NOAA today reopened to commercial and recreational fishing 8,403 square miles of Gulf waters which extend from the Louisiana state water line to due south of the Alabama/Florida state line. This is the eleventh reopening in federal waters since July 22.
This reopening was announced after consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and under a reopening protocol agreed to by NOAA, the FDA, and the Gulf states.
The total area reopened today is about 3.5 percent of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and 89 percent of the current closed area, as last modified on October 22. No oil or sheen has been documented in the area since July 25. At its closest point, the area to be reopened is about 10 miles from the wellhead.
NOAA sampled this area between August 31 and November 1 for finfish and shrimp, including tuna, swordfish, escolar, and royal red shrimp. Sensory analyses of 286 finfish samples and 55 shrimp samples and chemical analyses of 207 finfish samples in 33 composites and 50 shrimp samples in nine composites followed the methodology and procedures in the reopening protocol, with sensory analysis finding no detectable oil or dispersant odors or flavors, and results of chemical analysis for oil-related compounds and dispersants well below the levels of concern.
“This is the first reopening where we have added a supplemental test to detect dispersants in seafood, and all the samples passed,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “This is yet another indication that our Gulf seafood is safe for consumption.”
As announced on October 29, 2010, NOAA and FDA have developed and implemented a chemical test to detect the presence of dispersants in fish, oysters, crabs and shrimp. The level of concern for dispersants is 100 parts per million for finfish and 500 parts per million for shrimp. The test can reliably detect Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DOSS) at levels of 2000 times below the lowest level of concern.
NOAA continues to work closely with the FDA and the Gulf states to ensure seafood safety. NOAA and FDA are working together on broad-scale seafood sampling that includes sampling seafood from inside and outside the closure area, as well as dockside and market-based sampling.
An area covering 1,041 square miles immediately surrounding the wellhead, remains closed to fishing. The boundary of the fishery closure has changed 32 times after it was first instituted on May 2, at which time it covered about 3 percent (6,817 square miles) of Gulf waters around the wellhead. As oil continued to spill from the wellhead, the area grew in size, peaking at 37 percent (88,522 square miles) of Gulf waters on June 2. To date, NOAA has reopened more than 82,900 square miles of oil-impacted federal waters under this protocol and sampling regime.
NOAA has a number of methods for the public to obtain information or be notified when there is a change to the closed area:
Call 1-800-627-NOAA (1-800-627-6622) to hear a recording of the current coordinates in English, Vietnamese, and Spanish
Listen to NOAA Weather Radio for messages about the closure
Follow us on Twitter: @usnoaagov to get a tweet when the closed area changes
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/usnoaagov.
To visit the original NOAA posting with imagery click here
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was reelected to his position on Tuesday by the acclamation of Republican senators.
GOP senators and senators-elect unanimously picked McConnell as their leader for the next two years, avoiding the kind of messy leadership battle some observers had worried might erupt between the longtime Republican leader and lawmakers associated with the Tea Party movement.
McConnell was nominated by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), according to a spokesman for McConnell.
It is particularly significant that McConnell was nominated by Rubio, one of the new conservative senators who'd been propelled to the Senate by the support of conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
All eyes had been on DeMint to see whether he would lead the new Tea Party senators to challenge McConnell. DeMint said he had no intention of doing so, and, ultimately, did not.
"It was the third time that Republicans have unanimously chosen Sen. McConnell to serve as their leader and the fifth straight party election he has won by acclamation," said the spokesman.
President Obama should take off most of the rest of the year to concentrate on the lessons of the 2010 election, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Tuesday.
Gingrich urged the president to take some time away from Washington to reflect on how he might pivot in the next two years to work with the new Republican-controlled House.
"I think it’ll be really healthy for him if he could take off from Thanksgiving through most of December and really think," Gingrich told "The Brody File" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "I mean walk on the beach or walk in the woods or whatever he likes doing, but get away from the daily business and try to reflect on what happened."
Gingrich harkened back to what President Reagan and President George W. Bush had done to escape Washington with some frequency during their time in office, and urged Obama to do the same. Each president had famously spent time on his respective ranch, clearing brush or riding horses.
