Christopher J. Dodd

Madam President, on the occasion of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's, MSRB, implementation of congressionally mandated registration of municipal advisers, I would like to briefly speak on this important development. Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 sought to enhance the regulation of the $3 trillion municipal securities market. The law expanded the authority of the MSRB in recognition of the MSRB's deep and specialized expertise, and the law expanded the mission of the MSRB to protect issuers and other municipal entities. It directed the MSRB to write rules regulating municipal advisers--persons and firms that advise municipalities and public pension funds or solicit their business on behalf of others, which includes ``financial advisers, placement agents, swap advisers'' and others. The law also reaffirmed the MSRB's authority to regulate the conduct of municipal securities dealers. At the same time, Congress required municipal advisers to exercise a higher, fiduciary standard of care to those municipal entities that seek their advice about municipal securities and other related financial matters.

During the Senate-House Conference for the Dodd-Frank Act, the conferees carefully considered and debated alternative approaches for overseeing municipal advisers and strengthening municipal securities market regulation. We recognized that the MSRB has written a comprehensive set of rules on key issues and said that the MSRB is well-equipped and experienced to write rules regulating participants in the municipal markets. Over the past decades, the MSRB has accumulated knowledge and hired specialized expertise to write rules regulating the complex and varied municipal securities market. In addition, the Banking Committee in its report, S. Report No. 111-176 accompanying S. 3217, said that the MSRB is in the best position to assure that rules are consistent with other rules governing the municipal markets.

Under the new law, the MSRB is expected to develop a robust system of regulation for intermediaries, including swap advisers, as it has for dealers. Swap advisers were specifically identified in the statute and made subject to MSRB rulemaking. The financial press has reported about State and local governments that received bad advice from advisers and entered into swaps and other derivatives that they did not fully understand, that are not performing as promised, and that are now costing them tremendous amounts to unwind. Those swaps are often tied to municipal securities issued by those same State and local governments and Congress recognized the experience of the MSRB in the regulation of the municipal markets.

The act, which authorizes MSRB regulation over municipal advisers, has limited exceptions, including an exception for commodity trading advisers registered under the Commodity Exchange Act or their associated persons who provide advice related to swaps. This exception covers swap dealers and major swap participants regulated by the CFTC. It does not extend to independent swap advisers or other types of municipal advisers not explicitly exempted, which are meant to be subject to the MSRB rules. I expect that the regulators of municipal swaps advisers would adopt rules governing advisory practices that are consistent with each other as well as relevant and appropriate for the municipal markets. Thus, municipal swaps advisers would be subject to practice rules embodying common principles, since they have the same types of clients.

Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Chairman Leahy, for his efforts on this nomination. Chairman Leahy, and his staff, does an outstanding job in seeking to ensure that the Federal courts function as our Constitution prescribes. I applaud him for his work and his commitment to the rule of law.

Judge Chatigny was first nominated to the Second Circuit last year, but after a sustained and, in my view, totally unwarranted attack on him by some, my colleagues on the other side refused to grant consent to allow his nomination to remain pending in the Senate. As a result, under rule 31, his nomination, along with 12 others, including 4 other judicial nominees, was returned to the President on August 5, prior to the August recess.

While I was extremely disappointed by this development, I am pleased that President Obama decided to renominate Judge Chatigny to this position. Judge Chatigny is an individual of outstanding character, keen intellect, and extensive judicial experience. I can think of few jurists more qualified to serve on the Second Circuit than he, and I congratulate President Obama on making such an excellent selection to fill this vacancy.

For 16 years, Robert Chatigny has been a Federal judge in Connecticut, serving as chief judge of the District of Connecticut from 2003 to 2009. In addition to ruling on a wide variety of cases, Judge Chatigny has earned a reputation for integrity, intelligence, and strict adherence to the rule of law.

I am pleased that Judge Chatigny has received the support of numerous former Federal prosecutors in Connecticut who understand the importance of upholding the rule of law and vouch for his character and his qualifications. Let me quote from a letter to the Judiciary Committee from three former U.S. Attorneys, each appointed by a Republican President:

We believe that he is a fair minded and impartial judge,

who has the appropriate fitness and temperament for the

appellate court.

