Floor Statements

Madam President, cloture was invoked on the New START treaty today. We hope we will be able to reach an agreement to yield back some of the postcloture debate time. We will also continue to work on an agreement to consider the 9/11 health legislation and a number of other executive nominations.

We also would hope that we can complete work on the Defense authorization bill tomorrow morning as well, early in the day, hopefully, right around 9 o'clock.

Senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, the amendment of Senator Thune would amend the treaty by changing one of the elements of the treaty, which is the number of deployed strategic forces that we have. Under the treaty, the limit, of course, is 700. But the critically important part to our military is that each side would have the ability to change the mix to reach 700 as it suits our respective needs.

The amendment of Senator Thune would alter the limit of 700 to 720 deployed SLBMs, heavy bombers equipped with nuclear arms, and ICBMs. These limits, as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has just said, were agreed upon only after careful analysis by the U.S. military leadership, particularly General Chilton who is the commander of our U.S. Strategic Command and the man responsible for these strategic systems.

Senator Kerry has quoted General Chilton. I want to add one additional quote of his which he testified to before the Armed Services Committee on July 20 of this year. General Chilton stated that the force levels in the treaty meet the current guidance for deterrence for the United States. By the way, that guidance was laid out by President George W. Bush.

The options we provided in this process focused on ensuring

America's ability to continue to deter potential adversaries,

assure our allies, and sustain strategic stability for as

long as nuclear weapons exist. This rigorous approach, rooted

in deterrence strategy and assessment of potential adversary

capabilities--

Here are the key words--

supports both the agreed-upon limits in the new START and

recommendations in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

So General Chilton is on record in a number of places very precisely and specifically saying that the options which were provided, including the one which was adopted here, rooted in the

strategy, rooted in the provisions, the guidance as laid out by President Bush, support the agreed upon limits in the START treaty. I don't know how much more precise and I don't know how much more significant you can get with the words of the commander who is in charge of these weapons.

The 1251 report, the report says up to those numbers. It is not specifically committed to those numbers. The important thing about the report is not just that it says up to in I think at least two of the three cases it also says it is important that we remain flexible as to this number.

So the 700 force structure that is in the treaty would retain the nuclear triad, retains all three delivery legs, bombers, SLBMs, and ICBMs. On that point General Chilton said we are going to retain the vital nuclear delivery systems, and if there is a failure technically in one of the nuclear systems, we can rearrange our deployed force structure and treaty limits to compensate.

Some have said the United States will have to make significant reductions to reach the 700 level and the Russians will have to make none. According to General Chilton, this argument is a distraction. What he said is that the ``new START limits''--in his words, the ``new START limits the number of Russian ballistic missile warheads that can target the United States, missiles that pose the most prompt threat to our forces and our Nation. Regardless of whether Russia would have kept its missile force levels within those limits without a new START treaty, upon ratification they would now be required to do so.'' And that certainly is very important to our Strategic Commander, General Chilton, because he said:

The constraints of the treaty actually do constrain Russia

with regard to deployed launchers and deployed strategic

weapons, and that is an important element as well. Without

that they are unconstrained.

He explained that the limits were important because without those limits

There would be no constraints placed upon the Russian

Federation as the number of strategic delivery systems or

warheads they could deploy. And I think it is important for

the United States--

he concluded

that there be limits there, limits that we would also be

bound by, obviously.

General Chilton is not only comfortable with the limits in this treaty, it was his analysis that formed the underpinning for the 700 limit. He doesn't need the strategic, the additional 20 strategic nuclear delivery systems to maintain our strong deterrence, and other than to kill this treaty there is no reason to add these 20 additional systems. We should respect General Chilton's judgment that the United States can maintain an effective deterrent and that such a change would kill this treaty.

I yield the floor and I thank the Chair.

Will the Senator yield for one question before he yields the floor?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it not true that the 1251 report says that the numbers which they talk about are up-to numbers, in the case of both ICBMs and the nuclear bombers?

So the 720 is not proscribed by the 1251 report. Thus the total of the three numbers, two of which are up-to numbers, is that correct?

I thank the Senator and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, the Risch amendment states a concern which is a legitimate concern. I think probably everybody would agree to that. This concern was there in the START I treaty and it was there in the Moscow Treaty just a few years ago, that we need to address the imbalance or the--the imbalance, I guess, is a good word--between the number of strategic nuclear weapons that exist on both sides and the nonstrategic weapons. But that was true during START I in 1991 when President Bush negotiated it. There was no effort to, in effect, kill the treaty with an amendment stating that concern, although it was a concern then. During the Moscow Treaty debate here in 2002, I believe Senator Biden again raised the same concern about this imbalance. It is a legitimate concern. But you don't kill a treaty because there are some legitimate concerns about issues.

The Russians have a concern about our large number of warehoused warheads. We have a big inventory of warheads compared to them. They have a concern. We could state that as a fact, that the Russians have a concern about the number of warheads we have. But putting that into the treaty kills the treaty.

We could make any statement of legitimate concern. If it is in the treaty text, it will kill the treaty.

Senator Biden, in 2002, I believe, or it may have even been in the first START treaty, raised this issue about the imbalance. It was a legitimate issue. But there was no effort to kill that treaty which had been negotiated by President Bush by inserting a legitimate concern into the treaty.

There are a number of legitimate concerns. The Russians have legitimate concerns about our conventional capabilities, about accuracy, about our encryption capabilities. They were not addressed adequately for the Russians in this treaty. But they have a concern. Should we state in the treaty the fact of legitimate concern? Should we by amendment attempt to insert in the treaty that the factual statement of a legitimate concern just kills the treaty?

That is what concerns me as to why it is that there is such a determination to try to kill this treaty by means of an amendment which states a legitimate concern, which was true during the last two treaties negotiated by two President Bushes. That is what troubles me. That was the difference Senator Corker pointed out between seeking to amend a resolution and seeking to amend the treaty.