"Every eighth day he was at the ranch during his presidency, and the reason was he wanted to get perspective from Washington," Gingrich said of Reagan. "He wanted to get out of the gossip, get out of the daily news media."
Of course, each of those presidents drew media scrutiny for the amount of time he spent outside of Washington, and Obama has received similar criticism. Republicans mock the president, for instance, for golfing with some regularity on the weekends (when the weather permits).
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) added this week to the chatter among Republicans about the possibility of a third party in U.S. politics.
McCain, the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nominee, warned that a third party could pop up if the GOP were to revert to the kinds of policies and practices it had employed when it was last in control of Congress, from 1995 through 2007.
"I predict to you that unless Republicans act in response to the American people, they will reject Republicans," McCain said at the Wall Street Journal's CEO Council meeting. "If Republicans use their power in the fashion, frankly, we did previously when we were in the majority, then I think you will see an emergence of a third party in America."
McCain is the latest senior GOP figure to begin talking seriously about the threat of a third-party challenge. Republicans feel as though they face intense pressure and expectations, especially from the conservative Tea Party movement, whose members voted out a number of incumbents and establishment GOP candidates in primaries this year.
The expectations facing Republicans are especially high now that the party has a stake in the governing process; the GOP won back control of the House in the elections earlier this month, and increased the size of its minority in the Senate.
McCain said that voters have good reason to be skeptical of Republicans' promises over the next two years.
"They have every reason to be skeptical, because when we were in charge, we let spending get out of control," he said. "We engaged in earmarking and pork-barreling, which is corruption — I've seen it with my own eyes."
Republicans from across the conservative spectrum are swatting down a proposal from Democrat Chuck Schumer to resolve the tax cut dispute by ending tax cuts to millionaires only.
"The answer is no," said Sen. John Thune (R-SC) -- the fourth ranking Republican in the Senate -- on Fox News last night. "What you want to do if you believe the best ways to grow jobs and to grow the economy in this country is to keep taxes low and to allow small businesses...to get out and do that, then the worst thing you can do is raise taxes on them, which, if you raise them on those higher-income levels is what happens.
Thune is a contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, and his position is reflective of the fact that he'll be guarding his right flank for the next many months.
Moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), however, agrees with Thune.
"On the question of the wealthy, it has to get back to economic activity and economic growth and who, as well, pays those taxes, and that is, of course, small business owners, the preponderance of whom file individual tax returns," she told reporters today. "So it does effect them."
Now, Snowe is up for re-election in 2012, and a great deal of speculation has centered on the possibility that she'll face a primary challenge from the right. But she also signaled an openness to work with Democrats on a compromise that most Republicans are rejecting.
In any case, if it was Schumer's goal to get Republicans on the record defending tax breaks for millionaires, he got his way.
Watch Thune on video below:
Key Republican: No permanent tax cut extension to come during lame-duck
By Jordan Fabian - 11/16/10 08:16 AM ET
The incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee said Tuesday that a permanent extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts is highly unlikely to happen during the lame-duck session of Congress.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that some sort of compromise is in order, such as a temporary extension of one or two years.
"They control this in the lame duck. It's much better if you do this in the lame duck. If you go after the first of the year, after tax laws and tax forms have been changed and printed, it's really ugly. It's bad for the economy. It's bad for jobs," Ryan told MSNBC. "Get it done now. I understand it's not going to be permanent like we would like it. But get it done in the lame duck. It's better for the entire economy."
The lawmaker's comments could be a sign that a compromise between Democrats and Republicans in Congress is close. The debate over what to do with the tax cuts, which will expire on Jan. 1, is expected to dominate the lame-duck session that began Monday.
Leaders in both political parties have failed to budge on the issue: Most Republican leaders have demanded a permanent extension of all the tax cuts for both high income earners and the middle-class.
Top Democrats have sought an extension for the middle-class cuts but want to allow the breaks for individuals earning over $200,000 and families making over $250,000 to end.
But White House senior adviser David Axelrod last week signaled that wiggle-room exists when he suggested that Obama could be open to a temporary extension of all the cuts.