In addition, the Judiciary Committee has also received a letter signed by 17 former assistant U.S. attorneys currently practicing law in Connecticut, in which they express their confidence that he will be ``unbiased, compassionate, and temperate.''

This support demonstrates the high regard in which Judge Chatigny is held by the members of the legal community in Connecticut that know him best. In addition to the praise from the Connecticut Bar, Judge Chatigny has been unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association.

Judge Chatigny's legal experience prior to his appointment reveals a rich understanding of--and deep commitment to--the American legal system. After graduating from Brown University and the Georgetown University Law Center, he served as a clerk to three Federal judges, including judges Jon Newman and Jose Cabranes. Prior to his service on the court, he built an excellent reputation in private practice, first as an associate here in Washington, before returning to private practice in Hartford for nearly a decade.

In addition, Judge Chatigny has devoted substantial time and effort to improving the legal profession. When the Governor of Connecticut sought experienced and knowledgeable public servants to help make better public policy, Judge Chatigny was an easy choice, serving on both the State Judicial Selection Commission and the State Commission on Prison and Jail Overcrowding. In addition, he has served in various roles with the Connecticut Bar Association, as well as being an advisor to the congressionally created Federal Courts Study Committee.

Unfortunately, Judge Chatigny has become the target of totally unjust attacks that threaten not only to defeat his nomination but also send a chilling

message that will endanger the independence of all Federal judges.

One may wonder why the nomination of a judge so well qualified and so highly regarded as Judge Chatigny has drawn any opposition at all from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The answer lies primarily in Judge Chatigny's role in the appeal of the first death penalty case in Connecticut in 40 years. Here are the facts.

Michael Ross raped and murdered eight women. His crimes were heinous and inhuman. He was convicted in the State courts of Connecticut and sentenced to death. His defense of insanity, although seriously contested at trial on the basis of conflicting psychiatric testimony, was rejected.

On January 21, 2005, 5 days before the scheduled execution, a public defender filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Connecticut Federal district court that came before Judge Chatigny. The petition presented substantial evidence challenging Ross's competency, alleging that under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Rees v. Payton, Ross was not competent to waive legal challenges to his death sentence, and that his execution would violate the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

Three days later, on January 24, Judge Chatigny conducted a hearing in the habeas case and heard testimony from a psychiatrist supporting the claim of incompetency. The judge issued a stay of execution. The next day, January 25, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denied the State's motion to vacate Judge Chatigny's stay and dismissed the State's appeal from the stay order. Two days later, on January 27, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, vacated the stay of execution.

Later that same day, Judge Chatigny received new evidence bearing on Ross's competency, and, mindful that he had been instructed not to enter any order delaying the execution, nevertheless felt it his duty to alert all counsel to the new evidence. He therefore faxed it to all counsel, and convened a telephone conference to discuss the evidence.

The next day, January 28, Judge Chatigny convened another telephone conference with all counsel and learned of the existence of additional new evidence bearing on the defendant's mental competency.

Shortly after midnight, the State agreed to postpone the execution until Monday, January 31, at 9 p.m. Later that morning, on January 29, defense counsel received information that the psychiatrist who had testified for the State might now have a different opinion on the issue of mental competency based on the new evidence.

Two days later, on January 31, defense counsel filed a motion in State court to stay the execution. The State did not oppose the motion, the motion was granted, and the death warrant expired.

On February 10, the State trial judge ordered a new competency hearing, which was conducted in the State court for 6 days in early April. On April 22, the State trial judge issued a decision finding that Ross was competent, and on May 10, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. Three days after this final ruling was handed down, Michael Ross was executed.

Thereafter, a State prosecutor filed a complaint against Judge Chatigny alleging that his actions in the Ross case constituted judicial misconduct. The chief judge of the Second Circuit convened a special three-judge panel to investigate the allegations. The panel included former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who was then chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The panel unanimously concluded that no judicial misconduct had occurred, and that ruling was unanimously adopted by the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit.

