John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the importance of Minutemen III intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as ICBMs, and an amendment I intend to offer. The ICBM is just one leg of our nuclear triad. The nuclear triad spans sea, air, and land. It relies on mobile bombers, hard-to-detect ballistic missile submarines, and ICBMs. They all work together to complicate and deter any attempt at a successful first strike on our country. Like a stool, if you shorten just one leg too much, the stool will become unstable. Our nuclear triad is not just a weapons system, it is a deterrent. The further we weaken our nuclear forces, the less of a deterrent our triad will become. Those folks who believe in nuclear zero and arms control seek a world without nuclear weapons at any expense--in my opinion, never at the expense of our national security. The fact is, for over 50 years our ICBM force has deterred a nuclear attack against the United States and our allies. Some arms control supporters claim our ICBMs are on ``hair-trigger alert.'' They believe an ICBM can be launched by simply pushing a button. This misleading claim that an unauthorized launch can destroy the world in a matter of minutes could not be further from the truth. GEN Kevin Chilton, the outgoing commander of STRATCOM, once described our nuclear posture as: The weapon is in the holster . . . the holster has two combination locks on it, it takes two people to open those locks, and they can't do it without authenticated orders from the President of the United States. The Minuteman III ICBM force is the most stabilizing leg of the nuclear triad. ICBMs are strategically located and broadly dispersed in order to prevent them from successfully being attacked. The ICBMs protect the survivability of other legs of the triad as a deterrent. They offer an umbrella of protection to our most-valued allies. ICBMs also represent the most cost-effective delivery systems the United States processes. Unlike a bomber, ICBMs ensure a second attack capability. As required by section 1251 of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, earlier this year, the administration submitted its force structure plan. The President's 1251 force structure plan provides up to 420 ICBMs, 14 submarines carrying up to 240 submarine- launched ballistic missiles or SLBMs, and up to 60 nuclear-capable heavy bombers. We are being asked to ratify this treaty without knowing what our force structure will actually be. We are being told: Pass the treaty, and then we will tell you what the force structure will actually look like. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review laid out our force structure in plain view, while the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review is silent on the force structure. This report also laid out the administration's plan to modernize and maintain our nuclear delivery vehicles. With respect to the next generation of ICBMs, the update states: While a decision on an ICBM follow-on is not needed for several years, preparatory analysis is needed and is in fact now underway. This work will consider a range of deployment options, with the objective of defining a cost-effective approach for an ICBM follow-on that supports continued reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons while promoting stable deterrence. The amendment I plan to offer has no impact on the treaty. It simply requires the President to certify that further reductions in our land- based strategic nuclear deterrent will not be considered when reviewing the options for a follow-on ICBM. This is something I have worked on with Senator Conrad. He has a second-degree amendment to mine, and it is something we both support. LTG Frank Klotz, the new commander of Global Strike Command, was quoted last year at the Air Force Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition here in Washington, DC, as saying: Continuously on alert and deployed in 450 widely dispersed locations, the size and characteristics of the overall Minuteman III force presents any potential adversary with an almost insurmountable challenge should he contemplate attacking the United States. Because he cannot disarm the ICBM force without nearly exhausting his own forces in the process, and at the same time, leaving himself vulnerable to our sea-launched ballistic missiles and bombers, he has no incentive to strike in the first place. In this case, numbers do matter . . . and the ICBM thus contributes immeasurably to both deterrence and stability in a crisis. The force structure of our nuclear triad is critical to maintaining an effective deterrent. In 2008, Secretary Gates coauthored a white paper titled ``National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.'' This paper argued for a strong nuclear deterrent. The forward stated: We believe the logic presented here provides a sound basis on which this and future administrations can consider further adjustments to U.S. nuclear weapons policy, strategy, and force structure. The white paper by Secretary Gates recommended a U.S. strategic nuclear force baseline that includes 450 Minuteman III ICBMs, 14 Ohio class submarines, and 76 bombers, 20 B-2 and 26 B-52 bombers, for a total of 862. The administration cannot explain how the threat environment has changed since the 2008 recommendation to maintain 862 delivery vehicles. They cannot explain what has changed to allow our nuclear deterrent to be reduced to 700 delivery vehicles. It sounds to me as if this administration has been a little too eager in negotiating the treaty. James Woolsey, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, described his experiences negotiating with the Russians. He said: The Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian counterparts, don't appear eager--friendly, yes, eager, never. I think Mr. Woolsey would know; he was involved in the SALT I treaty in 1970 and many more arms control agreements with the Russians before he took over as the Director of Central Intelligence. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 4880, a Barrasso- Enzi amendment, and then a second-degree by Senator Conrad.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair. The Risch amendment seeks greater transparency, greater accountability of tactical nuclear weapons, and the Risch amendment recognizes that tactical nuclear weapons can undermine stability. So with that, Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, if you will let me know when I have used 4 of the 5 minutes I am to have. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment by my friend and colleague and next-door neighbor on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as my next-door neighbor of State, Senator Risch. I want to discuss the issue of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, also known as tactical nuclear weapons. While the United States and Russia have a rough equivalence in their strategic nuclear weapons, there is a significant imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons, and it favors Russia. Russia currently has a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and it is expected that the number of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia will continue to grow. This imbalance directly impacts our security commitments to NATO and to our other European allies. Mr. President, I have been to the hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. As a member of that committee, I have heard statements given by former Secretaries of State of both parties. Henry Kissinger testified before the committee and said: The large Russian stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, unmatched by a comparable American deployment, could threaten the ability to undertake extended deterrence. Former Secretary James Schlesinger called this imbalance of Russia's tactical nuclear weapons ``the dog that did not bark.'' He called it a ``frustrating, vexatious, and increasingly worrisome issue.'' In the past, many current Members of the Senate have expressed their concerns with Russia's tactical nuclear weapons. Even Vice President Biden, when he was a Member of this body and serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, spoke about it, and he said: We were hoping in START III to control tactical nuclear weapons. They are the weapons that are shorter range and are used at shorter distances, referred to as tactical nuclear weapons. Well, Mr. President, as I look at this and work through it, it seems that, clearly, this administration did not make tactical weapons a top arms control and nonproliferation objective in the New START treaty. The negotiators of this treaty did not make this issue a priority, and they gave in to pressure from Russia to exclude the mention of tactical nuclear weapons. I want to point out that while the administration failed to negotiate the reduction of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the New START treaty, it did allow a legally binding limitation of U.S. missile defense, and that is, I believe, a mistake. So I disagree with those who argue that ratifying the New START treaty is needed in order to deal with tactical nuclear weapons in the future. I believe the issue of tactical nuclear weapons should have been addressed--together with the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons--in the New START treaty. The administration lost a real opportunity by not negotiating a deal in this treaty. It is unclear what leverage will remain for us to negotiate a reduction in Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Mr. President, the Risch amendment tries to resolve the complete failure of the administration to address Russia's advantage in tactical nuclear weapons in the New START treaty. The Risch amendment acknowledges the interrelationship between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic-range weapons, which grows as strategic warheads are reduced. The Risch amendment seeks greater transparency.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the McCain-Barrasso amendment to the New START treaty, and I appreciate hearing all the strong and passionate support for this amendment from my colleagues on the issue of missile defense. We debated this yesterday, well into the evening, and we are going to be voting on this a little after 3 this afternoon. I think it is important that the American people are given the opportunity to hear the implications of the New START treaty. The New START treaty significantly impacts America's national security and our nuclear deterrent. I believe this treaty places limitations on the ability of our Nation to defend itself--limitations I believe should not be in the treaty. The preamble to the New START treaty provides an explicit link between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. It also implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defense that is beyond ``the current strategic capabilities.'' Well, by specifying current strategic capabilities, the intent is clear: They are signaling that future U.S. capabilities could pose a problem. Russia does not want us to improve or to expand missile defense capabilities for the United States. For me, this is absolutely unacceptable. The administration claims the language in the preamble has no legally binding significance. They claim it is simply