Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, GLSMA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former colleague Senator Gordon Smith and I introduced the original GLSMA to address the public health challenge of youth suicide by providing funding to states, Indian tribes, colleges, and universities to develop suicide prevention and intervention programs. Our bill made great strides in combating the growing problem of youth suicide. However, our work remains unfinished. For this reason, joined by colleagues Senator Jack Reed, Senator Richard Durbin, and Senator Tom Udall, I am introducing a reauthorization bill to strengthen the existing Federal, State, and local efforts.

Last year, more than 4,000 Americans between the ages of 15 to 24 died by suicide, making suicide the third leading cause of death for this age group and the second leading cause of death among college students. These numbers are devastating. During an economic crisis, the situation is becoming more dire for young adults across the country. Over the past two years, we have seen a substantial increase of calls into suicide crisis centers. Many of these centers are threatened with cutbacks in funding from State and local governments. Despite the success of GLSMA, the latest Indian Health Service numbers show that suicide is the second leading cause of death for American Indian and Alaska Native youth ages 10-24.

Youth suicide represents both a public and mental health tragedy--a tragedy that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Regrettably, it is one of the leading causes of death among our nation's children; however, suicide is preventable and its causes are treatable. It has been proven that early intervention in mental health problems leads to the most effective treatment. The funding provided through the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act supports critical resources our young people need to develop into healthy, happy adults.

The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act provides federal grants to promote the

development of statewide suicide early intervention and prevention strategies intended to identify and reach out to young people who need mental health services. In addition, this bill makes competitive grants available to colleges and universities to create or enhance the schools' mental and behavioral health programs. It is imperative that we reauthorize the GLSMA in order to ensure those who utilize those important programs continue getting the aid they need before it is too late.

Our reauthorization effort increases funding to the existing programs and make important policy changes to the campus grant program. Whereas the funding level for all three programs in fiscal year 2010 is $40 million, the reauthorization bill would bring the authorization level to $260 million over 5 years. As a result, this bill includes increased funding for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center and grants for state, Tribal, and campus prevention efforts. The reauthorization bill also incorporates changes which will allow for increased flexibility in the use of campus grant funds. The original GLSMA authorized the use of campus grant funds only for suicide prevention infrastructure, such as hotlines. The proposed changes would allow for additional flexibility in the use of these funds, including crisis counseling and training of campus staff and students. I believe that these uses are critical to suicide prevention efforts on campuses.

I would like to take a moment to honor Garrett Lee Smith, the namesake of this bill. Six years ago, Garrett's father, Senator Gordon Smith introduced the original bill with me. Three years later, along with Senator Jack Reed, we introduced the original reauthorization. Nothing can be said or done to bring back Gordon and Sharon Smith's son Garrett, but their steadfast support and tireless efforts on behalf of young adults with mental illnesses have given their son the legacy he deserves.

In addition, without the network of groups and individuals who have made it their mission to take on this fight, none of the progress we have made would have been possible. I have worked closely with these groups throughout my tenure in the Senate and I thank them for their support and assistance, and truly value the working relationship we have established.

It is my hope that introducing this reauthorization bill will build momentum for the efforts of my colleagues during the 112th Congress, and I would like to thank Senator Reed, Senator Durbin, and Senator Tom Udall for their willingness to lead the charge into next Congress. Both of these Senators have been great partners on so many issues over the years and I am happy that they will be here next Congress to lead the efforts on this reauthorization.

The GLSMA has long been a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That must continue next Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation. We must continue to build upon these successes and ensure more communities are better equipped to prevent youth suicide through the reauthorization of the GLSMA.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combating Autism Act, CAA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former colleague Senator Rick Santorum and I introduced the original CAA to expand Federal investment for Autism research, services, treatment, and awareness efforts. The bill was signed into law by President Bush following a nearly unanimous Congressional vote. The original CAA made great strides in addressing the growing public health problem. However, our work remains unfinished and essential programs are set to expire in 2011. For this reason, joined by my colleague Senator Robert Menendez, I am introducing a reauthorization bill to strengthen the existing federal, state, and local efforts.

Autism is one form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD, a group of developmental disabilities caused by atypical brain development. It is a severe neurological disorder that affects language, cognition, emotional development, and the ability to relate and interact with others. Current estimates suggest that over 1 million Americans suffer from some form of autism.

Individuals with ASD tend to have challenges and difficulties with social and communication skills. Many people with ASD also have unique ways of learning, paying attention, or reacting to different sensations. ASD begins during early childhood and lasts throughout a person's life. As the name ``autism spectrum disorder'' implies, ASD covers a continuum of behaviors and abilities.