To Senator Risch, through the Chair, I happen to share the same concern the Senator has about this imbalance. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, this imbalance existed in 2002, it existed in 1991, and we ought to address it, but we don't address it by killing this treaty, and that is what this amendment does.

Despite the absence of this language expressing a legitimate concern, we have support for this treaty by former President George H.W. Bush and Secretaries Brown, Carlucci, Cohen, Perry, and Schlesinger. They support this treaty without this language. It was true that former Secretary Schlesinger said, for instance, that he has a concern about this imbalance. I think we all do. He stated that concern. He still supports the treaty without this language, without this expression of concern.

Former Secretaries of the State Albright, Baker, Christopher, Eagleburger, Kissinger, Powell, Rice, and Shulz support the treaty without this language. They have the same concerns. As a matter of fact, I believe it was Senator Sessions--it may have been someone else--who said that former Secretary Kissinger has expressed this concern, in fact quoted, I believe, from former Secretary Kissinger's writing on this issue. He has that same concern which Senator Risch and all of us have about this imbalance. But without the language, former Secretary Kissinger still supports this treaty.

All I can say is that I think there is a legitimate concern which is expressed in this amendment. It is a concern which has existed and needs to be addressed, as former Senator Biden said when he was debating a treaty--but not to kill a treaty by an expression of a legitimate concern.

That is what I think is the issue here--not whether the language in the Risch amendment expresses something which is legitimate but whether the absence of that concern being expressed in the treaty should be enough to vote for this amendment and to kill this treaty as a result and to force it back to an open-ended negotiation, which we have no idea where that would lead.

I hope we defeat the Risch amendment not because we disagree with what the concern is but because, understanding that concern, we do not want to do damage to the treaty and kill a treaty which does so much for the security of this Nation.

I yield the floor, and if I have any time, I yield the remainder of my time.

How much time has been used by Senator Sessions?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that now the Senator from Oregon be recognized for 3 minutes, and then I be recognized for 6 minutes.

I so amend my request.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his powerful statement and powerful presence. We look forward to 110 percent of that power being back with us in the days ahead.

The Armed Services Committee held two excellent hearings to consider the final report of the working group that reviewed the issues associated with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. That report concluded that allowing gay and lesbian troops to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, without being forced to conceal their sexual orientation, would present a low risk to the military's effectiveness, even during a time of war, and that 70 percent of the surveyed members believe the impact on their units would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence.

As one servicemember told the working group:

All I care about is can you carry a gun, can you walk the

post.

In combat, the troops have told us that what matters is doing the job.

We also learned during the course of our hearings that while predictions of problems after repeal were higher in combat units than among troops, this commission found that the difference disappeared among those who had actual experience serving on the front lines with gay colleagues; that is, experience is a powerful antidote to negative stereotypes about gay service members.

We learned that when our close allies, Great Britain and Canada, were preparing to allow open service by gay and lesbian troops, there were concerns about problems there. Those concerns totally disappeared after they changed their policy to allow service, but those concerns--that level of concern in our allies' armies was higher than the current level of concern in our troops. Both those countries and other allies, such as Israel, made the transition with far less disruption than expected, and their militaries serve alongside ours in Afghanistan with no sign that open service diminishes their or our effectiveness.

Secretary Gates has assured everybody he is not going to certify that the military is ready for repeal until he is satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs that we have mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion and effectiveness. We learned that Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and other senior military leaders are concerned that unless we pass this law; that is, without this legislation, they are going to be forced to implement a change in policy not when they can certify that they are ready, as provided for in this legislation, but when a court orders a change. The only method of repeal that places the timing of repeal and the control of implementation in the hands of our military leaders is the enactment of this bill.

There are a lot of reasons the repeal of don't ask, don't tell can and will, hopefully, happen, but we know it can happen without harming our military's effectiveness. Those are the reasons we can do this safely, but there are other reasons why we must end this discriminatory policy. In Admiral Mullen's memorable words, it is a policy which ``forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'' We should end this policy because it is the right thing to do.

Some have argued that this is social engineering or that this is partisan, even though this change is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. They are grossly mistaken.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I am not here for partisan reasons; I am here because men and women wearing the uniform of the United States who are gay and lesbian have died for this country because gay and lesbian men and women wear the uniform of this country and have their lives on the line right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places for this country. One of those is a captain by the name of Jonathan Hopkins. He finished fourth in his class at West Point, commanded two companies-- one in combat--and earned three Bronze Stars, including one for valor in combat. Yet that decorated combat leader had to leave the Army because of don't ask, don't tell. I am here because of SSgt Eric Alva, the first ground unit casualty of the war in Iraq. The first casualty in the war in Iraq was a gay soldier. The mine took off his right leg, and that mine that took off his right leg didn't give a darn whether he was gay or straight. We shouldn't either.

We cannot let these patriots down. Their suffering should end. It will end with the passage of this bill. I urge its passage today. It is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

If no one else wants it, I will be happy to take it.

Mr. President, let me just say that General Chilton, who is the commander of our U.S. Strategic Command, told the Armed Services Committee on July 20:

As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing

global defense plans, operations, and advocacy, I can say

with confidence that this treaty does not constrain current

or future missile defense plans.

The McCain amendment would be a treaty killer, and for that reason alone the Senate should defeat it.

On the issue of the interrelationship of offensive and defensive arms, which is the text of the Preamble, President George W. Bush agreed that such an interrelationship exists. In a joint statement with President Putin of July 22, 2001, they said: ``We agree that major changes in the world require concrete discussions of both offensive and defensive systems . . . We will shortly begin intensive consultations on the interrelated subjects of offensive and defensive systems.''