A number of compromise options have been put on the table, such as "de-coupling" the cuts to permanently extend the middle-class provisions while temporarily renewing them for the wealthy.
Other options include a temporary extension of all the cuts and raising the amount of income that would put an individual or family in the upper income bracket, then letting those cuts expire.
Ryan said a temporary extension of all the cuts is most likely.
"Well, obviously the president's not going to accept permanents," Ryan said. "I think he will accept not decoupling the tax cuts, meaning some permanent, some temporary. So I think all of them will be moving forward temporary." This post was updated at 11:25 a.m.
The Democratic Party's Herbert Hoover-like response to high unemployment cost them their majority, a member of the House Democratic leadership team said Tuesday.
Rep. John Larson (Conn.), the House Democratic Caucus chairman who is expected to keep his position in a vote on Wednesday, said that his party did not do enough in the eyes of voters to help bring down the nation's 9.6 percent unemployment rate.
"We never did enough in terms of that area for us to have the kind of success we would have," he said on MSNBC. "We had a Roosevelt moment and responded like Hoover."
Larson's comments are a stinging assessment of his party's efforts to help create jobs during the 111th Congress. Voters, who swept Democrats out of power in the House two weeks ago, consistently named the economy and jobs as the top two issues during the midterm campaign.
Democratic leaders, from President Obama to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have primarily blamed their party's losses on the large number of people out of work. But they have argued that while Democrats moved major legislation to help create jobs, they failed to communicate to voters the benefits of their policies.
Republicans, on the other hand, argued that Democrats drove up the deficit by pushing through an $814 billion stimulus package that failed to create jobs.
Some Democrats complained that the White House prediction that the stimulus would hold unemployment under 8 percent hurt the party's messaging.
Larson said that Democrats did do a lot, but that did not satisfy the electorate.
"Well, I think the message is not about John Larson and I don't think the message is about Nancy Pelosi," he said. "The issue is the economy and jobs ... I think we got a lot done but we didn't get done enough in the voters' minds."
A House ethics panel found that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) committed 11 of 13 House ethics violations with which he was charged.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee, said late Tuesday morning that there was "clear and convincing evidence" of the violations following a one-day trial of the 20-term lawmaker.
The subcommittee is expected to meet in order to recommend a punishment for Rangel. That recommendation will be considered by the full House ethics committee, which will have to agree to the the terms of the punishment. Serious sanctions are then voted on by the full House.
Ethics watchdog renews call for Rangel resignation
By Jordan Fabian - 11/16/10 12:46 PM ET
After Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) was found guilty of violating House ethics rules, the ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) again called on him to resign from Congress.
CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan approved of the decision and said Rangel should resign.
"All of Mr. Rangel's theatrics aside, the facts were clear: Mr. Rangel violated numerous House rules and federal laws. Whether these violations were deliberate or inadvertent, the American people deserve to be represented by members of Congress who adhere to the highest ethical standards," Sloan said in a statement. "Mr. Rangel should resign."
A House ethics panel found Rangel committed 11 of the 13 of the violations with which he was charged. The committee will consider a punishment for the 20-term lawmaker and send it to the full ethics panel for consideration.
If they recommend a serious punishment, such as expulsion, censure or a formal reprimand, the full House will have to vote to enact it. Expulsion requires a two-thirds majority while the latter two require a majority.
Rangel lambasts 'unfair' ethics decision
By Jordan Fabian - 11/16/10 01:22 PM ET
In his first official statement since his conviction for breaking House ethics rules, Rep. Charles Rangel excoriated the decision as "unfair."
Rangel (D-N.Y.) said the ethics adjudicatory subcommittee's "unprecedented" decision violated his due process rights because they ruled without him having legal representation.
"How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?" Rangel said. "I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanction."
The panel ruled that Rangel was guilty 11 of the 13 charges of violating ethics rules dealing mostly with his personal finances. The subcommittee is expected to recommend a punishment for the 20-term lawmaker.
Rangel did not indicate he would seek to appeal the decision saying, "While I am required to accept the findings of the Ethics Committee, I am compelled to state again the unfairness of its continuation without affording me the opportunity to obtain legal counsel as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."