Autism is a profound condition that can have a devastating effect on children and their families. We as a nation must devote significantly increased resources to finding answers to the many questions surrounding autism. Families struggling to raise a child with autism deserve our support, and they deserve answers. The legislation we are working to reauthorize will help us continue the journey towards a better understanding of autism and better supporting those living with this difficult condition.

The original CAA represented the largest Federal investment of funding and programs for children and families with autism. The law expanded Federal investment for Autism research through NIH; services, diagnosis and treatment through HRSA; and surveillance and awareness efforts through the CDC. As a result of these efforts, we made significant advances in the understanding of autism. For example, we identified several autism susceptibility genes that are leading to drug discovery and earlier detection of infants at risk for ASD. Our Nation's researchers are now investigating the links between environmental exposures and autism. We improved methods for autism screening and recommendation for universal autism screening at well baby check-ups. We even developed effective early intervention methods for toddlers with autism.

Unfortunately, major provisions of CAA are set to sunset in 2011. Although some Federal efforts on autism would undoubtedly continue without a reauthorization, the autism community would experience a disastrous loss of momentum. Autism is the fastest growing developmental disability in the Nation. For unknown reasons, the number of children diagnosed with autism has skyrocketed in recent years, from one in 10,000 children born 15 years ago to approximately one in 110 children born today. Although it is more common than Down syndrome, childhood cancer, and cystic fibrosis, autism research currently receives less

funding than these other childhood diseases.

Our reauthorization bill would ensure that these critical programs continue, including CDC surveillance programs, HRSA intervention and training programs, and the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, IACC. We are building upon the success of the original CAA by making additional investments in an array of service related activities. We create a one-time, single year planning and multiyear service provision demonstration grant programs to States, public, or private nonprofit entities. We establish a national technical assistance center to gather and disseminate information on evidence-based treatments, interventions, and services; and, we authorize multiyear grants to provide interdisciplinary training, continuing education, technical assistance, and information to improve services rendered to individuals with ASD and their families.

Finally, we create a new National Institute of Autism Spectrum Disorders within NIH, to consolidate CCA funding and accelerate research focused on prevention, treatment, services, and cures. A cross-agency institute with an aggressive, coordinated, and targeted research agenda aimed at improving the lives of individuals with autism is needed to address the challenges posed by a complex condition that involves many areas of science and services research. It also will provide our research community with a more predictable and accountable budget environment for disorder affecting individuals on this scale.

Over the course of my career I have had the opportunity to meet with several families who are affected by Autism. The parents of children with this disorder are some of the most dedicated and perseverant I have ever worked with. They do more than simply rise to the challenge they have been presented with. They stand up and fight. They fight for themselves, they fight for their community, and they fight for generations to come, but most of all, they fight for their children. I want to thank these families and their children for sharing their stories and their strength with me. Their stories, anecdotes and struggles give a face to the people all across the country whose lives are touched by this important research, and hearing about them help us to do our jobs better. The CAA would be nothing without them.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the disability, and more specifically, the autism community and advocacy organizations who have worked tirelessly on this bill. The magnitude and importance of their work on this legislation and other related initiatives will never be properly recognized. There are few advocacy groups that pursue their goals and priorities with as much fervor and fortitude as this community. They have an incredibly challenging but critically important job, and I would like to thank them for their hard work and support throughout the years. None of this progress could have been made without them.

It is my hope that introducing this reauthorization bill will build momentum for the efforts of my colleagues during the 112th Congress, and I would like to thank Senator Menendez for his willingness to lead the charge into next Congress. Senator Menendez has been a great partner on so many issues over the years and I am happy that he will be here next Congress to lead the efforts on this reauthorization.

The CAA was a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That must continue next Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation. We must continue to build upon these successes and ensure more communities are better equipped to address this complex public health issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, GLSMA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former colleague Senator Gordon Smith and I introduced the original GLSMA to address the public health challenge of youth suicide by providing funding to states, Indian tribes, colleges, and universities to develop suicide prevention and intervention programs. Our bill made great strides in combating the growing problem of youth suicide. However, our work remains unfinished. For this reason, joined by colleagues Senator Jack Reed, Senator Richard Durbin, and Senator Tom Udall, I am introducing a reauthorization bill to strengthen the existing Federal, State, and local efforts.

Last year, more than 4,000 Americans between the ages of 15 to 24 died by suicide, making suicide the third leading cause of death for this age group and the second leading cause of death among college students. These numbers are devastating. During an economic crisis, the situation is becoming more dire for young adults across the country. Over the past two years, we have seen a substantial increase of calls into suicide crisis centers. Many of these centers are threatened with cutbacks in funding from State and local governments. Despite the success of GLSMA, the latest Indian Health Service numbers show that suicide is the second leading cause of death for American Indian and Alaska Native youth ages 10-24.