As all our senior civilian and military officials acknowledge, the treaty does not limit our missile defense plans or programs. Gen. Kevin Chilton, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told the Armed Services Committee on July 20th that ``As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations, and advocacy, I can say with confidence that this treaty does not constrain any current or future missile defense plans.''

On the issue of ICBM silo conversion for missile defense, which the treaty prohibits, this is not a constraint on our missile defense plans or programs. As Lieutenant Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, the Director of our Missile Defense Agency said on June 16th: ``replacing ICBMs with Ground-Based Interceptors or adapting Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles to be an interceptor would actually be a setback--a major setback--to the development of our missile defenses.''

On the subject of the unilateral statements, these are not part of the treaty and do not in any way constrain our missile defenses. We faced a nearly identical situation with the original START treaty, where Russia issued a unilateral statement saying that if we withdrew from the ABM Treaty, that would constitute grounds for their withdrawal from the START treaty. Guess what. We did withdraw from the ABM Treaty, but Russia did not withdraw from START. Our unilateral statement makes clear that we intend to develop and deploy missile defenses, regardless of the Russian statement.

Mr. President, the missile defense program is not covered or limited by the New START treaty. That is about as simple a statement as I can make, and there has been an awful lot of debate about the missile defense program and allegations that it is limited by this treaty. Let's listen to the experts.

The Secretary of Defense first, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee on June 17, said: The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses. I remain confident in the U.S. missile defense program, which has made considerable advancements, including the testing and development of the SM-3 missile, which we will deploy in Europe.

Secretary of State Clinton, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee on June 17:

The treaty does not constrain our missile defense efforts.

I want to underscore this because I know there have been a

lot of concerns about it, and I anticipate a lot of

questions.

Then she said about the preamble:

The treaty's preamble does include language acknowledging

the relationship between strategic offensive and defensive

forces, but that is simply a statement of fact. It, too, does

not in any way constrain our missile defense programs.

General Chilton, commander of the United States Strategic Command:

As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing

global missile defense plans, operations, and advocacy, I can

say with confidence--

This is our top commander--

that this treaty does not constrain any current or future

missile defense plans.

The Senator from Alabama talked about some effort here to carry out some kind of a leftwing agenda. GEN Kevin Chilton is the commander of the United States Strategic Command.

. . . I can say with confidence this treaty does not

constrain any current or future missile defense plans.

The ballistic missile defense review report which was filed earlier this year made it clear that the administration

is pursuing a variety of systems and capabilities to defend the homeland in different regions of the world against missile threats from nations such as North Korea and Iran. They talked about the phased adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended the phased adaptive approach unanimously. These are our top military people. They are advising us. This is not some political agenda which is being implemented by this treaty. This is a military and a security necessity for this country. That is not just me saying that. This is the top military people of our country who are saying it.

The NATO strategic concept, this is what NATO is saying about that phased adaptive approach which has been criticized during an earlier statement. This is what the NATO folks say about it. These are our allies.

The United States-European phased adaptive approach is

welcomed as a valuable national contribution to the NATO

missile defense architecture.

The Armed Services Committee, in our authorization bill, section 231(b)(8), said the following:

There are no constraints contained in the New START treaty

on the development or deployment of effective missile

defenses, including all phases of the phased adaptive

approach to missile defense in Europe and further

enhancements to the ground-based midcourse defense system as

well as future missile defenses.

Admiral Mullen--the top uniformed military official in our country--

I see no restrictions in this treaty in terms of our

development of missile defense, which is a very important

system. . . .

That was in front of the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired with such distinction by Senator Kerry. He said that in May of 2010.

GEN James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--he is our No. 2 top uniformed official--here is what General Cartwright said:

. . . all of the Joint Chiefs are very much behind this

treaty . . . we need START and we need it badly.

General O'Reilly, again, director of our Missile Defense Agency:

Throughout the treaty negotiations, I frequently consulted

with the New START team on all potential impacts to missile

defense. The New START does not constrain our plans to

execute the U.S. missile defense program.

And this is what he added:

The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START

treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs

in several areas . . . we will have greater flexibility in

using it as missile defense test target with regard to

launcher locations, telemetry collection, and data

processing, thus allowing more efficient test architectures

and operationally realistic intercept geometries.

This is not our civilian people who might, allegedly, have some kind of a political agenda. These are our top military people in our country who are telling us there are no constraints on missile defense. Every single one of them supports it. The people who are in charge of our missile defense system strongly support it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly supports it. The suggestion that there is sort of a political agenda behind this treaty flies smack in the face of the sworn--not sworn testimony; they were not under oath; we do not need them under oath--the testimony of our top uniformed military officials in this country. The suggestion that what is driving this is some kind of a political agenda falls completely flat. It runs directly counter to the testimony of these officials.

In terms of the preamble language--and this is where the pending amendment would seek to amend the treaty itself by removing the language, which, of course, kills the treaty; if you amend the treaty here, that is the end of the treaty--the full paragraph says:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between

strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that

this interrelationship will become more important as

strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current

strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and

effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.

. . .

This statement is a longstanding, decades old recognition of an undisputable fact: There is a relationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive systems. It has been recognized in our nuclear arms limitation and reduction treaties since the 1970s.

This is President George W. Bush on this subject. It is a joint statement with President Putin, on July 22, 2001. This is not President Obama. This is President George W. Bush. This is a joint statement, with President Putin:

We agreed that major changes in the world require concrete

discussions of both offensive and defensive systems. . . .We

will shortly begin--

We all ought to listen to this. Those who are charging this is some kind of an agenda of President Obama and is not totally in sync with what has come before in terms of START treaties should listen to what President George W. Bush said in 2001.

And I will finish. I think I have run out of time, so I will finish here. I thank the Chair.