Asked if he had any reaction to the panel's decision, Rangel initially told reporters, "Nope, none." The congressman said he does not know if there is an appeals process at this point and added that he first saw the ruling on television.
2012 Republicans virtually united behind earmarks ban
By Michael O'Brien - 11/15/10 04:04 PM ET
The bulk of the Republican candidates for president have expressed support for the ban on earmarks that's making its way through Congress.
The proposed moratorium on earmarking, the practice of directing spending in legislation to particular projects, hasn't divided the presidential candidates the way it's split GOP lawmakers.
Seven possible contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012 have expressed support for the congressional ban, while only one possible candidate — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — has openly embraced the practice.
They're not the only possible Republican presidential challengers who support a moratorium, though. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) are all on the record in favor of a moratorium or outright ban of the practice.
A spokesman for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said Monday that the governor supports the ban.
"Of course Governor Pawlenty supports the Republicans' ban on Congressional earmarks," said Alex Conant. "It's important that the Republicans we send to Washington govern as they campaigned, and fight wasteful spending."
Huckabee and Romney's professed support for the moratorium comes Monday at a watershed moment for earmarking. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) announced this afternoon that he would support the ban after having previously defended the practice. His support all but ensures a GOP ban on earmarks in both the House and Senate in the next Congress.
Two possible GOP presidential candidates have so far not declared any position on the earmarks ban. Sen. John Thune (S.D.) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour appear to have no official position on the practice. Spokesmen for both Thune and Barbour did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Unintended consequence watch: could the earmark moratoriums end up forcing lawmakers to make nice with exec branch?
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s endorsement of an earmark ban is the latest indication of the clout fiscal conservatives will wield in the new Congress.
By convincing the Kentucky Republican, once the most formidable opponent of a GOP earmark ban, that a moratorium was the right course, newly emboldened conservatives showed they will not be shy about tackling politically divisive issues.
Combined with strong House Republican support for a ban, lawmakers who continue to favor earmarks could have a hard time carving out money for special projects.
That is not to suggest earmarks are dead and gone. Senate Democrats could still add language for parochial interests, although President Obama signaled that he could find some common ground with Republicans to cut earmark spending.
Obama praised McConnell for his support of an earmark ban and pressured his own party to stop adding them to bills.
“We can’t stop with earmarks, as they represent only part of the problem,” Obama said. “I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to not only end earmark spending, but to find other ways to bring down our deficits for our children.”
Amid a Republican resurgence fueled by voter concern about federal spending, the effort to curb earmarks showed momentum across the political spectrum as Congress convened for the first time since the Nov. 2 elections.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., announced that he wouldn’t request earmarks and that he intends to push for an overhaul of the appropriations process.
“We’ve become so focused on pet projects that holding government accountable and being good stewards of the public dollar seem to be an afterthought,” Udall said. “In fact, lawmakers are so afraid of losing earmarked funding that they’re sometimes pressured into supporting a vicious cycle of increased spending.”
Other Senate Democrats were not so quick to agree. Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, said he plans to continue putting earmarks into spending bills even if Republicans do not. “This is something that I think is the prerogative of Congress,” he said.
The GOP moratoriums are voluntary efforts. Several House Republicans, including Ron Paul of Texas, continued to request earmarks this year in spite of the existing ban in the party’s House caucus.
This year could see an end to that sort of independence, depending on how the new Republican majority decides to enforce an expected extension of the earmark ban. Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, who is poised to become Speaker in January, strongly praised the Senate GOP move.
Boehner also quickly seized the GOP leaders’ new unity on earmarks to criticize Democratic spending plans. Democrats are working on a fiscal 2011 omnibus spending bill for the lame-duck session that would cap discretionary spending at the $1.108 trillion level demanded by Senate Republicans.
But Republicans have said that they would rather wait until January to wrap up fiscal 2011 appropriations, when they will have more control of the process and can slim down spending for the budget year that started Oct. 1. DeMint’s Proposal Likely to Win
With McConnell’s backing, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is all but certain to see Senate Republicans on Tuesday adopt his non-binding resolution to ban earmarks as they meet to organize for the 112th Congress.