Youth suicide represents both a public and mental health tragedy--a tragedy that knows no geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Regrettably, it is one of the leading causes of death among our nation's children; however, suicide is preventable and its causes are treatable. It has been proven that early intervention in mental health problems leads to the most effective treatment. The funding provided through the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act supports critical resources our young people need to develop into healthy, happy adults.

The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act provides federal grants to promote the

development of statewide suicide early intervention and prevention strategies intended to identify and reach out to young people who need mental health services. In addition, this bill makes competitive grants available to colleges and universities to create or enhance the schools' mental and behavioral health programs. It is imperative that we reauthorize the GLSMA in order to ensure those who utilize those important programs continue getting the aid they need before it is too late.

Our reauthorization effort increases funding to the existing programs and make important policy changes to the campus grant program. Whereas the funding level for all three programs in fiscal year 2010 is $40 million, the reauthorization bill would bring the authorization level to $260 million over 5 years. As a result, this bill includes increased funding for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center and grants for state, Tribal, and campus prevention efforts. The reauthorization bill also incorporates changes which will allow for increased flexibility in the use of campus grant funds. The original GLSMA authorized the use of campus grant funds only for suicide prevention infrastructure, such as hotlines. The proposed changes would allow for additional flexibility in the use of these funds, including crisis counseling and training of campus staff and students. I believe that these uses are critical to suicide prevention efforts on campuses.

I would like to take a moment to honor Garrett Lee Smith, the namesake of this bill. Six years ago, Garrett's father, Senator Gordon Smith introduced the original bill with me. Three years later, along with Senator Jack Reed, we introduced the original reauthorization. Nothing can be said or done to bring back Gordon and Sharon Smith's son Garrett, but their steadfast support and tireless efforts on behalf of young adults with mental illnesses have given their son the legacy he deserves.

In addition, without the network of groups and individuals who have made it their mission to take on this fight, none of the progress we have made would have been possible. I have worked closely with these groups throughout my tenure in the Senate and I thank them for their support and assistance, and truly value the working relationship we have established.

It is my hope that introducing this reauthorization bill will build momentum for the efforts of my colleagues during the 112th Congress, and I would like to thank Senator Reed, Senator Durbin, and Senator Tom Udall for their willingness to lead the charge into next Congress. Both of these Senators have been great partners on so many issues over the years and I am happy that they will be here next Congress to lead the efforts on this reauthorization.

The GLSMA has long been a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That must continue next Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation. We must continue to build upon these successes and ensure more communities are better equipped to prevent youth suicide through the reauthorization of the GLSMA.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combating Autism Act, CAA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former colleague Senator Rick Santorum and I introduced the original CAA to expand Federal investment for Autism research, services, treatment, and awareness efforts. The bill was signed into law by President Bush following a nearly unanimous Congressional vote. The original CAA made great strides in addressing the growing public health problem. However, our work remains unfinished and essential programs are set to expire in 2011. For this reason, joined by my colleague Senator Robert Menendez, I am introducing a reauthorization bill to strengthen the existing federal, state, and local efforts.

Autism is one form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, ASD, a group of developmental disabilities caused by atypical brain development. It is a severe neurological disorder that affects language, cognition, emotional development, and the ability to relate and interact with others. Current estimates suggest that over 1 million Americans suffer from some form of autism.

Individuals with ASD tend to have challenges and difficulties with social and communication skills. Many people with ASD also have unique ways of learning, paying attention, or reacting to different sensations. ASD begins during early childhood and lasts throughout a person's life. As the name ``autism spectrum disorder'' implies, ASD covers a continuum of behaviors and abilities.

Autism is a profound condition that can have a devastating effect on children and their families. We as a nation must devote significantly increased resources to finding answers to the many questions surrounding autism. Families struggling to raise a child with autism deserve our support, and they deserve answers. The legislation we are working to reauthorize will help us continue the journey towards a better understanding of autism and better supporting those living with this difficult condition.

The original CAA represented the largest Federal investment of funding and programs for children and families with autism. The law expanded Federal investment for Autism research through NIH; services, diagnosis and treatment through HRSA; and surveillance and awareness efforts through the CDC. As a result of these efforts, we made significant advances in the understanding of autism. For example, we identified several autism susceptibility genes that are leading to drug discovery and earlier detection of infants at risk for ASD. Our Nation's researchers are now investigating the links between environmental exposures and autism. We improved methods for autism screening and recommendation for universal autism screening at well baby check-ups. We even developed effective early intervention methods for toddlers with autism.

Unfortunately, major provisions of CAA are set to sunset in 2011. Although some Federal efforts on autism would undoubtedly continue without a reauthorization, the autism community would experience a disastrous loss of momentum. Autism is the fastest growing developmental disability in the Nation. For unknown reasons, the number of children diagnosed with autism has skyrocketed in recent years, from one in 10,000 children born 15 years ago to approximately one in 110 children born today. Although it is more common than Down syndrome, childhood cancer, and cystic fibrosis, autism research currently receives less

funding than these other childhood diseases.