a nonbinding concession to Russia--a nonbinding concession to Russia. Well, it is important to note that the New START treaty is not the first attempt by Russia to limit our national defense. Russia has wanted language limiting U.S. missile defense for a long time. They are looking for grounds to claim the U.S. missile defense program violates an international agreement. Russian threats have had an impact on our own missile defense decisions in the past. This administration abandoned previous plans to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is evident the administration already receives considerable pressure from Russia to limit our Nation's missile defense activities. I believe the language in the treaty will only further add to that pressure and will impact U.S. decisionmaking on our own missile defense. I wish to emphasize, again, that the United States must always remain in charge of our own missile defense capabilities, not Russia and not any other country. It is unacceptable for the United States to make any concessions on missile defense. Defending our Nation should be a top priority. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor over and over to highlight this very point. We share a deep concern about the concessions the New START treaty provides to Russia, especially the limitations of our missile defense. There is no legitimate reason for the inclusion of limitations to our national security in this treaty. The New START treaty is just the first step in allowing greater concessions on U.S. missile defense in future agreements. I think it is also important to point out the continual change in the story by the administration--the one they have provided this Senate regarding the inclusion of missile defense language in the treaty. Originally, the Senate was told the New START treaty would not contain anything on missile defense. Then the Senate was informed there would be no reference to missile defense other than in the preamble of the treaty but certainly no limitations. Then we found that article V of the treaty contains a limitation on the conversion of ICBM and SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense. The Senate has a treaty before it now on nuclear strategic offensive weapons with several limitations on missile defense. We are now being told not to worry about these limitations on our ability to defend ourselves in the New START treaty. The administration says: Well, it is only a statement of fact. They say: It isn't legally binding or this administration doesn't plan to use it or it is only an insignificant concession to the Russians. I do not find any of these arguments comforting. This treaty sets a terrible precedent. The United States should not be placing any constraints on our ability to defend ourselves, no matter the type, the size or the length of time. Significant disagreements exist between the United States and Russia on missile defense provisions in the New START treaty. Some argue it doesn't matter what Russia says about the issue. Well, I believe it is vital that we examine what Russia has said about this very matter. When two countries enter into a bilateral agreement, there needs to be an actual agreement--an agreement of what is said and an agreement of what it means. Discussing the disagreements between the two parties to the treaty is imperative, and it is part of the Senate's constitutional obligation. The two parties to this treaty--the United States and Russia--need to know how both parties will be acting and how they will both be interpreting the New START treaty. We cannot ignore the differences. Some proponents of the treaty have argued that passing the McCain- Barrasso amendment will complicate ratification. I reject that idea. I reject the idea that the Senate's advice and consent duty is to take it or leave it. I believe the Senate's advice and consent role is either to accept the treaty or improve the treaty, and that is what this amendment does--it improves the treaty. We, as a Senate, cannot simply be a rubberstamp to treaties due to fears of fixing flaws and improving important provisions. The Congressional Research Service published a study on the role of the Senate in the treaty process. It is titled ``Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of The United States Senate.'' On page 125, the study states: Amendments are proposed changes in the actual text of the treaty. They amount, therefore, to Senate counteroffers that alter the original deal agreed to by the United States and the other country. So should the Senate agree to strike the missile defense section of the preamble, we are simply asking the Russians to accept it. The ball is in Russia's court. The Russians can either accept or reject the Senate's counteroffer. If the text of the preamble is just a nonbinding statement of fact, then Russia should not have any problem in eliminating that portion of the preamble. But if Russia does have a problem with eliminating a so-called nonbinding statement of fact and Russia is willing to jeopardize the entire treaty over it, then every Member of the Senate should be concerned about the provision's impact. The treaty's preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials all show an attempt by Russia to limit or to constrain future U.S. missile defense capabilities. Let's take a look at the Russian unilateral statement. It shows how the Russians will act under the treaty. It states: The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. That is the Russian unilateral statement. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated the treaty contained ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' He went on: 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 systems. To me those statements seem very clear. The negotiators have given in and they have allowed limitations on our missile defense capabilities. I have no doubt that Russia will threaten to withdraw from the treaty, should the United States expand its current nuclear capabilities. There should be no problem in removing the language in the preamble when treaty proponents believe that it has no legally binding significance. I have been sitting here, visiting and discussing this treaty with Members on both sides. This amendment only strikes a portion of the treaty that people who support the treaty have called nonbinding, legally insignificant, and one Senator called it a throwaway provision. Then they should throw it away. This Senate can ensure that there is no limit on U.S. missile defense by simply passing the McCain-Barrasso amendment. Our missile defense is worth the effort and the time to get it right. The McCain-Barrasso amendment significantly improves the treaty and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, 10 to 12 minutes on the START treaty.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Yes, Mr. President. That is exactly what I see here. The senior Senator from Massachusetts said--and this is a transcript from a few minutes ago. He said that the idea that we are going to try to take out of here is nonbinding, nonlegal, completely a throwaway statement.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is indeed a privilege to join my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He made mention of the six Christmases he spent away from home. Members of this body and of this Nation know that those Christmases were spent in captivity as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. I recommend to all of America his book ``Faith of my Fathers.'' I read it on a trip with Senator McCain, heading to Iraq to visit and thank our troops serving several years ago, on Thanksgiving, while we were there with the troops. We were in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and in the Anbar Province. I had a chance to meet, for the first time, a young marine who was Senator McCain's son. As we traveled across this globe visiting our soldiers, thanking them--in Afghanistan as well--we had been to Georgia, where he was awarded and received the highest national award from the President and the people of Georgia. Senator McCain is recognized and respected worldwide for his knowledge, for his patriotism, and for his bravery. I think it is critical that we listen to him as we talk about this very important treaty. The amendment he brings is one to strike the language in the preamble that limits our missile defense. It limits our ability as a nation to defend ourselves. I have major concerns about the Russians trying to limit current and future U.S. missile defense capabilities through the New START. I am committed to our national security and the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. In my opinion, this treaty, signed by our President and by the Russian President on April 8, 2010, places explicit limits on U.S. missile defense. There should be no place in a treaty with Russia for the United States to limit our ability to defend and protect our Nation. Specifically, I believe the language in the preamble, the language in the unilateral statement by Russia the day the treaty was signed, and the language in the statements by senior Russian officials regarding missile defense--all of them show Russia intends to weaken the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. The language in the preamble provides an explicit linkage between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. The preamble implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defense that is beyond ``current strategic'' capabilities. The treaty preamble gives Russia an opportunity to turn their backs on the treaty at the slightest sign of a shift in American defensive strategy. This language is unacceptable and needs to be removed. Senator McCain read from the Wall Street Journal editorial or op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She pointed out several very legitimate concerns about the New START treaty that must be resolved during the ratification process. I wish to repeat and reiterate two sentences that get to the very heart of this amendment that Senator McCain and I are bringing to you today. She stated: . . . the Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the U.S. 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. Suppose the President of Russia is trying to force the United States to choose between missile defense and the treaty. In that case, I choose missile defense. The administration continues to claim there is no limit on missile defense and that the administration also claims the preamble is not legally binding. Well, Russia clearly disagrees and believes the opposite to be true. They have made it quite clear they consider the preamble to be legally binding. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was quoted by Senator McCain on the floor. This very year he stated--and I will reiterate it--that the treaty contained a ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' There is a fundamental disagreement between the United States and Russia on this issue. I believe that placing constraints on future U.S. defense capabilities should not be up for debate, let alone placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons. It is outrageous that this administration would make any concession to Russia on our national security. I think the administration's decision to include this language was a serious mistake. We should not be tying our hands behind our backs and risking the national security of both our Nation as well as our allies. The United States must always remain in charge of our missile defense--not Russia or any other country. As our country continues to face threats from around the world, we should not take any action that will hinder our missile defense options. With concerns over countries such as Iran and North Korea, the United States cannot take any chance on language that could weaken our missile defense capabilities. The administration claims the language in the preamble has no legally binding significance. Then there should be no problem in eliminating that language on missile defense in the preamble of the treaty. That is why I am privileged to join Senator McCain in offering amendment No. 4814, and I ask my colleagues to give great thought and consideration to what the importance of this amendment is and then go on to adopt it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, yes, I am.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to express my views on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START. This treaty is an extremely important and serious matter. New START significantly impacts America's national security and nuclear deterrent. As a result, I believe this treaty deserves adequate time in the Senate--time to examine the issues, time to debate the many flawed provisions, and time to vote on all of the amendments offered for consideration. The majority leader should not be piecemealing together segments of time for debate on an issue as important as nuclear arms control. The treaty should not be shortchanged and rushed through the Senate. The treaty should not be jammed together with consideration of a 1,924-page omnibus Federal spending bill. The treaty should not be considered during a lameduck session. Consideration of the treaty will require a substantial amount of time in order to sufficiently address its many flaws. Like many of my colleagues, I plan on offering amendments, amendments designed to protect our national security. This debate concerns the national security of the United States. It is critical that the United States maintains a strong nuclear deterrent in order to defend our Nation and provide assurances to our allies. I have major concerns about the impact the New START will have on Wyoming and on national security. While I have many issues with the New START, I want to address only a few of my major concerns this morning. First, START straitjackets the U.S. missile defense capabilities. Second, START offers no method to make sure a historically noncompliant Russia state will keep its promises. Third, the approach embodied by START is representative of an outdated and simplistic view of the U.S. position on the world stage. To begin, I wish to specifically discuss the limitations placed on the U.S. missile defense by the New START. The treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev on April 8, 2010, places explicit limitations on U.S. missile defense. The preamble of the treaty--the preamble declares an interrelationship between strategic nuclear offensive weapons and strategic nuclear defensive weapons. It implies the right of Russia to withdraw from the treaty based on U.S. missile defenses that are beyond ``current strategic'' capabilities. The treaty preamble, the very preamble of the treaty, gives Russia an opportunity to turn their backs on the treaty at the slightest sign of a shift in American defensive strategy. This language is unacceptable and needs to be removed. I offered an amendment in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to strike this language. The White House resists any attempt to amend the preamble. The administration argues it is a nonbinding concession to Russia. Russia clearly doesn't see it that same way. They have made it quite clear they consider the preamble legally binding. A Russian Foreign Minister stated the treaty contained ``legally binding linkage between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.'' The Russians have wanted this language for a long time in order to have grounds to claim that the U.S. missile defense program violates an international agreement. This type of constraining language is not unique to the preamble. The treaty also places a legally binding limitation on missile defense in article V of the treaty. Article V prohibits the transforming of offensive strategic missile launchers into defensive strategic missile launchers. As this Nation continues to face threats from around the world, we should not take any action that will hinder our missile defense options. We need to be able to defend ourselves. Just like the preamble, the administration makes excuses as to why they have made concessions to the Russians on our missile defense. The current administration claims that they have no plans to use the missile defense options prohibited under the new START treaty. I believe that placing any constraints on future U.S. defense capabilities should not even be up for debate, let alone placed in a treaty on strategic offensive nuclear weapons. The purpose of New START was to reduce strategic nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia, not limit the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. It is outrageous that the administration would make any concessions to Russia on our national security. The United States must always remain in charge of our own missile defense--not Russia, not any other country. We should not be tying our hands behind our backs and risking the security of our Nation and our allies. Russia is trying to force the United States