Despite the unanimous conclusion of these distinguished jurists that Judge Chatigny did nothing improper in his handling of the Ross case, it has become a focal point for objections to his confirmation. Some have argued that the judge should not have intervened, even briefly, to delay the execution of such an evil person as Michael Ross, an admitted killer of 8 young women.

I would, however, invite my colleagues to consider carefully the implications of that criticism. Here was a district judge confronted with a substantial claim, in a properly presented petition for a writ of habeas corpus, that new evidence put in doubt the competency of a defendant about to be executed.

The judge had two choices: he could turn his back on the matter and let the execution proceed without any examination of the new evidence, or he could insist that constitutional standards be followed and the new evidence be considered so that the execution, if and when it occurred, would be carried out in accordance with constitutional requirements.

Turning his back on the case would have been the easier course. Accepting the challenge to consider the habeas corpus petition, I believe, took considerable courage. The judge acted in conformity with his oath of office, which obliges him to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And for that, he is being savagely attacked.

Some critics of Judge Chatigny's nomination point out that the stay of execution issued by the judge was later vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4. And, of course, that 5 to 4 majority ultimately prevailed.

But it must be noted, in assessing Judge Chatigny's decision to issue the stay, that of the 13 judges that reviewed the matter--1 district judge, 3 Circuit Judges, and 9 Supreme Court Justices--only 5 thought the stay should not have been issued, and 8 thought it was proper.

Even more significant is the fact that once the new evidence was brought to the attention of the counsel for the State, the State elected not to oppose a new court hearing so that the new evidence could be fairly considered. The new evidence was of sufficient value to require 6 days of hearings in the State court.

Ultimately, the new evidence did not change the outcome of the case, and Ross was executed. But if Judge Chatigny had not intervened, an execution would have occurred without the 6-day hearing that the State court found necessary to determine the defendant's competency, and the assurance of compliance with constitutional requirements would have been lost.

After a call for an investigation by some legislators in Connecticut was made, the Bar Association's president publicly stated that ``no one should want decisions of life or death made without consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances,'' and that the attacks on the judge threatened to ``undermine'' the independence of the judiciary. Judge Chatigny's handling of the Ross case was praised by both the Hartford Courant and the Connecticut Law Tribune.

If Judge Chatigny is to be attacked for performing his constitutional function as he saw it, what message does that send to other judges when confronted with constitutional claims in cases that understandably arouse public passions?

Let me respond to one other criticism that has been made concerning the Ross case. The critics have quoted Judge Chatigny as saying that Ross should never have been convicted. Their quotation is a serious distortion of what the judge said.

Speaking with reference to the evidence of Ross's insanity defense, the judge said, expressing the traditional standard courts use in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to present an issue to the jury, that ``looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted.'' Unfortunately, the critics have left out the important first half of that statement.

Let me also briefly mention the concerns raised by some about Judge Chatigny's treatment of Michael Ross's attorney in regards to his law license. I think this criticism does not stand up to close scrutiny.

It is, of course, true that Judge Chatigny had a heated discussion with the Ross's lawyer regarding his client's competence. Judge Chatigny believed strongly that a state court in Connecticut should be given the opportunity to consider new evidence of Ross's competence and tried to convince the attorney of this.

There is no doubt that the exchange between Judge Chatigny and the defense lawyer was intense. However, as the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit found, there was no misconduct in this episode. In fact, the special committee's report stated:

The judge was clearly concerned that [the defense lawyer's]

reluctance to engage the

court in the question of Ross's competence . . . might cause

an unconstitutional execution. It is clear the judge's

concern was to repair what he perceived as a breakdown in the

adversarial process, resulting from an attorney's insistence

on adhering to his client's expressed desire to waive

judicial review and consent to his execution, in spite of

indications that the client might be without competence to

make such a waiver. The judge's perception of the need for

remedial action in his communications with the attorney was

reasonable. While his words were strong, when properly

understood they were not unreasonable.

Further, who among us in public life during debates on contentious issues has never said anything that we would perhaps not repeat? The next business day after this episode, Judge Chatigny sought out the defense lawyer and apologized for his actions. He recognized that his words were ``excessive'' and at the first chance available sought to apologize for them. I think this shows exactly the sort of humble and self-examining personality that we need more of on the court.

