John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, it is my understanding that is correct; it is up to the 240 SLBMs, up to 420 ICBMs, and up to 60 bombers.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, we are prepared to debate. The Senator from Oklahoma wants to talk at length about the verification issue. I do not think we are prepared at this point to enter into a time agreement for any time certain on votes. Until we can get some indication from our colleagues who would like to speak on this amendment, it would be very difficult to do that.

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to respond, if I might, to some of these issues. One of the issues General Chilton, the Stratcom commander, I think testified to was an assumption there would be nobody cheating. As I said before, history is replete with examples of the Russians cheating on these agreements. And furthermore, what they agreed to was not--the treaty is 700, but what General Chilton and the nuclear force structure plan would call for is 720. It is 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, up to 420 ICBMs, and up to 60 bombers. Again that adds up to 720. All this amendment does is simply make consistent what the nuclear force structure plan as outlined by General Chilton and others would be with what the treaty requirements would be as well. Again I want to make one point about this. I said this earlier but we have 856 launch vehicles, delivery vehicles in our arsenal today. The treaty calls for 700 so we are making a 156-delivery vehicle reduction to get down to the 700 number. The Russians today at 620 in effect are already below the 700 number and they are headed down even lower to somewhere in the 400 range. So we have made a significant concession with respect for delivery vehicles at no cost whatsoever to the Russians. I would point out also that the concern I have, as I said before, in taking a 720 number and reducing it to 700 assumes again that even if you keep 240 submarine-launched ballistic missile delivery vehicles, assume that, and if you assume 420 ICBMs, you would have to reduce the bomber inventory down to 40 to get under the 700 level. I think most people understand it is the bombers, the heavy bombers that have given us the extended deterrence. They are visible, they are recallable, they are psychological, they are political. You put them into a theater, they loiter, they persist, and that is a powerful deterrent to those who would like to proliferate nuclear weapons. If we take our bomber fleet and we reduce down to the limits that would be talked about under this treaty, we are putting at great risk the triad. A lot of these bombers need to be updated and they are getting older. We need a next generation bomber which I think is going to be critical that that also be a nuclear bomber. But I think it is important to point out that this particular treaty relative to where we are today and to what our needs could be in the future, particularly as it pertains to bombers, the need for extended deterrence, we are reducing to a level that I think makes many of us uncomfortable and gets below the number that was prescribed in the nuclear force structure plan as had been outlined. The 720 as opposed to 700--the 700 number is well below where I think we need to be and does put in peril the triad which has served us well for a long period of time. In fact, in the early stage of the Cold War it was the heavy bombers that provided the bulk of the work. When we developed the ICBM, and SLBMs, now some of the bombers have been converted to conventional use and they have been doing a great job in that mission as well. But if we are going to have extended deterrence in the future we are going to have to have a very robust nuclear fleet that is nuclear capable, and a 700 number puts that in great jeopardy. With that, I yield back to the Senator.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask that the pending Inhofe amendment be set aside in order to call up my amendment No. 4841.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with, and that we resume consideration of the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the START treaty, more specifically to the McCain-Barrasso amendment which is the amendment that is currently under consideration and on which we will vote later this afternoon. I want to point out at the outset that you do not have to watch the news very often in this country to realize we live in a dangerous world. There are lots of countries around the world that are run by regimes that not only mistreat their own populations but would love to do harm to countries that are allies of ours, as well as to the United States. That is why a debate about an issue such as missile defense is so important. That is why this particular provision in the START treaty has drawn so much attention, so much concern by many of us who are concerned about the linkage it establishes between offensive strategic arms and defensive strategic arms. The Senate made it abundantly clear at the outset of the negotiations on the New START treaty, specifically in section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization bill, that there should be no limitations on U.S. ballistic missile defense systems. The New START treaty not only contains specific limitations on those systems, but also reestablishes an unwise linkage between offense and defense that was broken when the ABM Treaty came to an end. We were told as recently as March 29, by Under Secretary Tauscher, ``The treaty does nothing to constrain missile defense. This treaty is about strategic weapons.'' I quote again, ``There is no limit on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems.'' And then quote again, ``There are no constraints to missile defense.'' Those were all quotes made by Secretary Tauscher on March 29. But these assertions are incorrect in two ways. No. 1, not only are there specific limits on some missile defense options--and I note article V, paragraph 3 of the treaty text itself--but, second, when viewed together with the treaty's preamble, Russia's unilateral statement and statements by senior officials all provide potential for Russia to intimidate the United States by threatening to withdraw from the treaty if the United States seeks to increase its missile defense capabilities. The treaty's supporters are going to argue that the limit on converting offensive silos for missile defense is meaningless because we don't have any such plans. But the question I come back to is simply this: Why is there a limitation at all on missile defense in a treaty that is meant to deal with nuclear weapons? Why did we concede to the Russians on this important point and can we be sure we will never have such plans. After all, we have converted offensive silos to defensive silos--for defensive purposes--in the past. My own view is that particular provision in the treaty text is a direct linkage between offensive and defensive arms. Then you have the preamble and unilateral signing statements that I think are even more telling when it comes to that connection that is drawn between--that interrelationship between offense and defense. Far more pernicious is the treaty's preamble and the two unilateral signing statements by the Russians and by the United States. The preamble states, ``The current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic arms of the Parties.'' The statement suggests that moving beyond current systems might undermine the viability and effectiveness of strategic systems and could provide grounds for withdrawal. The administration says that either side can withdraw anyway. That is only partially true. The withdrawal clause in the treaty, as it has been in previous treaties, deals with extraordinary events and the preamble and unilateral statements make withdrawal more likely by building in an inevitable pretext. So you have the preamble, the language in the preamble, you have the direct linkage in the treaty text itself, and then I also want to mention the other point which I think is equally important and that is the Russian unilateral signing statement makes clear Russia's legal opinion. Here is what it says. 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 American refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively. It further states: The exceptional circumstances referred to in article XIV, the withdrawal clause of the treaty, include increasing the capabilities of the United States of America's missile defense system in such a way that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. So the Russians have built into the treaty record their threat that improvement of U.S. missile defense creates the legal pretext for their withdrawal from the treaty. It can only be read as an attempt to exert political pressure to forestall continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defenses. Was our response to that a firm rebuttal? The answer is no. Unlike the START I agreement where the United States said quite clearly that it did not agree with Russian statements linking that treaty to the U.S. status in the ABM treaty, we did not do that this time. Instead, the State Department said, in response to the Russian unilateral statement: The United States of America takes note of the statement on missile defense by the Russian Federation. The United States missile defense systems would be employed to defend the United States against limited missile launches, and to defend its deployed forces, 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. So it would appear that the U.S. position does not contradict the Russian position in the slightest. What then to make of the U.S. missile defense plan previously announced by Secretary Gates, which talks about the deployment of SM-3 missiles in Romania by 2015, Poland by 2018, and then in 2020 the deployment in Europe of the new SM-3 2B missile for the defense of Europe and the United States against ICBMs; is this still our position or is it now the position set forth in the signing statement and as recently briefed to the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon where the SN03 2B missile was portrayed quite clearly as being ``available'' rather than ``deployed'' in the year 2020. It is clear to me the administration is already coming under considerable pressure by the Russians to limit its missile