I think this is the one statement which is the clearest of them all. This is President George W. Bush:

We--

President Bush and President Putin--

will shortly begin intensive consultations on the

interrelated subjects of offensive and defensive systems.

This relationship is as old as our treaties. Statements of interrelationship have been made by Democratic and Republican Presidents, and I would hope that this language would not be stricken. If it is, it will kill the treaty, and it will kill it for a reason which is totally insufficient. And argument here runs smack, again, into the statements of support from our top uniformed military officials.

Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of our Foreign Relations Committee. They have done a superb job in handling these hearings and presenting this to the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the greatness of our Nation depends not just on our economic or military might or the drive of our people. We are great in part because we seek not just our own prosperity and security but peace and security for all peoples, and because we understand the relationship between their security and our own. And few Americans in our time have done more to advance those goals around the world than Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. His sudden passing this week is a great loss to this Nation, and to anyone anywhere who values peace and freedom.

Richard Holbrooke saw opportunities for peace where others saw only impenetrable thickets of competing interest and implacable enmity. Surely that

was true of the Balkans in the 1990s, a region of the world plagued for centuries by ethnic and religious hatreds so deep that many considered them impossible to solve. Richard Holbrooke found a way. Thanks to the tireless work of his diplomatic team on the Dayton Accords, thousands lived who might otherwise have died, and millions were lifted out of the horror of war.

Much has been said and written about Ambassador Holbrooke's larger- than-life personality. His presence was formidable, his ambition as towering as his talent. But that ambition, that forceful intellect and arresting presence, were harnessed to a larger goal--the promotion of his Nation's interest, and the larger interest of the global community.

I had the privilege of working closely with Ambassador Holbrooke when he took on the role of Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here was another place where his talents were needed, another region of the world plagued by centuries-old conflicts and modern-day animosities. I valued his analysis and advice, and admired the way in which he eagerly sought out information and advice from his own staff and from outside sources. He was decisive and determined, but he came to his positions after seeking out and carefully analyzing diverse viewpoints.

I am saddened at the loss of Richard Holbrooke. I am saddened I will no longer be able to discuss with him the pressing issues of our time. And I am saddened that our nation will never again be able to call upon him to calm the troubled waters of our world. But his legacy is secure. It can be found in the countless younger men and women who learned at his side and will carry on his work. It can be found in the safer, more secure nation that he served. And it can be found in all the war-torn corners of the world where fear and hatred and violence are held at bay thanks to his tireless efforts.

Mr. President, occasionally in the career of a U.S. Senator, one is given the opportunity to shape legislation that will bring historic change to our Nation. The Senators who have seized such opportunities stand among the Senate giants of our lifetime: ``Scoop'' Jackson. Hubert Humphrey. Everett Dirksen. Ted Kennedy.

As this Congress comes to a close, we must say goodbye to Chris Dodd, a Senator who has seized such opportunities, one whose drive and dedication and wisdom have enabled us to bring great and needed change. Senator Chris Dodd has been a good friend to me. He has been a leader to those who seek an America that is stronger, fairer and more just.

Senator Dodd will be rightly remembered for his essential role in passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In the aftermath of a financial crisis that brought the nation's economy to a halt and threatened a second Great Depression, the need for Wall Street reform was clear, but so were the enormous obstacles to passage. In addition to honest disagreements about how best to proceed, we faced determined opposition from Wall Street, which wanted to maintain a status quo that put profits ahead of economic stability. All of us who participated in the debate over that bill know how complex and difficult it was to craft it, and we all have enormous hopes that this landmark

bill will curb the excesses that cost so many Americans their jobs and homes and businesses in the financial crisis.

History also will mark Senator Dodd's key role in passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a landmark step in the decades-long fight to ensure that every American has access to affordable health care. Taking up the baton for his dear friend, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd provided strong and sure leadership, again in the face of obstacles that at times threatened the bill's very survival. Thanks to his dedication, health coverage is more secure and affordable for families who have it, and more accessible to families without it.

If Senator Dodd had accomplished no other legislative victories than these two, he could rightly claim a place among the Senate's most effective legislators. But Chris Dodd accomplished much more.

Millions of American families have benefitted from his work in enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act. Before this legislation became law in 1993, Americans faced wrenching choices between their responsibilities at home and at work. Despite two Presidential vetoes, Senator Dodd continued fighting until he had succeeded. And today, American workers are able to give their families the time and attention they need without fear of losing their job.

Families and children have been at the heart of much of his work. The child care and development block grant program, which he fought to establish, has helped millions of low-income families get the child care they so desperately needed. The Head Start program has been a career-long priority, and his hard work to ensure that Head Start remains strong has made a huge difference in countless lives.

His work on behalf of families extends to protecting them from predatory credit card companies. I worked closely with him in the fight for passage of the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act, which provided tough new protections against unfair practices in the credit card industry.

Part of the reason for Chris Dodd's extraordinarily successful legislative career is that people simply like working with him. He is good-natured, open and non-defensive, willing to listen to differing points of view. His openness is accompanied by an infectious sense of humor that has eased tense moments and helped us all take ourselves a little less seriously, which in turn has helped overcome some mighty serious impasses.

A common thread runs through all his signature accomplishments. Throughout his career, Chris Dodd has been dedicated to the idea that compassion has a place in this chamber; that as we do our work, we should keep in mind that real families, with real problems, are looking to us for solutions; and that a Senator, with hard work and resourcefulness and teamwork, can make a difference in the lives of those families.