But perhaps most importantly, Mr. President, one verbal exchange between a judge and counsel, in the middle of a highly contentious and emotional court case does not shed light on the entire arc of a judge's career. As demonstrated from the record and the support he has received in Connecticut, this episode is an aberration and one not likely to be repeated. We should not unduly punish someone with an outstanding record such as Judge Chatigny because of one heated exchange. What type of judicial standard would we be asking of those who aspire to the bench?

The critics have also said that the complete exoneration of Judge Chatigny on the misconduct complaint has little, if any, bearing on whether he should be confirmed for the court of appeals. Yet they persist in claiming that the Judge did something improper when the claim of improper conduct was totally rejected.

On this last point, I believe it is also worth reiterating that one of the judges who served on that panel, Michael Mukasey, also served as U.S. attorney general during the waning years of the Bush administration.

But Michael Mukasey has done more than simply reject a misconduct complaint. Once the nomination of Judge Chatigny was made, Michael Mukasey let it be known that he supported the confirmation of Judge Chatigny for a seat on the court of appeals. Can anyone seriously believe that a former U.S. attorney general would support a nominee to the Federal bench who was not unquestionably deserving of confirmation?

And Michael Mukasey's support of Judge Chatigny's nomination does not stand alone. As I mentioned earlier, three former U.S. attorneys appointed by Republican Presidents, the prosecutors most familiar with Judge Chatigny's record, have publicly informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that they strongly support his confirmation for the court of appeals, as have 17 former assistant U.S. attorneys.

One other criticism of Judge Chatigny also must be addressed. Individuals have attacked Judge Chatigny because in some instances, he imposed a sentence below the sentencing guidelines in certain cases.

What his detractors ignore is that Judge Chatigny has also imposed sentences at or above the top of the guidelines' range and that, according to Sentencing Commission statistics, Judge Chatigny's sentences are well within the mainstream of sentences of all the judges in his district.

Indeed, the best commentary on Judge Chatigny's sentences in criminal cases is the fact that in the 16 years he has been a district judge, Federal prosecutors have not sought to appeal even one of these decisions. Let me repeat that: in 16 years as a Federal judge, prosecutors have never appealed one of Judge Chatigny's sentences.

I have served in this body for nearly 30 years. I am extremely proud of this institution and believe that it plays a critical role in our republic. One of the most important functions we have is to vote on nominees to the executive and judicial branches of our government.

It saddens me to note that this body has let partisan politics and delaying tactics interfere with our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees. Unfortunately, Judge Chatigny is not the only eminently qualified judicial nominee to face this challenge.

As of November 29, the Senate had only confirmed 41 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees so far this Congress. By contrast, during the first Congress of the George W. Bush administration, the Senate, which at that time was controlled by Democrats, confirmed 100 of that President Bush's nominees to the Federal bench.

In addition, there have been repeated roadblocks to the consideration of numerous well-qualified nominees to critically important posts within the executive branch. The Federal Government has an immense amount of work to do, and obstructionist tactics have only made that harder.

I am convinced that this Judge deserves to be confirmed. He has outstanding qualifications and an outstanding record. No one, even his critics, doubts either his qualifications or his record. I believe he is being opposed because he acted with great courage to live up to his oath of office and uphold constitutional standards in one widely publicized case involving a despicable murderer.

Would that all judges display that kind of courage when put to a similar test.

Let me conclude with one further point. I recognize that some of my colleagues believe that Judge Chatigny's handling of the Ross case merits criticism. I believe, on the contrary, that his handling of the case was a courageous defense of constitutional requirements, as do many others, including experienced Federal prosecutors from both political parties.

But let us assume, for a moment, that the criticism is valid. What I would then ask this body to consider is this: is the criticism of the handling of one case out of the thousands over which Judge Chatigny has presided in 16 years as an outstanding U.S. district judge a sufficient reason to oppose his confirmation for the court of appeals?