defense activities in the very near future. Past experience would suggest this administration may be willing to alter its plans to accommodate the Russians, as it did in the case of previous plans to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. How will it respond if the President's prized accomplishment, the START treaty, is at risk? I think it is very clear from the language in the preamble, the direct linkage in the treaty itself, and what the signing statements say, what the Russians' intentions are with regard to this particular issue, which is why it is so important this amendment get adopted. This amendment the Senators from Arizona and Wyoming have offered would simply strike the language in the preamble that is causing so much concern. We have heard arguments on the floor of the Senate since we started debate on the START treaty that the preamble is nonbinding; in other words, it does not mean anything. In fact, it was said yesterday by someone on the other side that it is throwaway language. Yet at the same time, it has been argued by others on the other side that it is a treaty killer. It cannot be both. It cannot be a throwaway that is not legally binding and a treaty killer at the same time. Essentially, what they are saying is, it means nothing and it means everything. That is a direct contradiction. That is why it is so important this amendment be adopted, which would clarify once and for all, or separate and decouple or delink this connection that exists in this treaty between offensive and defensive arms. I think the amendment that is before us right now gets at the very heart of the matter, and we all know the Russians and Americans have different views on missile defense. But the attempt to paper over or even ignore these differences in this treaty sets the stage for future misunderstandings or confrontations as the United States continues its missile defense activities, particularly in Europe. Confusion about U.S. plans is equally dangerous. This is not an issue on which there should be ambiguity, on which there should be confusion, and on which there should be this kind of a difference of opinion. So I would simply say, as we come here in an hour or so to a final vote on the McCain-Barrasso amendment, that I think it is important for the Senate in our important role when it comes to treaty ratification to make sure we are doing everything that is in the national security interests of the United States and allows us in the best way possible to defend this country and our allies. If we are limiting in any way our ability when it comes to the issue of missile defense, we are putting in jeopardy and at risk America's national security interests. So this treaty should not be approved. It should not be approved certainly until some of these changes are made, and we can start today by eliminating the linkage and the connection that exists today in the preamble by striking and deleting that language from the preamble of this treaty and making it very clear that the United States intends to preserve all options available to us when it comes to missile defense. As I said before, this is something--this linkage was broken years ago under the Bush administration. We should not establish now the precedent of allowing those issues to be linked and to give the Russians an opportunity and an excuse to withdraw from this treaty if the United States decides to proceed with what is in its own best national security interests. So I would urge my colleagues on this amendment--this is an important amendment. We will hopefully have debate on other amendments. I have a couple of amendments to deal with the issue of delivery vehicles which I think is also a very important part of this treaty. But there probably is no more important piece of this treaty than the issue of missile defense when it comes to the vital national security interests of the United States. So I hope Members will, when this vote comes up later today, vote in favor of the McCain-Barrasso amendment and make it clear that there is to be no linkage, no nexus, between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms so we eliminate once and for all the ambiguity that exists with regard to this issue and allow us to proceed to other amendments on the treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I would also simply say, again, that I do not think you can have it both ways. You cannot say that this means nothing, and at the same time that it means everything. If it is a throwaway, some language that does not mean anything, that is one thing. But if it is a deal killer for us to suggest that we ought to remove this language, which we think means something, that that is a deal killer, then somehow it means a lot more and it matters a lot more than I think the supporters and proponents of this treaty are letting on. So I would ask that as we continue the debate, this issue be fully aired. I think we have a lot of people who have come down and talked about it. I think this is at least one amendment that I am aware of on the issue of missile defense. But I do know that in terms of the overall treaty and the concerns that some of us have about it, this issue stands out. The issue of missile defense, when you live in a dangerous world, is a critical issue when it comes to our national security. It is one that we need to take very seriously, and particularly, as has already been mentioned, the threats that we face from rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. We cannot do anything that would lessen or weaken our ability to defend our country and our allies from threats from those types of countries. I would say when it comes to this issue, it would make it a lot easier for those who are advocating support for this treaty if the McCain-Barrasso amendment were adopted. We simply delete it and strike this language, which, if it does not mean anything, should not matter all that much. And if it does mean something and it matters, I think that tells us everything we need to know about what the Russians' intentions are with regard to having that language in the preamble. Couple that with the statements they have made in the unilateral signing statement, along with the article V language in the treaty itself. This is an issue of great importance, and we should not take it lightly, we should not minimize it. We need to have a full debate on it. I hope we can stay on this issue. I know of the leader's plan to move tomorrow to some other legislative business. But if this particular agreement is that important to the administration and to this country and to the Senate, then we ought to be able to stay on this, and the legislative items, many of which are political items that are sort of what I would call check-the-box items that the Democratic leadership wants to get voted on, ought to be put off. We can deal with those issues another time, another year. If we are serious about getting this treaty done, then we ought to stay on it, keep our focus on it, and allow the Senate to have a full, fair debate, open to amendments, and hopefully, ultimately, get this thing disposed of one way or the other. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I too want to rise in strong support of the McCain-Barrasso amendment to strike language from the preamble of this treaty to link strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms. This language in the preamble is highly troubling, because it reestablishes an unwise linkage between offensive arms and defensive arms that was broken when the ABM treaty came to an end. More troubling is the fact that the New START treaty contains specific limitations on missile defense in article V. Moreover, Russia's unilateral statement that the treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively is also extremely troubling. When viewed together, the New START treaty's preamble, the limitations on missile defense in article V, and Russia's unilateral statement, amount to a Russian attempt to find a leverage point and exert political pressure upon the United States to forestall deploying a robust missile defense capability by threatening to withdraw from the treaty if we seek to increase our missile defense capabilities. The remedy for this concern is very simple. It is for the Senate to strike the offensive preamble language. That is why I wholeheartedly support the effort to strike this language from the preamble, as well as an amendment to strike paragraph 3 of article V of the treaty. There have been conflicting statements made about the preamble and its significance. We have heard supporters of the treaty say that the preamble is a throwaway, and it means nothing. Then, on the other hand, you have got people saying that, well, if you change this, if you strike this language, it is a treaty killer. So we are hearing what are essentially contradictory statements that this means everything and it means nothing. That cannot be. So I would say it is critically important that we as a nation continue to quantitatively and qualitatively build up our missile defense systems. We know that rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea are rapidly building up their ballistic missile capabilities to eventually be able to strike our country. We cannot let another nation have a vote on whether we build up our missile defenses. I am very confident that if Russia threatens to withdraw from this treaty when we seek to qualitatively and quantitatively improve our missile defenses, the administration will cave in to the Russians. We have already seen something such as this happen with the administration abruptly ending the Bush administration's efforts to build a third missile defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic. Why should we have any confidence that they will not do the same thing when something like this happens again? That is why it is critically important that we remove this language from the preamble to eliminate any pretext by the Russians to threaten to withdraw from the treaty because we are improving our missile defense capabilities. It is particularly galling that the administration inserted this missile defense language into the treaty, when one considers that Congress made it abundantly clear at the outset of negotiations on this treaty, specifically in section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization bill, that there