As Chris Dodd's Senate career draws to a close, speeches will be given, portraits will be hung, someday statues will be raised, but the ultimate monument to his Senate career will be the mother or father who has time to care for a sick child because of the Family and Medical Leave Act. It will be the parent who doesn't have to choose between putting food on the table or providing health insurance for his children. It will be the child who excels in the classroom because of Head Start. The monuments to Chris Dodd will be the millions of Americans whose lives are safer, more secure and more prosperous because of the work he has done here. No Senator could ask for more meaningful tributes. I will miss his wisdom and his humor as we conduct business here, but I will continue to value his friendship. I wish him and his wonderful family the happiest of times in all the years to come.

Russ Feingold

Mr. President, true bipartisanship has been in sadly short supply in this Chamber recently. Sadly, at the end of this Congress, the supply of bipartisanship will be a little lower, because we will no longer have the benefit of Russ Feingold's presence in the Senate.

Senator Feingold's service to the Senate demonstrates that one need not abandon strongly held convictions to reach bipartisan solutions. His example proves that disagreeing with someone on one issue need not prevent working with them on another issue. He has shown that one can act as a good steward of taxpayer dollars and a careful advocate for fiscal responsibility without leaving behind the working families who need us to stand up for them.

There are many examples of Senator Feingold's search for bipartisan solutions, but justifiably, he is best known for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. The assault on this legislation in the courts should not distract us from its wisdom. This bipartisan legislation was based upon the inherently American and inherently democratic notion that elections should be decided by the will of the people, and not because of the influence of wealthy donors or moneyed interests. This is a notion that is not Republican or Democratic, not liberal or conservative. It relies not on party loyalty or ideological fervor, but on a sense of justice. That sense of justice is central to what Russ Feingold has brought to the Senate.

Likewise, the civil rights of American citizens are not a matter of party or ideology. I admire Senator Feingold's unflagging commitment to those rights, and his efforts to find a reasonable balance between protecting our safety and preserving our freedom.

Now, Senator Feingold and I have not agreed on every issue. While we both believed the Iraq war was a mistake, he believed we should respond by ending funding for the war. I disagreed, and believed that such a move would harm our troops in the field whom we should support. But I never doubted that Senator Feingold came to his conclusions only after giving careful consideration to the arguments opposing them.

We will miss Russ Feingold, miss his intellect, his independence, and his dedication. I will always call him my friend. The Senate will be poorer for his absence. But I know that the Nation will continue to enjoy the benefits of his service.

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 4787 to the motion to concur in the House amendment.

My amendment would restore the estate tax exemption level and top estate tax rates to their 2009 levels of $3.5 million and 45 percent, respectively. It would leave all the other modifications to the estate, gift, and so-called generation-skipping transfer taxes the same as they appear in the underlying amendment.

Raising the estate tax exemption level to $5 million and lowering the rate to 35 percent is not the responsible thing to do given our current fiscal situation, and it would only exacerbate widening wealth inequality in America. Only 3 of every 1,000 decedents have estates in excess of $3.5 million.

At a time when some people are seriously discussing cutting Social Security, which is relied upon by so many millions of Americans, how can Congress consider this action to benefit the top three-tenths of 1 percent of the population?

While we don't have an estimate of the savings to the Treasury from this amendment, we do know it would save our Treasury tens of billions of dollars, which we need to help continue unemployment insurance, Social Security, and other critical programs.

Whether one agrees with this amendment or not, this is an amendment which should be debated. The Senate should have an opportunity to debate this issue. Unless we get unanimous consent, the way this is currently structured, the Senate will be denied this opportunity. Whether people support it, oppose this estate tax change or don't know, the way the Senate ought to operate is we should have a chance to vote on this amendment.

Unanimous Consent Request

So I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 4787 to the motion to concur in the House amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, when the Senate invoked cloture on this bill yesterday evening, and adopted the procedure used after cloture, those of us who oppose portions of this bill lost any opportunity to address the problems we see and seek to repair them. I voted against the motion to invoke cloture because I hoped that, if the cloture motion failed, the Senate would have a chance to consider a better bill, and to improve it through the traditional method of debate and amendment.

That did not happen.

I have spoken, as have others, about the defects of this proposal. Its tax cuts are unwisely skewed toward the wealthy, including an estate tax provision that would benefit a few thousand of our most fortunate taxpayers at great cost to the Treasury. These benefits for the wealthiest among us will not, despite the claims of our Republican colleagues, help our economic recovery. Nearly everyone says that should be our top priority, and it should be. As a host of economists across the ideological spectrum have demonstrated, tax cuts for the well-to-do have little impact on economic growth.

It is not just that these benefits for the wealthiest will have no positive impact on our economy. What is worse, the upper income tax cuts and estate tax provisions that Republicans support would add more than $100 billion to the national debt over the next 2 years. Republicans in this Chamber repeatedly tell us that the 2010 election was a call for more fiscal restraint. Yet their most significant action following that election has been to insist upon tax cuts for the wealthy paid for with billions of dollars in borrowed money.

It is not just the inconsistency of our Republican colleagues that I find so

troubling. It is that in pursuit of their goal, they are holding hostage progress for the American people, not just on tax cuts, but on a range of other crucial issues. They tell us they will not support tax provisions that help working families unless we also include huge giveaways for the wealthy. They tell us we cannot continue emergency unemployment benefits unless we also give several times the cost of those benefits to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. They tell us we cannot provide tax relief to help businesses grow and add workers unless we also give away more borrowed money to the wealthy.

And there is more. Republicans have filibustered the defense authorization bill, crucial legislation for the good of our troops and their families, because we have not yet passed tax cuts for the wealthy. They blocked consideration of the New START treaty, a treaty supported by past presidents and secretaries of state of both parties, a treaty that will make our Nation and the entire globe safer and more secure. In an extraordinary letter, all 42 Senate Republicans have said they will not allow the Senate to consider any legislation, no matter how important, until we give billions in borrowed money to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts.