As recently as last week, DeMint’s resolution faced resistance. Attitudes appear to be changing, though, with many soon-to-be Republican freshmen having arrived in Washington this week for orientation.
Though earmarks represent a small fraction of the federal budget, for critics they are a symbol of what they consider Congress’ free-spending ways.
“Republican leaders in the House and Senate are now united on this issue, united in hearing what the voters have been telling us for two years — and acting on it,” said McConnell, a veteran appropriator and earmarker, in explaining his support for DeMint’s proposed ban. “This is no small thing. Old habits aren’t easy to break, but sometimes they must be.”
DeMint ally Tom Coburn, R-Okla., would like to go further than a voluntary ban. He is pushing to force the entire Senate to hold a public vote on a binding earmark moratorium on the first legislative vehicle to move through the chamber.
Such a vote could happen as early as Wednesday, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on a motion to proceed to food safety legislation (S 510), Coburn said.
“Nothing is more relevant or germane than beginning the hard work of getting our fiscal house in order,” Coburn said. “No bill should move before senators vote on this matter, particularly a bill that continues the borrow-and-spend status quo voters rejected.”
Coburn may find some Democratic support for his effort, particularly from more-junior senators. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., has in the past voted with Republicans on measures that sought to limit earmarks.
While supporting DeMint’s bid for an earmark ban, some Republicans such as McConnell and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee expressed concern that it would end up giving more power over the federal purse to Obama. Still, McConnell and Alexander endorsed the ban, citing the need to address rising federal debt.
“I’m not wild about turning over more spending authority to the executive branch, but I have come to share the view of most Americans that our nation is at a crossroads,” McConnell said. An End to Horse Trading?
Critics of earmarks have long argued that they sway spending beyond the immediate injections of cash that they provide to lawmakers’ favored constituent groups.
Bundling many earmarks into a bill also may make members less willing to criticize a colleague’s requests, as it could open their own to more scrutiny, said Diana Evans, author of “Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress” and a professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
With control of the House and greater sway in the Senate, Republican members might be less inclined — at least in the months ahead — to engage in the kind of political trade-offs with Democrats that have produced deals on earmark spending in the past.
“The question really is to what extent Republicans are going to be inclined to engage in horse trading anyway,” Evans said.
The prospect of a Senate GOP earmark ban seemed solid enough on Monday that a coalition of business groups wrote to House Republican leaders and to DeMint, pleading their case for an exemption.
House Republicans earlier this year included tariff suspensions in their earmark moratorium, which put them in an bind when it came time to vote on a package of miscellaneous duty suspensions.
Congress routinely writes limited tariff reduction bills at the behest of U.S. manufacturers seeking to import products they are unable to source in the United States, like certain complex chemicals.
The provisions are vetted by the administration, approved by both parties and cost less than $500,000 each. Until this year, they had rarely been labeled earmarks.
-- Kerry Young and Paul M. Krawzak, CQ Staff
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said the vote on whether or not to ban earmarks will be the first test as to whether members fully grasp the lessons of the midterm elections.
The Republican Conference is scheduled to vote on the ban at their weekly meeting Tuesday.
"If we can't decide as a federal government that it's not our job to pave local parking lots and build local museums then we don't understand what constitutional limited government is," DeMint said at a Tea Party rally just outside the Capital Monday. "If the Senate Republicans fail to pass a ban on earmarks tomorrow, obviously they have not gotten the message."
The debate over the proposed ban, led by DeMint and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has already exposed fissures among Republicans in the Senate.
DeMint hinted Monday that Republicans who aren't supportive of the ban could face trouble if they have to face voters in two years, but said he's confident the ban will win approval on Tuesday, led by the newly-elected crop of GOP Senators.
"2012 is going to make what just happened look small if we continue what we started," DeMint predicted.
Voters listed a reduction in spending as one of their top concerns this election cycle; several Republican candidates ran successful campaigns based on that issue.
DeMint entered the gathering Monday, sponsored by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, to shouts of "DeMint for president," eliciting a broad smile from the South Carolina Republican.