should be no limitation on United States ballistic missile defense systems. Specifically, we said: It is the sense of Congress that the President should maintain the stated position of the United States that the follow-on treaty to the START treaty not include any limitations on the ballistic missile defense systems of the United States. We also received repeated assurances by senior State Department officials that the treaty would do nothing to constrain missile defense. So I was surprised to see that the treaty ended up containing specific limits on some missile defense options in article V, paragraph 3, as I mentioned earlier, as well as this language in the preamble that we are currently considering in the McCain-Barrasso amendment. When those of us who criticize this treaty point out that Russia may rely on language in the treaty's preamble as a pretext for withdrawal if the United States builds up its missile defense, the administration response is usually to say, the preamble is not legally binding. Obviously if this language is not legally binding, then it should not be a big deal to delete it from the preamble. But it can be no accident that Russia used the words ``effective'' and ``viable'' in its unilateral statement that it would view American advances in missile defense as grounds for withdrawal from the treaty, thereby creating a textual hook to the treaty for its position. The unilateral statement is certainly a sign of how Russia interprets the preamble. I believe, therefore, that there is ample reason to be concerned that this administration will not dedicate itself to deploying a robust missile defense that in any way irks Russia. In the preamble Russia has established a pressure point to dissuade this administration from improving our own missile defense system in a quantitative or qualitative way. Therefore, it is extremely important that the Senate simply remove that preamble language. I wholeheartedly support the McCain-Barrasso amendment. I urge its passage, and ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Nation's attention is fixed firmly on this travesty of an omnibus trillion-dollar appropriations bill which we should be debating now because the current funding resolution for the government ends tomorrow. We should not be debating a significant arms control treaty at this late date and trying to dual-track what I said earlier are thousands of pages of documents that need appropriate time on the floor of the Senate. I want to speak, if I might, briefly today to the substance of the START agreement and my concerns about that agreement in its current form. First of all, I want to speak to the issue of missile defense. The New START treaty not only contains specific limitations on missile defense in article V but also reestablishes an unwise linkage in the preamble to the treaty between offense and defense that was broken when the ABM treaty came to an end. Moreover, Russia's unilateral statement that the treaty ``can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities, quantitatively or qualitatively'' is extremely troubling. When viewed together, the New START treaty's preamble and Russia's unilateral statement amount to a Russian attempt to find a leverage point and exert political pressure upon the United States to forestall deploying a robust missile defense capability, by threatening to withdraw from the treaty if we seek to increase our missile defense capabilities. The remedy for this concern is for the Senate to strike the offensive preamble language. That is why I would wholeheartedly support an effort to strike the preamble as well as an amendment to strike paragraph 3 of article V of the treaty. Now, with regard to delivery vehicle modernization, and I want to speak specifically in that regard to bombers, nearly 2 years ago I began to have serious concerns about the administration's commitment to developing a follow-on bomber aircraft and its overall commitment to the triad of nuclear delivery vehicles. These concerns were aggravated by the administration's decision to terminate the development program for a new bomber and reexamine the need, the requirement, and the technology. I was also troubled by Secretary Gates's statement on April 6, 2009, that we will examine all of our strategic requirements in light of post-START arms control negotiations, which leads me to be concerned that this administration would allow the Russians to have a say in whether we would develop a new bomber. I was gratified to see that the Nuclear Posture Review determined that the United States should sustain the nuclear triad for decades. However, as the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recently stated in a report entitled, ``Sustaining America's Strategic Advantage in Long-Range Strike,'' the triad is in danger of becoming a dyad by default because nearly half of the bomber inventory of the United States, 47 percent, predates the Cuban missile crisis, and the only aircraft the United States possesses today with reach and survivability to have a chance of successfully executing missions more than 1,000 nautical miles into enemy territory from the last air-to-air refueling are 16 combat-ready B-2 bombers. Madam President, the B-2 was designed in the 1980s and achieved initial operational capability over a decade ago, and they will eventually lose their ability to penetrate advanced air defense systems. The need, the requirement, and the technology for the next- generation bomber is well understood. The need for a new long-range strike capability is urgent because the conflicts of the future will likely feature heavily defended airspace due in large part to the proliferation of relatively inexpensive but extremely sophisticated and deadly air defense systems. We have heard testimony before the Armed Services Committee from intelligence officials that Russia is the developer of most of these advanced air defense systems and is exporting those systems both to China and to other countries in the world. Various past and present combatant commanders of the Pacific Command, Strategic Command, and Joint Forces Command have each testified in support of the capability the next-generation bomber will provide. As Senator McCain summarized in his letter to the Foreign Relations Committee on the treaty, the 1251 plan and even the updated plan lack critical details about decisions related to the follow-on ICBM, the next-generation bomber, or a follow-on air-launched cruise missile. General Chilton, the most recent STRATCOM commander, has spoken about how conversations about these matters need to start now. Development of replacement delivery vehicles for all three legs of the triad need to begin during the life of New START. Decisions need to be made and development needs to begin within the next 10 years or replacement systems will not be available when current systems reach the end of their service lives. There is no assurance that the next long-range bomber will be nuclear capable. Therefore, I plan to offer an amendment which will require the administration to certify that the President has made a commitment to develop a replacement heavy bomber that is both nuclear and conventionally capable. With regard to delivery vehicle numbers, on July 9, 2009, at an Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about the administration's commitment at that time to reduce our strategic delivery vehicles to somewhere in the range of 500 to 1,100 systems and to specify at what point in this range would he become concerned that delivery vehicle reductions would necessitate making our nuclear triad into a dyad. General Cartwright responded, ``I would be very concerned if we got down below those levels about midpoint,'' meaning he would be concerned if the negotiated number fell below 800 delivery vehicles. This treaty caps delivery vehicles at 700--substantially below the number General Cartwright stated a year and a half ago. The administration makes this odd distinction between deployed and nondeployed delivery vehicles and points out that the total cap for the treaty is 800 deployed and nondeployed systems. Of course, there is a letter from General Cartwright in the Record stating he is comfortable with the distinction between deployed and nondeployed delivery vehicles and the overall limits to delivery vehicles. But the real number we are working with here is 700. I think it is worth noting that former Defense Secretary Schlesinger testified to the Foreign Relations Committee on April 29, 2010, that, ``as to the stated context of strategic nuclear weapons, the numbers specified are adequate, though barely so.'' With regard to this limit of 700 deployed delivery vehicles, I find it very troubling that the administration has yet to articulate how it will deploy a nuclear force conforming to the number of 700. The administration has informed the Senate how it might field a force of 720 delivery vehicles, which Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen acknowledged in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 17, 2010, would still require further reductions to meet the treaty's central limits. They went on to argue that because the United States will have 7 years to reduce its forces to these limits, they did not find it necessary to identify a final force structure at this point, meaning the Senate will commit the United States to a delivery vehicle force of 700 without knowing how that force will be composed. This problem is compounded by the fact that the treaty was so poorly negotiated, that for every ICBM or SLBM deployed with a conventional warhead, one less nuclear vehicle will be available to the United States. The treaty essentially requires the United States to make unilateral reductions in delivery vehicles, as Russia is already well below the delivery vehicle limits and would drastically reduce its arsenal with or without this treaty. As the Congressional Research Service writes: Russia currently has only 620 launchers, and this number may decline to around 400 deployed and 444 total launchers. This would likely be true whether or not the treaty enters into force because Russia is eliminating older missiles as they age and deploying newer missiles at a far slower pace than that needed to retain 700 deployed launchers. Therefore, in light of all these facts, I will seek to offer an amendment or two regarding the delivery vehicle