Despite the flaws in this bill and the process by which it comes before us, it has a number of strengths. Greatest among them is the extension of emergency unemployment benefits. In my State and others, thousands of Americans are without work through no fault of their own, and they and their families are depending on us to give them the support they need. These benefits are not just critical to those families, but they also have a highly stimulative impact on the economy. Extending the UI program is the right thing to do. We need to do it, and we can do it yet this year, if we stay here and continue working, as we should, right through to the new year.

But even some of the positives in this legislation have significant drawbacks. The 2 percent payroll tax cut would be welcomed by working families, and could help the economy grow. But it would also cost the Treasury more than $110 billion in borrowed money next year. While some argue that might still be an acceptable price for boosting economic growth, I believe it is very unlikely that Congress will have the will to let that tax cut expire next year. Already, some of our Republican colleagues are talking of making the cut permanent. That money, otherwise lost to the Social Security trust fund, must come from somewhere, and I am concerned that it will come from cuts to Social Security or other essential programs.

We can support middle-class families, job-producing businesses and the unemployed without unleashing the damage this legislation would do to our budget and to economic justice.

I cannot accept the price Republicans want to extract from us. We need not accept it if we have the will to debate and amend this legislation and are willing to stay through the end of this year to do it. The damage to our fiscal situation and to Social Security, and the damage done by continued inequality these tax cuts would perpetuate, is unacceptable. Beyond that, I believe it would be a mistake to allow Republicans to succeed in their irresponsible brinkmanship, blocking aid to working families and the important other business before the Senate in order to secure benefits for the wealthiest Americans.

I fully expect that my Republican colleagues will soon be urging this body to rein in the debt. Already, we have seen proposals that would seek to remedy our Nation's fiscal crisis by dramatically cutting crucial programs, including Social Security. It is not a stretch to suggest that the cost of this bill alone will lead some to argue that Congress must enact more and deeper cuts to essential programs, including Social Security--all so that we can give away money the government does not have to the wealthiest few.

We must stand up and fight against an approach that would sacrifice aid to the vast majority of Americans on the altar of unaffordable tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I believe that time should be today. And so I will vote against this legislation.

Mr. President, I have been honored for the past 18-plus years to serve alongside Senator Byron Dorgan, who is preparing to leave the Senate after three distinguished terms. Senator Dorgan has been one of the most plain-spoken, energetic, and formidable forces in the U.S. Senate, and I will sorely miss his voice.

Some might, at first, see relatively little in common between more urban, industrialized Michigan and more rural, agricultural North Dakota. But Senator Dorgan and I saw eye-to-eye on issue after issue-- problems that needed to be tackled, outrages that needed to be exposed.

One of those problems is tax abuse. Senator Dorgan has been one of the Senate's most stalwart and active opponents of tax cheats who rob the Treasury of billions of dollars each year, while unloading their tax burden onto the backs of honest taxpayers. He introduced legislation, commissioned key GAO reports, and fought long and hard against tax breaks that encourage U.S. companies to ship jobs offshore, set up factories in other countries, and use phony offshore companies to dodge taxes. I remember one floor fight last year in which he led a successful effort to stop legislation that would have opened the floodgates to billions of dollars that U.S. companies had hoarded offshore and wanted to bring back home without paying the same tax rate as their competitors. I remember battles we fought to stop so-called ``inverted'' corporations--companies that pretend to move their headquarters offshore as a method of dodging U.S. taxes--from participating in Federal contracts. I remember joining with him to request data exposing how U.S. companies have stopped bearing their share of the tax burden. I am going to miss his iron will and sharp wit in the ongoing battles to combat tax abuse.

Senator Dorgan has also been an articulate and strenuous defender of American workers, benefitting working families not only in North Dakota and Michigan, but across the Nation. For years, he has fought for fair trade policies, insisting trade partners like South Korea and Japan, that export millions of autos to the United States, open their doors to U.S.-made autos. There may be no major auto factories in Senator Dorgan's home State, but that did not prevent him from exposing the hypocrisy and injustice of unequal market access and demanding change. I will miss his voice in the ongoing battles to pry open markets now shut to American goods.

Senator Dorgan also fought for American working families when he helped author the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act, a bill that sought to end the tax benefits given to employers that send jobs overseas, and instead reward the companies that invest in the United States. I am hopeful that the Senate may yet see the wisdom of his legislation and enact it into law. Senator Dorgan literally wrote the book on how corporate interests and political short-sightedness are hurting U.S. workers and the U.S. economy, and the Nation will continue to benefit from his work on this issue even after he has left the Senate.

Similarly, as cochair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Senator Dorgan has done much to shed light on human rights abuses in China and to illustrate how China has often failed to make good on its World Trade Organization commitments. I am a member of the commission, and my brother is Senator Dorgan's cochair, and we have both enjoyed the privilege of working with him in that forum.

Finally, Senator Dorgan has been an essential voice in the Senate on reining in the excesses of Wall Street. As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which conducted a 2-year investigation into the financial crisis, I know personally how diligent, informed, and intense his efforts were to restore sanity to the U.S. financial system. He took it upon itself to organize Senators into a force for change and reform. When lobbyists claimed banks were the victims rather than the perpetrators of the crisis, that their executives had done nothing wrong, and their multi-million paychecks were justified, Senator Dorgan dug into the facts, educated himself on the most esoteric financial engineering, and took on the special interests. For example, he crafted an amendment to the Wall Street reform legislation to ban ``naked'' credit default swaps and worked with me to add my amendment banning synthetic asset-backed securities. Our joint amendment was unsuccessful, but time will show those types of high- risk, empty bets do nothing to advance the real economy and much to direct dollars into the mindless casino that plagued the U.S. financial system.