to choose between missile defense and the treaty. The clear choice should always be to protect the ability of the United States to defend ourselves. I believe the administration's decision was a serious mistake. I also have major concerns about the central limits of New START. This treaty is a one-sided agreement aimed at only reducing U.S. strategic nuclear weapons. Russia is currently below the limit for strategic nuclear delivery vehicles under the New START treaty. As a result, Russia will not have to make reductions. The United States will be the only party required to slash its forces. Due to loopholes in the treaty counting rules, Russia could deploy more than 1,550 warheads, go above that ceiling and still be in compliance with the treaty. Russia may even be able to deploy more than 2,100 warheads under the treaty. Each deployed heavy bomber, regardless of the actual number of warheads on it, only counts as one deployed strategic warhead. If anything, the limits just tell Russia how many weapons they are allowed to add to their strategic nuclear force. Why would the administration enter into a bilateral treaty that only requires the United States to make sacrifices? This is not acceptable. New START offers us nothing in return, not even a robust verification mechanism that enables us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises. President Ronald Reagan regularly repeated the phrase ``trust, but verify.'' He did it repeatedly regarding nuclear weapons. The verification measures play an important role in analyzing the New START. The New START has a weak verification regime. Former Secretary of State James Baker made the exact point by indicating the New START verification procedure provisions, he said, were weaker than the original New START. Under New START, the U.S. would be limited to 18 inspections per year as opposed to 28 in the past. Under the original START treaty the United States conducted approximately 600 inspections. Under New START the United States is limited to a maximum of 180 inspections. This further plays into Russia's favor due to there being 35 Russian facilities compared to only 17 U.S. facilities to inspect. The administration also dropped two key provisions from New START. The United States will no longer have continuous monitoring at the Russian nuclear missile assembly plant. We had it in START I. Why are we giving up this important verification component in New START? The United States also will not have full access to Russian nuclear ballistic missile launch telemetry under New START. Under START I we had unrestricted access. Why are we giving that up? The treaty does not provide us with the verification mechanisms that enable us to make sure Russia is keeping its promises. Instead, there is a lot of trust and precious little verification. A weaker verification system is even more dangerous due to Russia's long history of noncompliance on arms control treaties. Russia has a record of noncompliance and violations under the original START treaty. Up until the end of the original START treaty in December of 2009, Russia was continuing to engage in compliance violations. The Department of State compliance reports from 2010 spell out the numerous violations made by the Russians. Finally, the treaty relies on the false premise that Russia is America's only nuclear rival. This view of the world is outdated and simplistic. Even if we could trust Russia there are numerous other threats such as North Korea and Iran which have repeatedly shown hostility to the United States and to our allies. We should never abandon our defenses and sacrifice our deterrent in the face of increasing international belligerence. It is the equivalent of asking America to stare down the barrel of a gun without knowing whether the gun is loaded, and then to trust the person holding it not to pull the trigger. In arguing for this treaty the administration has tried to have it both ways. The treaty demands the United States reduce our nuclear strike force by specific numbers. Yet the administration has only offered a vague range of estimates regarding where these cuts would take place. The President's force structure plan provides up to 420 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 14 submarines carrying up to 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and up to 60 nuclear-capable levee bombers. Even if the administration did cut the absolute maximum number of weapons it has proposed to cut, it would still fail to live up to the reductions demanded by New START. Instead of giving the Senate a specific force structure, the President is repeating his health care playbook and telling us to wait until after the United States ratifies the treaty to find out the details. It is wrong that the Senate is considering approving this treaty without knowing these details, and these details matter. The force structure of our nuclear triad is critical to maintaining an effective deterrent. The nuclear triad of the United States spans sea, air, and land. By working together, our nuclear triad complicates and deters any attempt at a successful first strike by anyone on our country. I believe the President's force structure proposal will weaken our nuclear triad. The American people deserve a full debate on the Senate floor on a treaty of this magnitude. It is my hope that the Senate will take its constitutional responsibility very seriously and provide the New START with the scrutiny it deserves. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the Chairman knows, Senator Johanns of Nebraska has proposed a Republican alternative on this issue. Would the Senator amend his request to substitute the Johanns language?