numbers in this treaty. I am also working on several other amendments that I may seek to offer regarding prompt global strike and other issues. Ultimately, this is a very significant treaty that deserves full and fair consideration, and we should not be jamming the consideration of this treaty up against the Christmas break. As I have indicated, there are substantial issues here that need to be fully vetted, and we obviously do not have the time to consider these issues this year. We should wait until next year to fully consider this treaty and have a full, free, and wide-open debate on this matter, with no restrictions on amendments. Exhibit 1 [From the National Review, Dec. 9, 2010] Don't Force New Start The treaty should not be a Christmas present for Russia Twenty-four years ago, Pres. Ronald Reagan traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland, to negotiate an arms control treaty with the Soviet Union. When the Soviets insisted that the treaty must limit America's missile defense program, which was designed to guard against intercontinental ballistic missiles, Reagan walked away. He later explained, ``We prefer no agreement than to bring home a bad agreement to the United States.'' Apparently times have changed. President Obama wants to jam a deeply flawed arms-control treaty with Russia, known as New START, through a lame-duck session of the Senate just to rack up an accomplishment before the end of the year. New START misses one opportunity after another to maintain a stable nuclear relationship between our two countries. To remedy this will require significant time on the floor of the Senate. Trying to force it through without ample time for debate and amendments would amount to a Christmas gift to the Russians. First and foremost, missile defense remains a major point of disagreement between the United States and Russia, and this treaty only makes the situation worse. Russia has threatened to withdraw from the treaty if we expand our missile-defense capabilities. It made a similar threat when the original START was completed under the first President Bush. At that time, President Bush said directly that our missile-defense activities have no bearing on Russia's arms- control obligations. I am concerned that President Obama's response to the Russian threat this time is weaker. Moreover, the treaty contains a direct limitation on U.S. missile-defense-system deployments. Why does a treaty ostensibly about offensive weapons mention missile defense at all? It appears to have been included only to appease Russia. Treaty proponents argue that New START furthers the legacy of Ronald Reagan's vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Let's be clear about one thing: President Reagan never would have sacrificed missile defense on the altar of arms control. Second, Russia has an estimated ten-to-one advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons, a situation that was not addressed at all by New START. These are the kinds of weapons that are most susceptible to theft or diversion to emerging threats, including terrorists and rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. They are the weapons Russia has reportedly moved closer to our NATO allies. One of our top goals going into negotiations on this treaty should have been to close that gap, so why wasn't it mentioned? Because the Russians didn't want to talk about it. Third, treaty proponents argue that the Senate must rush consideration of New START because we now lack the ability to verify what Russia is doing. This would make sense if the verification provisions in the treaty were something to be celebrated and worth rushing into place. However, New START's verification provisions are much weaker than what we had under the previous treaty. This is a serious concern, because experts say Russia has essentially cheated in one way or another on pretty much every major arms-control treaty to which it is a party. What's more, as the expiration date of the previous START approached last year, the administration promised it would come up with some sort of ``bridging agreement'' to keep verification efforts going until the new treaty could be ratified. The parties never finished that agreement, and so any verification gap has been created by the administration. The Senate has a responsibility to consider treaties thoroughly to ensure they are in our country's best interest. It should not rush its duty now to make up for the Obama administration's mistakes. We lose nothing by postponing consideration of this treaty until the new Congress convenes in a few weeks. This flawed treaty has too great an impact on America's national security to be taken lightly or rushed for the sake of political pride.

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for locking in the time. I want to start by saying here we are, jammed against the Christmas break with the majority using Christmas as a backstop to rush through an arms control treaty with the Russians and a trillion-dollar spending bill on a dual-track basis. What that means is that we are considering, at the same time, two documents encompassing thousands of pages with very little ability to offer meaningful amendments or devote meaningful time to consider the full impact of these documents that will have a far-reaching and long- term impact on our Nation. As I wrote recently in an op-ed that appeared in National Review Online: New START misses one opportunity after another to maintain a stable nuclear relationship between our two countries. To remedy this will require significant time on the floor of the Senate. Trying to force it through without ample time for debate and amendments would amount to a Christmas gift to the Russians. I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed I wrote for National Review Online entitled ``Don't Force New START,'' dated December 9, 2010, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Carol Twedt as she celebrates retirement from more than 20 extraordinary years of public service. Her earnest dedication to and enthusiasm for service to her fellow citizens has set an example for all to follow. Carol's career began when she joined Jim Abdnor's successful Senate campaign against George McGovern in 1980. Her passion was pushed to a new level when Carol's husband Curt passed away at an early age in 1987. It was this event which prompted her to undertake the challenge of running for Minnehaha county commissioner. The level of courage and perseverance she demonstrated through her first campaign paid off with an overwhelming victory. In her five subsequent terms as a county commissioner, she has shown unceasing dedication and compassion to serving her constituents. Because of this remarkable resolve, Carol has made praiseworthy accomplishments in combating homelessness, improving juvenile services, and, above all, working to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of county operations. Carol's service has benefitted the people of Minnehaha County over her many years of service. I would like to extend to her my heartfelt gratitude for her many years of outstanding service.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also wish to join with my colleagues today before I speak to the issue of the day and express my appreciation to Senator Gregg for his great service to this institution and to our country. I think it is fair to say there is nobody quite like Judd Gregg. He truly is one of a kind. I remember when I first got here, I thought he didn't like me, and maybe he didn't like me, but I concluded that part of that was just his serious demeanor. He is a guy who means business. Once you get to know him, you not only appreciate that side of his personality, but you also gain an appreciation for the incredible wit and sense of humor he also possesses. I have had the opportunity to experience that on many occasions. I think what the institution is going to miss the most--he is certainly someone who cares a lot about this country's future and the policies we put in place--is his abilities, his great skill and his great talent. It will be a real loss to the Senate because Judd Gregg has a mind like a steel trap. He is able to analyze with great effectiveness the issues of the day and to explain them clearly. He is someone in whom I have tremendous respect. He has been a great mentor, a great leader, and someone, as I said before, we are going to miss around here. I can't say enough about how much I appreciate his service and the service and the sacrifice his family has made. He has served in public life for many years, both as a Congressman, Governor, and a Senator. His wife Kathy, similar to many of our wives, puts up with a lot of things. Judd, similar to me and many of my colleagues, I think, I would say probably married over his head or, as one of my friends said, outpunted his coverage. But we are grateful to his family. We are going to miss the many contributions he has made, but probably none more than the passion with which he approaches this job and the passion with which he approaches building a brighter and better and stronger and more prosperous future for future generations. There has been no clearer voice on the issue of fiscal responsibility, no clearer voice when it comes to the important task we have in front of us, to insist that we take steps and we put policies in place that will make the country stronger and better for future generations. So I wish to compliment as well my colleague from New Hampshire. I have heard from folks from other parts of the country. As someone who comes from the Midwest, I wish to say how much I appreciate Judd Gregg, the incredible contribution he has made, and I, similar to so many others, will miss him greatly. Mr. President, let me, if I might, speak to the issue before us today. We are debating a tax proposal, and on January 1 of 2011, just 17 days from now, families and small businesses across this country are going to see their taxes go up if Congress doesn't take action on the tax relief proposal that is currently before the Senate. There are elements of this proposal I don't like. I think it is fair to say there are a lot of us here who, if we were able to write this, certainly wouldn't have written it in the fashion we have in front of us today. But letting the perfect become the enemy of the good will result in one thing and one thing only; that is, higher taxes across America in 2 weeks. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and to criticize this proposal, and it is perhaps even politically expedient to stand on the sidelines and criticize this proposal. But let me make one thing very clear. Advocating against this tax proposal is to advocate for a tax increase, and that is something we cannot and the American economy cannot afford. It would be great if we could wait a few weeks, until we have a changeover in the Congress. Frankly, I would be very happy to see a bill written a few weeks from now when the newly elected Republicans are going to be sworn in. But that is a luxury that doesn't exist because of this reality that we have--this deadline looming in front of us. If we wait for the perfect proposal, the perfect agreement, then American families and small businesses are going to pay higher taxes just 2 weeks from now. That is not a scare tactic, that is not political posturing, that is simply a fact. Taking action now to prevent this tax increase would do a number of things. First, it would protect 21 million households from being hit by the alternative minimum tax in the year 2010. It would preserve relief from the marriage penalty. There are many provisions of the Tax Code today--some of which have been addressed in previous tax law, expiring tax law--that lessen the impact of being married. Ironically, in the Tax Code, we punish people for being married in this country. Taking action now would prevent job-killing tax increases on many of our small businesses across this country, and it would protect farmers and ranchers from the death tax that would confiscate over half the value of the family farm. What happens if we don't pass this tax proposal? Well, according to a number of economists, we would see a drop in the gross domestic product from somewhere between 1.7 percent to 2 percent. That is according to a number of private economists. Even the Congressional Budget Office suggests we would see about a 1.4 percent negative impact in our economy, in the gross domestic product, if we don't take the action necessary to prevent these tax increases. Failure to act now, according to the Tax Foundation, with regard to my State of South Dakota, would cost the average family in South Dakota about $1,700 a year in higher taxes. The average American household would be faced with higher taxes to the tune of about $3,000. If we don't take the steps that are necessary to address the death tax on January 1, the death tax kicks back in at $1 million--a $1 million exemption--and everything above that would be taxed at 55 percent. So imagine the impact on a farmer, a rancher, a small businessperson in this country, who is trying to pass on that operation to the next generation, and what this would mean in their ability to do that. As I said earlier, this is not a perfect agreement, but no compromise is. The fact we are dealing with Democrats, who still run both the House, the Senate, and the White House, if we want to stop taxes from going up on everyone, then we are going to have to figure out a way to get that done. And if we stand around trying to debate the perfect, then taxes are going to go up on families and businesses and our economic recovery is going to stall out. I think it is also important to note that it will send a negative message to the financial markets. If we don't take action to address this crisis looming in front of us on January 1, we can expect the 9.8- percent unemployment rate could go significantly higher. I would simply argue that inaction is not an option, and advocating against this proposal is no different than advocating for higher taxes. I hope that my colleagues will see their way to support this today and to support it in big numbers. It will go from here to the House of Representatives, and they will look closely at the vote coming out of the Senate. I think it is fair to say, if and when it gets to the House of Representatives, it will pass provided the Senate sends a very strong message--a message I think consistent with the will of the American people. In fact, according to public opinion polls, one as recent as this morning, 70 percent of Americans believe and agree this tax proposal ought to be enacted and signed into law. The real issue that I think affects our fiscal situation in this country isn't the fact we don't have enough revenue, it is that we spend too much. If we look historically--and it is an empirical fact-- at what happens when you lower taxes--look at John F. Kennedy, at Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush in recent history--anytime you lower marginal income tax rates, taxes on investment, you get more revenue, not less revenue. That is an empirical fact. You also get a growing economy. When you have a growing economy, it is obviously creating more jobs, and that is what we want to see happen. We want to get this 9.8- percent unemployment rate down. I would argue that the issue we have in front of us with regard to spending and deficits and debt doesn't have to do with the fact we don't have enough revenue, it has to do with the fact that Washington spends too much, and that is where we ought to be targeting and focusing our efforts. Historically, if you look at the last half century, I think the amount we spend for our government as a percent of our gross domestic product hovers somewhere in the 20\1/2\ percent range. Today, it is about 24, 25 percent we are spending on government as a percentage of our total economy. We have complicated and added to that burden by enacting major legislation in this last year. The massive new health care entitlement program, when it is fully implemented, will cost on the order of $2.5 trillion. We have lots of other legislation that has moved through here. The stimulus bill passed earlier this year was $1 trillion of borrowed money, which didn't have the desired impact. The one thing we know with certainty is that--at least based on history--when you raise taxes, you get fewer jobs; when you lower taxes, you get more economic activity, more jobs for the American people and, frankly, more revenue. That helps to deal with the issue of the deficit and the debt. In this particular proposal there is some new spending. There are unemployment benefits included. I would like to have seen that offset. I had an amendment that would do that, that would pay for the additional spending in this bill. We are not going to have the opportunity to offer amendments, but there will be a couple of motions offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn--motions to suspend the rules and pay for the additional $56.5 billion in new spending as a result of extending unemployment benefits in the bill. I think that is important for us to do. Since we got into this recession, we have spent, I think, about $124 billion, borrowed from future generations for these extensions that we continue to pass for unemployment benefits. This particular one would take us up to almost $180 billion in borrowed money to pay for these benefits. It makes sense, in my judgment, when you are spending new money, you should offset or pay for that. Frankly, I would like to see that as part of this proposal. It is not in there. As I said, I have an amendment to rectify that, which won't be considered because we are not being given the opportunity to offer amendments. But I will support the motion to suspend the rules and pass a pay-for for the unemployment benefit extension the Senator from Oklahoma will offer later. All that to say again the real issue here, in my judgment, comes down not to an issue of revenue but it comes down to an issue of spending. I think the American people recognize that. I think that is why there is such broad public support for this tax proposal, because the American people recognize that you can't raise taxes in the middle of a recession and expect the job creators in this country--our small businesses--to create jobs. It is counterintuitive and it defies all empirical knowledge and experience that we have to suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the American people do believe that government has gotten too big, that it is growing too fast, and it needs to be reined in. That is where we have to attack the spending side of this equation. I believe when the new Congress is seated next year there is going to be an intense focus on this issue of spending, and it is high time that happen, because it is high time we get the debt and the deficit issue that will plague future generations under control. The real issue doesn't have to do with revenue, it has to do with spending. So I would urge my colleagues to support this proposal. As I said earlier, it is not perfect--certainly not in my estimation, nor I think in the eyes of many people who have looked at this. But on the other hand, it does prevent us, on January 1, from seeing a massive tax increase--the largest tax increase in American history--start to hit American families and American small businesses. That is why I hope we will pass it out of the Senate with a big bipartisan vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize McKenzie Haley, Miss Rodeo America 2011. McKenzie, a native of my own home State of South Dakota, was crowned Miss Rodeo America on December 4, 2010, at the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas, NV. McKenzie holds a long history of rodeo titles including Junior Miss Rodeo South Dakota 2004, South Dakota High School Rodeo Queen 2005-2006, Miss Black Hills Stock Show and Rodeo 2009, before being crowned Miss Rodeo South Dakota in July of 2009. McKenzie will spend the next year attending more than 100 rodeos across the United States promoting and serving as a spokesperson for the sport of rodeo. McKenzie is a true ambassador and shining example of South Dakota spirit and values. I wish her all the best and congratulate her on her accomplishments as she embarks on her exciting journey as Miss Rodeo America 2011.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Tracy Rogers Zea, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Tracy is a graduate of Seton Catholic High School in Chandler, AZ. He is a recent graduate of South Dakota State University, where he majored in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tracy for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Bailey Jean Carlsen, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Bailey is a graduate of Roncalli High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, she is attending Drake University, where she is majoring in sociology and law, and politics and society. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Bailey for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Edward M. Hill, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Edward is a graduate of Rapid City Central High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, he is attending Georgetown University, where he is majoring in international politics and security studies. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Edward for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Katherine Wagner, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Katherine is a graduate of Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in political science and mass communications. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Katherine for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to defeat both of these amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think the American people, when they voted this year, were saying one thing: We want to keep the main thing, the main thing. To the American people, the main thing is getting the economy growing again and creating jobs. Almost everything that has been done here in Congress in the last couple of years has been the exact opposite of that. You have seen policies put into place that increase the cost of doing business in this country and make it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs. So here we are today debating what evidently has become the Democratic economic theory, which is to raise taxes to create jobs. We have seen this in play throughout the last couple of years. The cap- and-trade bill was a tax on energy. It didn't get through the Senate because we were prepared to stop it, but it passed in the House of Representatives and was headed here. The health care bill raised taxes on medical device manufacturers and drug companies and health insurance plans, all of which is going to get passed on to small businesses in the form of higher insurance premiums. Here we are debating a frontal, direct tax increase on small businesses. It is the most astounding theory on how to create jobs I have ever seen--raising taxes to create jobs. That hasn't worked in practice. The Senator from Iowa eloquently pointed out that, historically, if you go back over the past half century, not only does it not create jobs, it doesn't generate additional revenue. As he pointed out, when you raise taxes, you don't get more revenue. When you lower taxes, you get more revenue. Why? Because it affects the behavior of the American people. It affects investors, it affects the allocation of capital, and it affects people across this country when they know their tax rates are going to be low. This seems to me to be completely off the track and off the point that the American people want us to focus on, which is keeping the main thing, the main thing--how can we expand the economy and create jobs? We do that by keeping taxes low on small businesses, which, by the way, create two-thirds of the jobs in our economy. What will be the impact of the proposal we will vote on today in terms of small businesses and their ability to create jobs? According to the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, half of small business income would be subject to higher taxes. That translates into 750,000 small businesses that would be faced with higher taxes. That also, incidentally, impacts about 25 percent of the workforce in this country. How does that translate in real terms? When these taxes go up on January 1 for people who make more than $250,000 a year, who are probably paying the 33-percent or 35-percent marginal income tax rate today, their taxes will go up to 36 percent or 39.5 percent. If they are a family of four and they have personal exemptions, these phase out. There is a cap on the number of itemized deductions they can take. When that kicks in, their top marginal income tax rate could go up to 41 percent. If you are a small business today that is paying at the 33-percent rate and you end up paying 41 percent as a result of this increase to take effect on January 1, you are looking at roughly a 25-percent decrease in your income. That is obviously going to increase the cost of doing business. When you increase the cost of doing business, it makes it that much harder for small businesses to invest, to make that new capital investment and buy that new piece of equipment or to hire that additional person, or hopefully additional people, in the workplace. All they are simply doing here is trying to implement a failed policy that hasn't worked in the past and isn't going to work in the future. We have all the science and history and facts to support this. It is counterintuitive to the American people. How many people think the way to create jobs is to increase the cost of doing business in this country? When small businesses create two-thirds of the jobs in our economy, it is absolutely fundamental that you don't increase their cost of doing business. You don't raise taxes if your ultimate goal is to create jobs. The best thing we can do for the high unemployment numbers and for the debate we are having about unemployment benefits being extended is to get people back to work. This is the exact opposite way of going about that. It is completely counterintuitive. Raising taxes to create jobs is a failed economic theory, and it has failed in practice. I think if the Democrats' tax hike goes into effect--and make no mistake about it, I hear the other side talking about tax breaks and tax cuts. These are not tax breaks or tax cuts. Taxes are going up on January 1, pure and simple. That is all there is to it. Taxes are going up on income, on capital gains, on dividends, and they are going up on estates. If action isn't taken by the Congress, we are going to see the largest tax increase in American history. The other side says: Well, let's cushion it. Let's limit to it those making more than $250,000. Of course, that affects a lot of LLCs, a lot of partnerships and subchapter S corporations, whose incomes flow through to their individual income tax returns and who will be faced with the higher income tax rates, not to mention the higher capital gains and higher dividend rates. These are the very people we are asking to pull us out of this recession and create jobs. So where does that leave us? Well, we are going to have an alternative. The alternative would be that we just extend the tax relief, not raise taxes or the cost of doing business, and allow our businesses to prosper and to flourish and to create more jobs for the American people so we can get that 9.8 percent unemployment rate down and reduce the amount of unemployment benefits we have to come back periodically and approve. We have 9.8 percent unemployment. We were told a year and a half ago--a little more than that, almost 2 years ago--when the stimulus bill was being debated, if we passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill, we could keep unemployment below 8 percent. That didn't work. Obviously, we borrowed $1 trillion to do that from our children and grandchildren, and what do we have to show for it? We have a 9.8-percent unemployment rate today and no apparent prospect for the economy to pull out of this sluggishness we are in. The best way to accomplish that, the best way to make that happen, in my view and I think the view of the American people--and I speak as one individual who is under the $250,000 threshold--is to allow the people who create the jobs in this country, the people who make more than $250,000, to continue to do well. I hope they do because the small businesses, when they can increase their top-line sales and increase their revenues and increase their bottom-line profits, are going to be in a better position to create jobs. I get that, and I think the American people get that. That is why they so consistently voice their disapproval--and particularly the best poll that was taken was the election-day poll, where they came out in big numbers and voiced their disapproval of the policies in Washington, DC, that continue to kill jobs. So I think we should be looking at what we can do not to kill jobs but to create jobs; what we can do to incentivize businesses to create jobs, not putting more burdens on them and increasing the cost of their doing business in this country. There isn't anything, in my view, that has happened in this last year, if you are concerned about creating jobs, that has been conducive to that. There was a group of CEOs pulled in to visit with the President sometime last summer. When the President posed the question to them: Why are you CEOs and corporations not creating jobs, I will paraphrase this, but I think the answer, very simply, was: It is your agenda, Mr. President. That is the problem. We have an agenda here that is killing jobs because it is increasing the cost of doing business in this country. It is a very simple proposition. I don't think it takes a lot to get it. That is why I think so many people are beginning to realize either of these proposals--the Baucus proposal or the Schumer proposal--are the wrong ways in which to approach an economic downturn in this country and the wrong way to get that economy back on track and get people back to work. The latest example of that was today in the New York Times. In the latest sign how the tax issue continues to rankle and divide Democrats, the White House said the administration opposes raising the threshold to $1 million. So we have the $250,000 vote that is going to occur and we have the $1 million vote that is going to occur, but what I wish to point out to everyone is, under the Schumer bill--which is the $1 million threshold--according to the Joint Tax Committee, that still impacts 350,000 small businesses in this country whose income flows through to their individual tax returns. So it is a question of whom do you want to raise taxes on, 750,000 small businesses with the Baucus amendment or 350,000 small businesses with the Schumer amendment. Obviously, one is clearly better than the other, but the point simply is this: The economic theory we are debating about raising taxes to create jobs is the wrong one. It has been proven wrong historically. It is counterintuitive to anybody who knows anything about economics, which is why 60 percent of all prominent economists in this country say--and this was quoted by the Senator from Iowa today--the best way to create jobs, to grow and expand the economy, is to extend these tax provisions that are going to expire on January 1. That is what this debate is about. I hope we will keep the main thing for the American people and not get distracted on all these other things.