I will sorely miss Senator Dorgan's insight and determination in the ongoing battles to rein in Wall Street excess. The people of North Dakota are rightly proud of Senator Dorgan. He is a fighter, and he never stopped fighting for them. They have benefitted greatly from Senator Byron Dorgan's service. The people of our Nation have benefitted. I know the working families of my State have benefitted. I want to thank him for his service, for his energy, for his diligence, for his tenacity, and for his friendship. On a personal level, Barbara and I wish him and Kim and their family the best as they embark on this new path together.

blanche lincoln

Mr. President, over the last 210 years, many pioneers and groundbreakers have passed through this Chamber.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to one such groundbreaking Senator, one who will leave the Senate at the end of this session.

When the people of Arkansas elected Blanche Lincoln to represent them in the Senate in 1998, she became the youngest woman ever elected to this body. After compiling an impressive list of accomplishments after joining the Senate, she became, in 2009, the first woman to chair the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. These accomplishments are just some of the highlights of an impressive career of Senate service.

Senator Lincoln has been among the Senate's most passionate and effective voices in combating hunger, helping found the Senate Hunger Caucus to focus attention on an issue that affects far too many Americans. And she has been a tireless advocate for the working families of America's rural communities.

I am especially grateful for the work Senator Lincoln has done this year in helping craft comprehensive financial reform. She was instrumental in ensuring that the bill we passed into law this year brought new transparency and safety to the largely unregulated world of derivatives trading. I know from hard experience that passing reform that Wall Street doesn't like is, to say the least, challenging. The financial system is more secure, and the people of Arkansas and the Nation are better off, because Senator Lincoln was willing to take on that challenge and able to overcome it so effectively. She will long be remembered as one of the architects of financial reform.

Arkansas has given the Nation many accomplished public leaders, names such as Caraway, Fulbright, Bumpers, Pryor and Clinton. As she prepares to leave the Senate, Senator Lincoln can proudly join that list of Arkansans who have improved the lives of those in their State and this country. I have been proud to call her a friend and a colleague, and I know that, while she is leaving the Senate, her contributions to her country are far from over.

evan bayh

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to congratulate Senator Bayh on a productive two terms in this body, and thank him for his service, in particular as a member of the Armed Services Committee and on issues of importance to both our States.

As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have seen first hand the diligence Senator Bayh brought to his work on national security. He has been active on one of the greatest threats to our security, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials, seeking to support and extend the work of his Indiana colleague, Senator Lugar. He has been equally effective in working, on a bipartisan basis, to pass legislation seeking to hold the government of Iran accountable for its egregious human rights abuses. And he has been active in helping the committee carry out its oversight function, bringing his thoughtful approach to his role as chairman of the our Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support over the last 2 years. The committee, the Senate, and the American people have greatly benefitted from Senator Bayh's efforts in these areas.

Senator Bayh represents a State that is part of America's industrial heartland, and he has energetically sought to ensure that we pursue policies that do not damage the industrial economy. I would mention two such efforts in particular.

In 2007, Senator Bayh, along with me and other members of the Auto Caucus, worked to ensure that negotiations on a free trade agreement with South Korea addressed the unfair and unbalanced way in which automotive imports are treated in South Korea. Barriers to entry make the South Korean market essentially closed to U.S.-made vehicles, while Korean automakers have found an open lucrative market in the United States. He, like I and many others, is deeply concerned about the impact of any potential trade agreement on the auto industry, and I have been privileged to stand with him on this issue.

Senator Bayh also has been a leader in fighting against intellectual property theft by China and other nations. Manufacturers in both our States have been harmed by the ability of foreign companies to copy their products and reproduce them in violation of international standards, and by the inability or unwillingness of other nations to combat such piracy. Along with Senator Voinovich, Senator Bayh in 2007 introduced the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act. This legislation would be an important safeguard protecting American companies from intellectual piracy.

Whether the issue was defense of American companies' rights or defense of our Nation, Senator Evan Bayh has been a thoughtful, balanced and capable member of the U.S. Senate. The people of Indiana have gained much from his service. I will miss him as a colleague and a friend, and I wish him and his family the best of luck as he seeks to continue to serve his State and Nation.

bob bennett

Mr. President, through three terms in this chamber, Senator Judd Gregg has been a consistent, principled voice for responsible stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. Though he and I have not always agreed on the roles and responsibilities of government, that has not diminished my admiration for his principled stand on fiscal responsibility, a stand that has at times brought him into conflict with members from both parties.

Senator Gregg has been willing to cross party lines on important issues throughout his tenure in the Senate. At times that has been the result of his belief in limiting deficits, as when he opposed the creation of the Medicare drug benefit in 2003 without identifying ways to pay for it. But he also supported last year the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He has voted to allow Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco. And he has voted to give U.S. workers a higher minimum wage.

Still, Senator Gregg will rightly be remembered primarily for his advocacy of prudent spending. He consistently has pressed for a detailed, bipartisan effort to address the Nation's troubling fiscal situation. The bill he worked on with Senator Conrad ultimately became the model for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. While the success of the commission is still unclear, it already is clear that Senator Gregg's efforts have helped move the discussion forward.

I congratulate Senator Gregg on his distinguished service, and I wish him the best of luck in wherever his new endeavors take him.

George Voinovich

Mr. President, aside from a few college football Saturdays each fall, Michigan and Ohio share much. Both States are known for our manufacturing strength. And both are known for the central role the Great Lakes play in the daily lives of our citizens. And over his 12 years in this chamber, Senator George Voinovich has demonstrated that these shared interests are far more important than party labels.

I have had the pleasure of working alongside Senator Voinovich on these and other important issues. Since 2007, he has been my co-chair on the Great Lakes Task Force, and he has brought just as much dedication and commitment to that work as you would expect from an Ohioan, lover of our Lakes, and expert angler. Recently, the greatest issue facing the Lakes has been the threat of invasive species, and especially Asian carp, which could devastate Great Lakes ecosystems if they make their way up the Mississippi River valley. His strong advocacy for protecting the Lakes helped yield an important victory just last month with passage of the Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act, which added the bighead carp to the list of species prohibited from import into the United States.