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. The Senator mentioned the unelected bureaucrats in our comments. There was a story today in the New York Times. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Senator from that story because I think it gets to the point he is making. This was by Eric Lichtblau and Robert Pear. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this story from today's New York Times.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I am very impressed by what the Senator have come up with. This leadership position takes that next step forward to protect our rights that he and I believe are in the Constitution and apply to the people of our States and apply to the people of this country. One would hope everyone would join in, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. BARRASSO. As Members of this body know, for the past 9 months I have come to the floor every week to offer a doctor's second opinion on the new health care law. I do this as someone who has practiced medicine, taken care of families around the State of Wyoming for a quarter of a century. Each week I repeatedly criticize another one of the unintended consequences of this health care law, a law that I think is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers. Americans heard how this law breaks most of the President's promises about health care reform. That is why, on election day, Americans across our country spoke out. They called on Washington to work to repeal and replace this law. The Republicans have answered. We realize we cannot just object to the law, we must do our best to repeal and replace it. That is why I am delighted this morning to be joined on the floor by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. He is joining me to talk about his new bill that he is introducing today that will allow State officials to challenge Federal regulations before these regulations actually go into effect. This will allow States to fight back against outrageous health care regulations that continue to be written. With that, I would like to ask my colleague if he would please share with the body and with the country the remarkable bill that he is introducing today.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues.

Mr. BARRASSO. It talks about Federal rulemakers. That is whom I believe we are talking about, these unelected bureaucrats. Federal rule makers, long the neglected stepchildren of Washington bureaucrats, suddenly find themselves at the center of power-- The bureaucrats-- as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans. We are talking about not just the health care law but also the financial regulations. The one part I want to ask the Senator about says: But the laws were so broad and complex that executive- branch regulators will have wide leeway in determining what the rules should say and how they should be carried out. Well, isn't that why we need this piece of legislation--to let the States get in there before some of these rules and regulations are put onto the people of Mississippi, the people of Wyoming, the people all across the country?

Mr. BARRASSO. With that, I thank and congratulate my colleague for his vision and his foresight and his leadership because this is, I believe, how the Founding Fathers would have seen it. I believe those who wrote the Constitution would be on board with this piece of legislation to say, as the 10th amendment does say, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is astonishing. I know the people of Wyoming as well as the people of Mississippi always oppose Washington's wasteful spending, but when I read that the health care officials are leasing more than 70,000 square feet of space on three floors of this office building in Bethesda for 230 employees, rushing to rulemaking, and see that the government--Washington--agreed to pay over $51 per usable square foot, compared with the average of less than $30 a square foot in Bethesda--why? Because it wanted to get the operation running in July. They were rushing to get to this. But it says that this may only be the beginning. This may only be the beginning. A recent report--not by my colleague from Mississippi and not by me but by the Congressional Research Service--says that the publication of rules under the health care law could stretch out for decades to come. That is why I am going to cosponsor this legislation. I have great concern about States rights and individual rights being trampled on by a Washington government that is out of control in terms of spending, and it is doing it in spite of the cries of the American people. So I congratulate and compliment my colleague from Mississippi for bringing this piece of legislation to the Senate today and thank him for joining me on the floor as part of a doctor's second opinion because you don't have to be a doctor to know that this health care law is not good for patients, it is not good for providers, it is not good for taxpayers. As more and more people see the rules and the regulations come, they will once again see the broken promises by this President, who said: If you like your health care program, you get to keep it, and then they turn 2 pages in the rules and regulations into 121 pages which said, for many people in this country, they are not going to be able to keep what they have, they are not going to be able to keep what has been promised them, and it is because the rules and the regulations are so complicated. And the rulemaking continues.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, would the Senator agree to include an amendment that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which I have at the desk?