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the remarks made earlier by my colleague from Utah whom I thought did a nice job of providing a history lesson for Members of the Senate about the past several years of tax policy and why we are where we are today. I don't think there is anybody here in this Chamber or any Senator from any State who doesn't acknowledge that we have a big problem right now with 9.8 percent unemployment. We have a lot of things on which we agree in the Senate. We have a lot of things on which we disagree. I think the one thing we agree on is that 9.8 percent unemployment is unacceptable. I think the thing we disagree on is how we get that unemployment rate down. How do we create jobs? How do we get people in this country back to work? There has been a lot of discussion about various issues that might be dealt with here in the Senate before the end of the year, most of which don't deal with this fundamental issue. The fundamental issue that is important to most Americans--and I have heard many of my colleagues get up and talk about people who are hurting. They are hurting. We are going into a holiday season with a lot of people unemployed, and with the numbers that came out this morning, that number got worse. We have more people unemployed, more people hurting economically. Yet in the waning days of this legislative session before the holiday break and before a new Congress gets seated next year, we have had discussion and motions about the DREAM Act. We had motions about don't ask, don't tell. We talked a lot about getting the START treaty done before next year. There has been discussion about this Public Safety Unionization Act. I think all of these things are probably important to certain Members of the Senate but none of which are as important to the American people as the point I just mentioned; that is, 9.8 percent unemployment. People are hurting. People have lost jobs in this country. That is the fundamental point that I think drove voters out to the polls in November. They want the Congress to focus exclusively on fixing this economy and getting people back to work. Yet we came back here in December and spent 7 days here in the Senate on a food safety bill--not that that is not an important issue. It is an important issue, but is it as important as dealing with this number I just mentioned--9.8 percent unemployment? The irony about the food safety bill is that after we spent 7 days on it, we had a little snafu. It went over to the House of Representatives and somebody blue-slipped it, which is something they have the prerogative to do, because it turns out there were revenue increases in that bill, and revenue measures have to originate in the House of Representatives. So that bill, for all intents and purposes, is dead for the rest of this Congress. So we spent 7 days here in the Senate on the food safety bill. Now we are talking about doing something on unemployment, which is something we should have been talking about. We all knew that the deadline was coming and that it was ahead of us. We have these tax rate increases that occur on January 1 of this year, which is something we should have been focused on. It is not any secret that, as the Senator from Utah pointed out, the tax laws we have today have been the tax laws now for the better part of a decade. So if we knew they were going to expire on December 31 of this year, that wasn't a secret. Many of us here have been advocating for some time for a permanent extension of those tax rates, but that wasn't acted on. There weren't opportunities--or at least the Democratic leadership, since they have been in charge here, has had no appetite to deal with doing something about a permanent extension of those tax policies. We have had tax extenders we have been talking about for the last year, but nothing has happened. We had tax policies that expired on December 31 of last year which haven't been extended yet. We have a whole bunch more in addition to the 2001 and 2003 tax laws that expire at the end of this year, all of which impact some sector of our economy and most of which are very important to job creation. Yet for the better part of this year, what we talked about were issues that arguably the other side wanted to put before the Senate. We had a stimulus bill which borrowed $1 trillion from our children and grandchildren which supposedly was going to keep unemployment under 8 percent. We all know that obviously didn't work. We had a massive expansion of health care, which is going to spend, when it is fully implemented, $2.5 trillion. We have had debate about financial services reform. I am not saying that any of these are unimportant issues. All of them involve new spending, creation of new government, new bureaucracies, and at the same time ignored what I think is the fundamental issue, which is jobs and the economy. That is what we have heard repeatedly. Now, the reason I think so many people turned out at the polls in November was because they were very concerned about what has been happening in Washington, and they wanted to come out and protest the policies that were coming out of Washington, DC, because they thought they were counterproductive in terms of the ultimate goal of creating jobs and expanding the economy and getting people back to work. Yet we didn't have a discussion during the entire lead-up, runup to the elections about getting these, with the exception of efforts on our side to get amendments on the floor, about these expiring tax rates. We do have taxes going up on January 1 on income, on capital gains, on dividends, on estates. You can go right down the list. There isn't anything in any sector of our economy that isn't going to experience higher taxes on January 1. In fact, it was interesting. This was a U.S. News and World Report article from yesterday, a story in there that said: Failure by Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts, especially locking in the 15 percent capital gains tax rate, will spark a stock market sell off starting December 15 as investors move to lock in gains at a lower rate than the 20 percent it would jump to next year, warn analysts. It goes on to say: ``Capital gains tax rate will increase from 15 to 20 percent if the tax cuts are not extended. The last time the capital gains tax rate increased--on January 1, 1987, from 20 to 28 percent--investors realized their gains at the lower tax rate,'' said Daniel Clifton, a Washington partner at Strategas Research Partners. ``We would expect a similar effect this time around as investors see the tax rate going up and choose to realize gains and incur the [lower] 15 percent tax. In a memo to clients, [this particular firm] says that the date most clients are focused on is December 15 for a deal in Congress before beginning to sell. One reason: Many stock options expire that day and investors have to act. . . . Fixing this issue next year will not negate these negative impacts. If they say we are going to put this off until next year, a lot of folks will say: I don't trust these guys; they haven't done anything with this yet. They are going to sell off, and that could have a very destructive impact on the market and on many people's gains and things that have been acquired this year, stocks and investments. It is unclear how bad the selloff would be, it says. But it could wipe out all of this year's gains. That is one reason out of many that we need to act to address this important issue before the end of the year. It is fair to say, as well, that contrary to what has been espoused by the other side about people getting tax cuts, a lot of people are going to get tax increases. This has been tax law for the better part of a decade. A lot of it was put into effect in 2001 and some in 2003. So these tax cuts we have in effect today on capital gains dividends, marginal income tax rates have been in effect for many years now. What we are going to experience on January 1 is not a tax cut but a tax increase on a lot of people in our economy. The argument was made throughout the course of the year that we need to allow the tax cuts to expire for people above $250,000. Of course, we pointed out that half of all small business income would be taxed at a higher rate if we allow those to expire for people above $250,000, and 25 percent of the workforce would be impacted. I think that was a view that was shared by the American public. There was a CNN poll that I have here that was done in September, where 60 percent of Americans said all the tax cuts put in effect many years ago ought to be extended for everybody. I think that was a view shared by people when they voted during the election. I remember campaigning for people across this country--Senate candidates and House candidates--and this was a landslide election, a watershed election, by American standards. If we look at the number of new Members in the House, I think Republicans have 83 or 87 new Members, and there are a number of new Senators. In all of those campaigns, and in all of the advertising I saw, in all of the speeches I heard from candidates in traveling around the country, I didn't hear any of them say: I want you guys to go back, when you get to Washington, and deal with this food safety issue or we want you to pass the DREAM Act. I didn't hear anybody say: We want you to go back and address this issue of don't ask, don't tell. I didn't hear anybody say: We want you to go back and pass the START treaty. These are all important issues. But, remember, that is not what the American people are concerned about. Certainly, these are important, but not the most important we should concern ourselves with, which is the 9.8 percent unemployment rate and the fact that a lot of people are hurting and don't have jobs in this country. I think the issue of extending unemployment benefits, which will be dealt with--and for how long, I am not