Senator Voinovich was instrumental in helping ensure passage of the Great Lakes Compact, which protects the waters of the Great Lakes from diversion. He helped secure more than $200 million in funding for cleanup of contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. And he has been my valued partner in introducing the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act, which would provide important tools and funding to address a wide range of environmental concerns on the Lakes. Senator Voinovich also recognizes the integral role the Lakes play in our States' economies, and so has been at the forefront of efforts to promote shipping and commerce on the Lakes.

In addition to his impressive legacy on Great Lakes issues, Senator Voinovich has been a thoughtful and effective advocate for our States' manufacturers. He and I co-chair the Senate Auto Caucus, and in this role, he has done much to ensure that the domestic auto industry, the backbone of American manufacturing, remains strong. He has been a powerful voice in the Senate for ensuring that U.S. manufacturers, including our auto industry, are able to fully participate in overseas markets, just as foreign companies are given access to our markets; his opposition to unfair aspects of a proposed free trade agreement with South Korea is just one recent example of that advocacy.

It is no surprise that in his work on these issues, Senator Voinovich has been motivated by the interests of his State and our nation, and not the desire to score partisan points. He has throughout his time in the Senate--and before, when serving as a mayor and governor-- demonstrated the ability to find areas of bipartisan agreement, even when he faced political pressure to walk the party line. To cite just a recent example: He was one of a handful of Republicans to cross party lines and vote for the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, which provided important new tools to help small businesses grow and provide the jobs we need to get our economy going.

On these and other issues, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Voinovich. I will miss him when we return in January. He has been a powerful and principled advocate for his State. The people of my State have benefitted greatly from his work on issues of common interest between Michigan and Ohio. And I have benefitted greatly from his wisdom, friendship and teamwork.

Sam Brownback

Mr President, today we are involved in one of the most important functions of the U.S. Senate, and one of the most rare. Only 11 impeachment trials have been completed over the 221-year history of the Senate.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the ``sole Power to try all Impeachments'' to the Senate, and we take this role very seriously. Judges may be impeached and, if convicted, removed for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Neither the Constitution nor statute define ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' So it is up to each one of us to determine what actions reach the level of impeachable offenses egregious enough to remove a Federal officer such as a district court judge.

It is important that the judges that we confirm to lifetime appointments have the utmost integrity. Anything less would undermine public confidence in the judicial system which has such a major impact on the lives of Americans. These votes are among the most important and difficult that we cast.

Today I will vote to convict Judge Porteous on the basis of articles I through III. Those articles allege that Judge Porteous engaged in corrupt behavior with a law firm, had significant financial ties to that firm, but failed to recuse himself in a case where that same law firm represented one of the parties, improperly and unethically solicited and received a financial gift from a lawyer while he had that lawyer's case under advisement, and solicited favors from a bail bondsman and the bail bondsman's sister while using the power and prestige of his office to provide assistance to them and their business and made material false statements in conjunction with his personal bankruptcy filing.

I believe that Judge Porteous is guilty of the actions outlined in those three articles which prove and that he is unfit to serve as a U.S. district court judge.

I cannot, however, vote to convict Judge Porteous on the basis of article IV. Unlike the previous three articles that allege objective behavior to prove impeachable offenses, article IV is subjective: It requires us to determine Judge Porteous' state of mind--what he was thinking and how he felt about his past behavior. Article IV alleges that Judge Porteous ``knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge.''

Specifically, article IV states that Judge Porteous was asked if there was anything in his personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail him, or if there was anything in his life that could cause an embarrassment to Judge Porteous or the President if publicly known. Judge Porteous answered ``no'' to those questions. During his background check, Judge Porteous told the Federal Bureau of Investigation on two separate occasions that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce, or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment, or discretion. Finally, Judge Porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination. Judge Porteous answered ``no,'' to the best of his knowledge.

Did Judge Porteous believe those answers were true when he made them? I do not believe that we should impeach and convict a person based on his or her beliefs or his or her state of mind. If we did, we would be removing someone from office without evidence he was intentionally lying, not about an objective fact but about what he believed at the time of his statement. Beyond that, it is a statement about a subjective issue. Judge Porteous may have believed that none of his conduct, if known, would be embarrassing to the President, or that nothing in his past could be used to improperly influence him, even if the Senate disagrees with that belief. We should remove someone from office based on his conduct or on his objectively false material statements of fact, not on subjective statements about subjective judgments.

Assume that a candidate for the Federal bench in an answer to a question of the Judiciary Committee or Department of Justice said that nothing in his past would embarrass the President if known. After he is confirmed as a judge, he is involved in a messy divorce and it is discovered that the judge had had a series of extramarital affairs in the few years before he answered the questionnaire that he knew of nothing in his past that would embarrass the President. Assume further that in the judgment of the House, that behavior does embarrass the President. Under the theory of article IV, the judge's answer would constitute an impeachable offense. Article IV creates a precedent that is too potentially dangerous for me to support.

To quote from page 60 of the Report of the Impeachment Trial Committee, ``Professor Mackenzie also testified that while the compromise-or-coercion question is asked `routinely' of ``virtually everybody who is interviewed,'' he could not recall any candidate who had ever responded affirmatively to this question. Nor was he aware of any individual who has ever responded affirmatively to a question that asks the candidate to `advise the Committee of any unfavorable information that may affect your nomination' or any nominee who had ever been prosecuted or removed from office for falsely answering such a question.''

It is our solemn responsibility to protect the integrity of the Federal judiciary and the public trust in our judicial system. Today we will fulfill that role.