I urge Members not to vote in favor of bringing the bill to the floor at this time so the troops can be heard. Let us hear from the men and women who are serving in the military.

I remind my colleagues that last year, they brought up the hate crimes bill and then put amendments on the hate crimes bill so there were no other amendments allowed until the hate crimes issue was resolved. That is the concern of the Senator from Maine, that the majority leader and/or the chairman will fill up the tree--in other words, make it so other amendments are not allowed until this issue is disposed of and then, of course, other issues.

In light of all the challenges that the Defense authorization bill entails--training, equipment, pay, benefits, all of the aspects of Defense authorizations that are so vital--why would the majority leader and the chairman want to bring up don't ask, don't tell, then the DREAM Act, then secret holds, and then reserve the rest of the issues for after we come back after the election?

Again, one can only draw the conclusion that this is all about elections, not about the welfare and well-being and the morale and the battle effectiveness of the men and women who are

laying it on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

The most fundamental thing we could do to honor the sacrifices of our troops is to take the time to listen respectfully and carefully to what they have to say about this major change before the Senate takes any legislative action.

If the Senate goes down this path, we would be ignoring the views of the troops and casting aside the professional military advice given by each of the four service chiefs, all four of whom oppose the Senate taking any action on don't ask, don't tell before we hear from the troops.

By the way, the way the legislation is framed, the service chiefs are not involved in the final decision; only the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense are. Why in the world before the certification is made would not the service chiefs be required to certify that as well?

This is not about filibustering. It is not about the reasons why we are not taking up this legislation or why I am opposing this legislation. It is all about the battle effectiveness, the morale of the men and women who are serving in the military today who have volunteered to put their lives on the line so the rest of us may live in a safe and secure environment. We owe them a right to have their voices heard before we act legislatively, motivated by the upcoming election.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.

We are depriving the men and women in uniform from having a voice in this by short-circuiting a process by passing legislation before the study is completed. That is a fact. That is the view of all four service chiefs, and I read it and I will continue to put it in the Record.

Senator Sessions, I believe, is next?

Mr. President, how much time remains?

How much time is remaining on both sides?

Before my colleague speaks, very briefly, maybe the Senator from Michigan has forgotten what happened last year on hate crimes. The bill was brought up, then the majority leader filed, as is his right, the first amendment.

Then only amendments that the majority leader agreed to were allowed on hate crimes. So we got stuck for a week on it. I predict to you that is exactly what would happen with the DREAM Act and with this issue as well because the majority established that precedent last year.

How much time is remaining?

How much time is remaining on the other side?

Well, again, I would point out again that not only do the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our service chiefs object to this truncated process, being left out of the final decisionmaking process, they do not have to sign on to any conclusions that are reached as a result of this ongoing survey. But there are others, such as the incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps, who says, my personal view, the current law and associated policy have supported the unique requirements of the Marine Corps. Thus, I do not recommend its repeal. My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of extended combat operations.

We are in two wars, and now we are pursuing the social agenda of the Democratic Party instead of taking the priority, as it is much called for; that is, the welfare, the morale, the battle effectiveness of the men and women in the U.S. Marine Corps.

So last year there was an amendment allowed, but procedurally, when we did the hate crimes bill, there were only amendments that were agreed to by the majority leader. That is what we fear will happen in this debate, and certainly the DREAM Act, which is also on the agenda for the elections is clearly not something that should be addressed by the Armed Services Committee. By all rights, it should be done by the Judiciary Committee.

I regretfully reach this stage. But I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the cloture vote.

I yield the remainder of my time.