Have we, as Senators, permitted the President's selection of a well qualified judge with 16 years of outstanding judicial service to be thwarted because in the hours before a scheduled execution, the first in Connecticut in 40 years, this judge thought it was his duty to make sure that constitutional standards, as he understood them, required him to act, not to overturn a conviction, not to overturn a death sentence, but simply to make sure that new evidence bearing on the defendant's mental competence was fairly considered?

It goes without saying that I am very disappointed the Senate will not be voting on this nomination before the end of the 111th Congress. Judge Chatigny is superbly qualified for a seat on the Second Circuit, and I believe the Senate has made a serious mistake by not confirming him.

Madam President, with some reluctance, I rise to talk about this issue. Having given what I thought was my last set of remarks on the floor a week or so ago, I thought I would let it lie there rather than come over. But this is such an important matter. In fact, other than amending the Constitution or declarations of war, I don't know of a more important matter than an arms control agreement like this one.

I will begin by commending our colleague from Massachusetts and our colleague from Indiana. They have spent months and months on this, as has the administration, in terms of their negotiations with the Russians on this question. An awful lot has gone into this.

I have been involved in a lot of lameduck sessions over the years, and I can usually predict what happens during lameduck sessions--not much, unfortunately. But that is the way it is. After an election--and rarely does an election produce the same results in terms of membership coming out of the election as you have going in. This last election cycle is no exception. Obviously, the party that has gained seats or control of one Chamber or the other would prefer to wait until a later date. I understand that.

As I said, I have watched lameduck sessions. I am hard-pressed to name one that has produced much because of what happened and what goes on in these matters. So I begin with that observation.

There are matters, it seems to me, that rise beyond the normal predictions of lameduck sessions. I think this is one. Hence, the reason I decided to express some views on this.

I don't claim to be an expert in this area. Other Members spend far more time on this than I. I don't know all of the details. I have looked at it and

have read about it and I have listened to some of the debate. What motivated me to come and ask my colleagues to consider the moment is the fact that so many of the people we respect, who have been engaged over the years in the conduct of arms control and negotiations, almost without exception--and this is one of those rare occurrences where a cross-section of some of the finest leaders this country has produced in the last 100 years, who have been deeply involved in arms control issues, have joined together in a common cause to ask us to ratify and support this treaty.

It is unique in many ways. So whatever expertise or knowledge some bring or don't bring to this debate, I think it warrants our attention that former President George H.W. Bush, former President Clinton, Secretaries of State Albright, Baker, Christopher, Kissinger, Powell, Rice, Schultz, Brown, Carlucci, Cohen, Perry, and Schlesinger--this is a cross-section of both Republicans and Democrats who have been deeply involved in the very subject matter of this debate, all of whom--every one of them--have said do not miss this moment to get this done.

For those of us who are knowledgeable, or less than knowledgeable about the subject matter--and I am not suggesting that because others have said we ought to do this, we should automatically do it, but others have said it is worthy of our support. It is subject matter that is critical to our country, to the national security of our Nation, and we ought to be able to take the time, in my view, despite the interruptions that have occurred on other matters that are important as well. I don't minimize that.

If you ask me, of all the issues we are debating that are on the present list, none comes close to this issue of arms control and this START treaty. This is, again, one of those rare moments that occur here when I think there is at least a strong potential of consensus--largely a consensus over the notion that we ought to ratify this agreement.

I recommend that my colleagues read the statement of Senator Richard Lugar where he went into great detail and depth--it was a lengthy statement he made about why this particular treaty is worthy of our support, and he anticipated some of the arguments against it. It is as thorough and comprehensive an analysis of why this agreement is important and why it is deserving of our support as Senators, regardless of party and the moment--being in a lameduck session, with other issues that I know have caused great division in this body and are not likely to be resolved. Maybe one or two will, but I doubt it. But this matter transcends that.

I rise, therefore, to offer my thoughts on the matter and to commend Senator Kerry and his staff, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, Dick Lugar, and others who have been a part of this. There has been 10 long months of debate and discussion, and we are finally able to move forward on this issue. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had over 20 hearings on this treaty. It has been analyzed and debated for over a year now. Senators Kerry and Lugar and their staffs have worked in good faith to address all of the concerns of both sides of the aisle. The facts and issues are clear to everybody. I think it is time for us to support this agreement.