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, the way that I propose to pay for this to help those seniors, to help those who have those needs, is a proposal that is very familiar to this body. It is because 21 of my Democratic colleagues voted in favor of this way to pay for something earlier this week when the same pay-for was attached to an amendment from my colleague, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, that would have repealed an unfortunate paperwork mandate in the health care law. I would be happy to list all of the Senators who voted for this. I am sorry my friend across the aisle is not joining me in supporting this fiscally responsible support for our seniors. But, as I say, on the issue of stimulating the economy and giving some certainty in this Nation to those job creators, the Republicans are united: 42 of us say you should not raise taxes on anyone during economic times like these, and the chorus of Democrats who support that continues to grow. It grew this past week from five members of the Democratic conference to seven with the swearing in of Senator Coons of Delaware and Senator Manchin of West Virginia. Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota has said: The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. That would be counterproductive. So he says do not raise taxes during an economic downturn. Senator Evan Bayh said: The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting more money into the economy. Senator Jim Webb, Democrat from Virginia, said: ``I don't think they ought to be drawing a distinction . . . '' at a certain dollar number. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska said: I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska's and the nation's economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery. Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, said: I don't think it makes sense to raise any Federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through. Then, of course, Senator Coons: ``I would extend them to tax cuts for everyone.'' And Senator Manchin, then-Governor of West Virginia, said, ``I wouldn't raise any taxes.'' At a time with 9.6 percent unemployment, at a time when our Nation continues to struggle economically, at a time people are looking for work, wanting to work, looking for jobs, the job-creating sector of this country needs some certainty. With the mandates of the health care law, which are expensive, environmental mandates coming from the Environmental Protection Agency with their rules and regulations impacting on the cost of energy, and then the uncertainty, the significant uncertainty that exists in this country as to what tax rates will be and how that is going to impact all taxpayers with their take-home pay come January 1, it is no surprise that people are concerned and reluctant to make long-term commitments and investments in businesses and in the future. That is why I stand here to object to my colleague from Rhode Island when he makes a proposal, which there is support for, but it is unpaid for. We need to pay for it. I bring to the Senate floor a responsible way in which to pay for it, and which he has rejected. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Yes, Madam President.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California. Senator Brown, who occupies the desk next to mine, was on the floor talking about this just 2 nights ago and does want to work to extend unemployment benefits and to do it in a way that is paid for. That is why I came to offer the amendment to the Senator from California to say: Well, let's do it but do it by paying for it using unspent Federal funds, the text of which is at the desk. We need to pay to extend this. But what we need to do is stimulate the economy because of what we see on the front page of USA Today about ``Jobless data could break '80s record'' and ``November was likely 19th month above 9 percent.'' We need to give certainty to business. My colleague from California made comments about a letter signed by 42 Republican Senators. In fact, I did sign that. All the Republican Members of the Senate signed it. In the first paragraph it says: President Obama in his first speech after the November election said ``we owe'' it to the American people to ``focus on those issues that affect their jobs.'' He went on to say that Americans ``want jobs to come back faster.'' That is why 42 of us signed the letter. Let's focus on that. Let us get that done. Let us provide that certainty. If after that is done the majority party wants to go and address the issues of don't ask, don't tell, wants to talk about the DREAM Act, talking about incentives for illegal immigrants with college education, if they want to talk about issues of firefighters joining unions, fine. But let's get to the fundamentals of what the American people want to have dealt with. That is why I was happy to offer an amendment to my colleague from California to say pay for it, and then we can move on. Because businesses need that sort of certainty. I heard her many comments about taxes, and I believe you should not raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic times such as these. My colleagues on this side of the aisle all agree and there is actually bipartisan agreement that you should not raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic times such as these. The newest Members of the Senate--and since the election there are now three new Members who have been sworn in; two on that side of the aisle, one on my side of the aisle--are unanimous in saying one should not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times. Senator Manchin from West Virginia said: ``I wouldn't raise any taxes.'' Senator Coons from Delaware said: ``I would extend them [the tax cuts] for everyone.'' So when I look at this and also see statements by Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, it is a growing chorus of Democrats saying: One should not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times. We need to give certainty to the job-creating segment of this Nation. We need to do it in a timely manner. With it only being 4 weeks until the end of the year and people wanting to know what is going to happen with their taxes, I think the best thing this body could do is to provide that certainty. So with that, I notice a number of colleagues who are waiting to speak and I yield the floor.