Through his Senate Conservatives Fund, DeMint helped raised several million dollars for Tea Party backed candidates in 2010 and played a leading role in several high-profile GOP primary fights.
On the House side, presumed Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and likely Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced they will hold a vote among House Republicans to ban earmarks, one of the proposals outlined in their "Pledge with America" released earlier this year.
President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday that the lame-duck session will be used to ratify the START nuclear-arms treaty.
According to the White House pool report, Obama gave his commitment to his Russian counterpart as the two met, both lauding their friendship and relationship built up over the past two years.
"I reiterated my commitment to getting the START treaty done during the lame-duck session," Obama said at a photo op, calling passage of the treaty a "top priority" of his administration.
Medvedev and Obama signed the nuclear pact to replace the expired treaty in April, and Russian officials have expressed concerns that the treaty would be derailed in Congress.
"I can only express our sincere hope that a desire to defeat a competing party in the U.S. Congress and in the domestic political sphere on the whole will not prevail over U.S. understanding of its deep-rooted national interest," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday.
The Associated Press reported that the White House was offering to add $4.1 billion in funding for the U.S. nuclear arsenal for 2012-2016. The plan was reportedly presented to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the GOP whip, in his home state in an effort to round up the 67 necessary votes for ratification.
The administration is anxious to get START passed before there are six fewer Democrats in the Senate in the next Congress. Kyl has expressed concern about the need to include modernization of the nuclear arsenal in the arms reduction plan.
“All they have to do is find enough money to satisfy Senator Kyl that they are prepared to do what they said they would do,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Reuters in August. “If it’s important to you, you can find a way, in an over a trillion dollar discretionary budget to fund it. In my view they need to do that, because without that I think the chances of ratification are pretty slim."
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said this week that momentum was building for a possible vote on the treaty in December.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that he didn't know if the START treaty would come up for a vote in the lame-duck session, but said two "stumbling blocks" had to be removed in order to get his vote.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Graham said he was "very open-minded about the treaty," which needs 67 votes for ratification in the Senate and would face an even greater hurdle with six fewer Democrats in the new Congress.
"You've got two impediments," Graham said. "Modernization. Not only do we need a START Treaty; we need to modernize our nuclear force, the weapons that are left, to make sure they continue to be a deterrent. And we need to make sure that we can employ -- deploy missile defense systems that are apart from START.
"So you've got two stumbling blocks," he said.
Graham said those two issues would have to be dealt with, and in its current state he would not vote for the U.S.-Russia arms reduction treaty.
"(Sen.) Jon Kyl is working with the administration to get better modernization to make sure that missile defense is not connected to START," he said. "If you could get those two things together, I would vote for the treaty."
On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Sen. John Cornyn said that he didn't think there would even be time to address the treaty in the lame-duck session because the continuing resolution to keep the government operating and the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts were more pressing.
"I don't think there's a lot of time," Cornyn said when asked whether there would be time for a "Don't ask, don't tell" vote. "And I don't think there's a lot of appetite to try to jam stuff through. The president said he wants to pass a new START treaty in a lame duck session. I just don't see that happening."
President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday that the lame-duck session will be used to ratify the START nuclear-arms treaty.
"I reiterated my commitment to getting the START treaty done during the lame-duck session," Obama said at a photo op, calling passage of the treaty a "top priority" of his administration.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served under President Clinton, said on "This Week" that it was "very important" that the treaty be ratified.
"First of all, it's a good treaty," Albright said. "But part of the problem is we remember President Reagan said trust, but verify. And what has happened is that the verification procedures have now not been in place for almost a year, so we need that treaty for that."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said last week that he expects START to come up for a vote in December.
FederalTransparency.gov was created by the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board
– an independent, nonpartisan agency – to provide transparency into federal spending. Initially, the site shows data for the Education Jobs Fund, including the awards to states and the number of jobs.
Education Jobs Fund Information
The Education Jobs Fund has provided $10 billion in assistance to states to fund education jobs for the 2010-2011 school year, including those that provide educational and related services for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. Find More Information About Education Jobs Fund
Recovery.gov
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 required that Recovery.gov be created to foster greater governmental accountability and transparency. Visit Recovery.gov