I commend President Obama, Secretaries Clinton and Gates, as I mentioned, and the entire national security team for negotiating this vitally important treaty with our Russian counterparts and for providing the Senate with extensive information.

As a member of the Foreign Relations committee, I recall last summer Senator Kerry deferring to several of our colleagues and agreeing to not even vote in committee on this matter but to wait until we came back--leave a little time to analyze and think about all of this. We did that. Then the issue was we would vote on it when we came back after the break. Well, don't do that because we have an election coming up, and it could politicize it. Wait until after the election, and there will be a lameduck session and we can do it then. And here we are.

Again, I respect immensely how Senators Kerry and Lugar have conducted themselves, respecting the legitimate issues raised. But merely because an issue is legitimate doesn't mean it can't be answered. Ultimately, you have to vote. Nobody ever anticipates absolute unanimity, that there wouldn't be those who felt this agreement was lacking in one aspect or another. The way to express that is vote against it. Those of us who feel this is the right thing to do ought not to be denied the ability to express our support for it.

Historically, weapons treaties in the Senate receive wide bipartisan support. The original START treaty was debated during the collapse of the Soviet Union. It reduced nuclear weapons from 10,000 to 6,000. It was adopted by a vote of 93 to 6 in 5 days. START II, which came 4 years later, took only 2 days of floor time, and it passed 87 to 4. Collectively, you have 9 days, and two major START treaties that were able to be adopted.

There is no reason the New START should not enjoy the same bipartisan support--maybe not in the same numbers. Nonetheless, it is time for us to act. Since the expiration of the original START treaty in December 2009, as you have heard over and over again, no verification of Russia's nuclear weapons has occurred.

Simply put, this endangers our national security. The longer we fail to verify, the greater the danger our country faces.

Inspectors on the ground and verification safeguards allow our intelligence community to have a better understanding and more knowledge of Russia's nuclear arsenal. As President Reagan famously said, ``Trust, but verify.'' At the moment, we can only trust. I think we all agree that it is time to verify, as well.

The United States and Russia maintain over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is vital that we take the lead in securing these weapons to create a world with less risk of nuclear devastation, not to, of course, mention reducing the nefarious threat of nuclear terrorism. This new treaty improves upon and enhances the original START treaty signed in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, ratified in 1994.

I remind my colleagues again that President Bush supports this agreement. One of the authors of the START treaty signed in 1991 urges us Senators--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--to support this effort.

The New START treaty establishes lower limits--and I know you have heard a lot of this--for U.S. and Russian nuclear forces of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

It will also limit to 800 the total number of deployed and nondeployed ICBM and SLBM launchers and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

All of the new limit numbers were verified and are strongly supported by the Department of Defense. Flexibility will be a key result of the new treaty. It will give the United States the flexibility in deploying our own arsenal and in deciding what is put on land, in the air, and at sea.

In addition, this treaty will improve verification and inspection systems for Russia's nuclear weapons which have not been monitored since the treaty expired a year ago. The new verification measures are less costly and complex than the original treaty, I might add.

Let me quote Secretary Gates on this treaty, who said it ``establishes an extensive verification regime to ensure that Russia is complying with its treaty obligations. These include short-notice inspections of both deployed and nondeployed systems, verification of the numbers of warheads actually carried on Russian strategic missiles and unique identifiers that will track--for the first time--all accountable strategic nuclear delivery systems.''

That is our own Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense of President Bush, and now the current Secretary of Defense. There has been a lot of talk about missile defense in recent months. Some have claimed that START will in some way inhibit the ability of the United States to defend ourselves in this regard. I urge you to read Senator Lugar's comments about this issue. He went into great detail to examine this allegation and did so in the most thorough manner.

I urge my colleagues, if they have any issues, read Senator Lugar's comments about this. Those claims are simply not true. New START does not constrain the United States from developing and deploying defenses against ballistic missiles. Secretary Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and Lieutenant General Reilly, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency all concur on this point.