sure--is, is it paid for? I believe it should be; some don't. In any case, I think that will be dealt with. That is a symptom; that is not the cause. The cause for people hurting in this country is that we have policies in place that are making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs. The best solution for the American people is a job, to get people back to work. Raising taxes has never been a way of creating jobs. Now, the $250,000 threshold I think the other side concluded was not good politics. So it has been tested and polled, and that is a losing issue. It does impact so many small businesses. So the latest version is to raise that to $1 million, and that is a vote we are going to have sometime tomorrow. The fundamental point I am making is, I think the American people understand that to grow the economy, expand the economy, and create jobs, we have to incentivize the job creators to create jobs. We can't do that by raising their taxes. We can't do it by passing new regulations and making it more difficult and costly for them to do business. That is basically what this whole past year has been about. My counterparts on the other side have attacked Republicans on the floor for the situation we are in, saying: Republicans are blocking us from dealing with all these important issues. We did send a letter this week, signed by all 42 Republicans, and the letter was simple. The message was this: Yes, we think there are a few days left in this legislative session, and we ought to use those days to focus on the things the American people care about. Notwithstanding any of the polls we are taking today, the best poll was election day. What people voted on on election day was jobs, the economy, reducing spending, and debt. The letter we put forward said let's focus on the tax issue and get that resolved. It is so important to our economy and it provides certainty for job creators to create jobs. Let's focus on funding the government and dealing with this issue of spending. Those are the two most important issues, as I think was expressed at the ballot box by people across this country this year. Then, if you want to move to other issues, fine. We had 42 Republicans who said that. I think that is perfectly appropriate and in accordance with what the American people want us to do. As I said earlier, we spent 7 days on food safety, which is arguably an important issue. I am not discounting that. That was 7 days spent on a piece of legislation that went to the House, was blue-slipped, and is not going to become law this year. We lost 7 days that we could have been talking about getting tax rates down for middle-income taxpayers and investors. We could have dealt with the issue of the death tax because on January 1 the exemption for the death tax comes down to $1 million, and the top rate goes up to 55 percent. I have heard repeatedly from farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in my State the concerns they have about that. What are they going to be able to do if they want to pass on their business or their operation to the next generation, and if they have a $1 million threshold and anything above that, that would be taxed at 55 percent, that means many of them will be forced to liquidate their holdings in order to pay the IRS. That doesn't seem like a very good way to run a government or create jobs in the economy. Again, I simply point that out as the reason I think in these waning days of this session that Congress should focus on this 9.8-percent unemployment rate. The unemployment debate, the debate about unemployment benefits which will occur here is a symptom of the high unemployment rate. But the cause of the high unemployment rate is the fact that the policies coming out of Washington, DC, are not conducive to job creation in this country. It doesn't have anything to do with these Bush tax rates because, frankly, we saw a lot of economic growth in the early part of this decade. Since 2008, we have been in a recession. Since 2008 we have had a President in the White House and a huge Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress which have attempted to address this issue in the form of a stimulus bill which added trillions of dollars to the debt but didn't reduce unemployment. It created 250,000 new jobs in Washington, DC. The food safety bill, according to estimates, would create another 17,000 jobs in Washington, DC. So almost anything that has been done hasn't created private sector jobs but has created a lot of government jobs. That is not what people want. They want jobs in the economy. They want the small businesses on their Main Streets and in towns and communities to be able to invest, be able to hire that new employee, or buy that new piece of equipment, add to the productivity of their operation in a way that will expand the economy, grow the economy, and create jobs for more Americans. I think that was the message of the election. I think that is the interest of the American people still. It is not on all these other things. I understand there is a need sometimes for political parties to check the box to say they have done this or tried to do that for a particular constituency. That is perhaps what drives the reason we have to have votes on some of these other issues. But at the end of the day, it comes down to one simple basic fundamental fact: A lot of people are unemployed, hurting, and the policies of Washington, DC, are contributing to that. I think you can't blame Republicans in the Congress where for the last 2 years the Democrats have had huge majorities. In the Senate, they have 58 votes now, and they had 60 votes for 2009. They had 250 votes in the House of Representatives. They had the White House. Yet here we are 2 years later and unemployment has actually gone up. We have fewer people finding jobs in this country and an economy that continues to struggle and Washington, DC, that seems more intent on dealing with all these issues that are unrelated to the fundamental issue, which is creating jobs and getting people back to work. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as we head into the end of the year to stay focused on the issues the American people care about-- jobs, the economy, their ability to pay their bills, and to hopefully save a little money for their children's college education. As we head into the holiday season, they want to have a good holiday season with their families. But this idea that somehow the way we help the American people in this country is by focusing on these unrelated issues, and talking about things that they at this particular point in time are not particularly concerned about, strikes me as missing the point and not having gotten the message the voters sent in November of this year. Again, I urge my colleagues in these last few days to work on keeping taxes low on all Americans, extending the tax relief. It is not a tax cut. It will be a tax increase starting January 1 for people across this country, including the job creators. We cannot allow that to happen for the best interests of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to engage my colleagues Senator Dodd and Senator Begich in colloquy. I rise today in support of S. 3987, the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, legislation that Senator Begich and I have introduced to narrow the scope of section 114 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003--the FACT Act. This section of the FACT Act directed financial regulatory agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to promulgate rules requiring ``creditors'' and ``financial institutions'' to implement programs to detect and respond to red flags--patterns, practices, or specific activities--that could indicate identity theft. The purpose of the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 is to identify and limit the type of ``creditor'' that must be covered. If the FTC's final red flags rule is implemented, this rule could require small businesses to undertake costly, burdensome measures to prevent identity theft in industries where it poses little threat. Identity theft is a serious problem, but the definition of ``creditor'' for purposes of the FTC's red flags rule is too broad and would cover small businesses that pose little risk to consumers. Under the legislation that Senator Begich and I are proposing, only a ``creditor'' that regularly and in the ordinary course of its business obtains or uses consumer reports in connection with a credit transaction, furnishes information to consumer reporting agencies in connection with a credit transaction, or advances funds would be required to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention and detection program. So, for example, an accountant would not become a creditor simply for obtaining a consumer report--with the permission of any consumer whose report is obtained--in order to examine the integrity of a company's management. And the legislation makes clear that an advance of funds does not include a creditor's payment in advance for fees, materials, or services that are incidental to the creditor's ability to provide another service that a person initiated or requested, such as the advance payment of expert witness fees by a lawyer to support the representation of a client. Any other type of creditor may only be covered through a rulemaking based upon an agency's determination that these types of creditors offer or maintain accounts that pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft. Such creditors would receive notice that they could be covered by a rule, and there would be a public airing of the issues when the proposed rule is published for notice and comment. Could Senator Dodd, as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Banking Committee, provide us with some context regarding the legislation under which the FTC's rule was promulgated?

Mr. THUNE. I applaud the FTC's cooperation in delaying implementation of their red flags rule to wait for congressional clarification on this issue and thank Senator Dodd for his assistance in drafting this legislation. I am confident that our efforts to provide a legislative solution that protects consumers and businesses alike can be achieved through this legislation.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Johanns amendment No. 4702 to S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act.