Again, I respect your knowledge, your expertise, and how much you have looked into this. But when you have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency all saying you are wrong on this, respectfully, I suggest maybe when it comes to deciding which side of the argument you are on, I think history will demonstrate that relying on the people who are deeply involved in this ought to outweigh the concerns raised by others.

Concerns have also been raised over modernization of our nuclear weapons infrastructure stockpile. That is not an illegitimate issue. Senator Kyl raised this as an important point. I think the President has sought to address these concerns. I don't know if he has done it to the complete satisfaction of those who raised it. He has committed $80 billion over the next decade to modernize our nuclear weapons. This is more than a reasonable sum, I am told by those who are knowledgeable about this. Once the President requests these funds, it is the job, obviously, of those who will be in Congress to appropriate the money.

I spoke with Senator Feinstein a number of days ago, and others-- those in a position to be responsible for this--and they have indicated they will support this and make a strong case for it.

Madam President, this treaty will ensure that we continue to build upon our close relationship with Russia as well--not an insignificant issue--in preventing the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons and creating a more stable and secure world at a time when we would all acknowledge it is becoming less and less so, as we have all painfully seen, even in things like the most recent WikiLeaks situation that occurred on cable traffic.

There are growing problems in Iran and North Korea, and all of the concerns we have about these hot spots around the world.

To be able to bring some stability and respect in this relationship with Russia could not be more important at this hour. So beyond the obvious provisions of the treaty, it is critically important to understand the larger context as well. Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar have very eloquently described that for our colleagues over the last several days. So there are far more important questions in this treaty than just the provisions contained in it, as important as they are.

This treaty will ensure we continue to build on those close relationships. Our two countries have been collaborating to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons for decades. In the tradition of Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and both President Bushes, this treaty furthers that critical strategic partnership between ourselves and Russia.

Again, 90 percent--90 percent--of the world's nuclear arsenals are controlled by our two countries, and the ability to be able to make some significant reductions not only lessens the tensions between our two nations, but the one thing I think most of us fear is having these weapons end up in the wrong hands. And we know as we are here this evening, on this evening a few days before the Christmas holiday, that there are those tonight who are desperately trying to get their hands on this material, and they are determined to do it. We should take advantage of this moment with a treaty that is as well thought out as this and is supported by a broad cross-section of experts in our Nation and not run the risk that we would allow those who seek to do great harm to us to gain access to these weapons because we failed to move.

Madam President, I fear what will happen if we don't. And my colleagues know what can happen after January 6: The place changes, and the votes may or may not be there. I worry deeply about that. So this is more than just a question of the Christmas holiday. We also know what can happen in a few weeks.

Our two countries have been collaborating to reduce the threat of weapons for decades, and in the tradition, as I said, of those who have come before us, this ought to move forward.

The New START treaty has widespread bipartisan support among current and former military and diplomatic leadership. Some of the finest minds that have ever negotiated these issues have begged and urged us to support this agreement. I mention them again, going back to former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and George Shultz--that goes back over the last generation or more of our diplomats--and Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, Bill Cohen, a former colleague of ours, Bill Perry, and Jim Schlesinger. Again, I say respectfully to my colleagues, these are people who have studied this, who know these issues and have dealt with them in the past. To his great credit, George H.W. Bush, who negotiated that START treaty back in 1991, has urged us to do the same. It is not insignificant when you have that kind of endorsement of this kind of an agreement that this body should ignore it or miss the opportunity to act on it.

It is not every day that we have the chance to avert Armageddon. Nothing short of that is at stake, in my view, and that is the reason this is worthy of our time and attention and our vote, even at this time of the year. In fact, one might make the case, what better time of year to make this case than in this holiday season where we talk about peace in the world to all men of good will?

So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to take whatever time we have in these next few days to cast a vote and leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren and others that in a tough time in our country when we couldn't come to agreement on much, that on this issue--the one that transcends all of politics, transcends all of ideology--we can come together as others have who have urged us to support this effort, that we do the same in this Chamber in these coming days.

I congratulate my colleagues for their work.

I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Yes, it is.