Our reauthorization bill would ensure that these critical programs continue, including CDC surveillance programs, HRSA intervention and training programs, and the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, IACC. We are building upon the success of the original CAA by making additional investments in an array of service related activities. We create a one-time, single year planning and multiyear service provision demonstration grant programs to States, public, or private nonprofit entities. We establish a national technical assistance center to gather and disseminate information on evidence-based treatments, interventions, and services; and, we authorize multiyear grants to provide interdisciplinary training, continuing education, technical assistance, and information to improve services rendered to individuals with ASD and their families.

Finally, we create a new National Institute of Autism Spectrum Disorders within NIH, to consolidate CCA funding and accelerate research focused on prevention, treatment, services, and cures. A cross-agency institute with an aggressive, coordinated, and targeted research agenda aimed at improving the lives of individuals with autism is needed to address the challenges posed by a complex condition that involves many areas of science and services research. It also will provide our research community with a more predictable and accountable budget environment for disorder affecting individuals on this scale.

Over the course of my career I have had the opportunity to meet with several families who are affected by Autism. The parents of children with this disorder are some of the most dedicated and perseverant I have ever worked with. They do more than simply rise to the challenge they have been presented with. They stand up and fight. They fight for themselves, they fight for their community, and they fight for generations to come, but most of all, they fight for their children. I want to thank these families and their children for sharing their stories and their strength with me. Their stories, anecdotes and struggles give a face to the people all across the country whose lives are touched by this important research, and hearing about them help us to do our jobs better. The CAA would be nothing without them.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the disability, and more specifically, the autism community and advocacy organizations who have worked tirelessly on this bill. The magnitude and importance of their work on this legislation and other related initiatives will never be properly recognized. There are few advocacy groups that pursue their goals and priorities with as much fervor and fortitude as this community. They have an incredibly challenging but critically important job, and I would like to thank them for their hard work and support throughout the years. None of this progress could have been made without them.

It is my hope that introducing this reauthorization bill will build momentum for the efforts of my colleagues during the 112th Congress, and I would like to thank Senator Menendez for his willingness to lead the charge into next Congress. Senator Menendez has been a great partner on so many issues over the years and I am happy that he will be here next Congress to lead the efforts on this reauthorization.

The CAA was a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That must continue next Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation. We must continue to build upon these successes and ensure more communities are better equipped to address this complex public health issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague and friend of mine--Senator Evan Bayh--who will be retiring from the U.S. Senate when the 112th Congress convenes in January. I would like to take this moment to thank Evan for his service, and wish him, his wife Susan, and their twin boys Beau and Nick, the very best as they embark on the next chapter in their lives.

Evan comes from a family tradition deeply rooted in public service and committed to improving the lives of our fellow citizens. Our fathers, Birch Bayh and Tom Dodd, served together in the U.S. Senate, and instilled in both of us the desire to serve as we grew older.

Evan has dedicated the better part of his adult life to serving the people of Indiana. He began his career in public service when he was elected Indiana's Secretary of State in 1986. He then served as Governor of Indiana for two terms starting in 1988. As Governor he focused on fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean government. In 1998, Hoosiers once again demonstrated their faith in Evan Bayh by electing him to the U.S. Senate.

Throughout his career in public service, Evan has been particularly vocal on issues related to our national security, economic competiveness, and job creation. He has demonstrated his willingness to work hard, a fact underscored by his membership on six Senate committees--Aging, Armed Services, Banking, Energy and Natural Resources, Intelligence, and Small Business. He has developed a broad range of subject matter expertise, and has time and again demonstrated his willingness to reach across the aisle to get things done for the people of Indiana.

This Congress, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I had the opportunity to work with Evan on several vital issues, such as his contributions to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure, CARD, Act and Wall Street reform.

When Evan leaves the Senate in just a few short weeks, I believe he will be remembered as a public servant who was devoted first and foremost to advancing the interests of Hoosiers, and who was willing to work across the aisle whenever he saw an opportunity to do the right thing for our Nation.

Once again, I would like to thank Evan for his years of service, and wish him well as he leaves the Senate. It has been a pleasure working with him over the years, and I firmly believe that this body will not be the same without him.

Bob Bennett

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and longtime colleague Senator Bob Bennett who, like me, will be departing from the U.S. Senate in just a couple of weeks. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Bob, Joyce, and the rest of his family the very best as he leaves the Senate and embarks on this new chapter in his life.

Since he was first elected to this body in 1992, Bob has served the people of Utah well as their Senator. Bob comes from a long line of individuals dedicated to public service, and it is no surprise that he himself decided to go down that path. Bob's grandfather, Heber J. Grant, was the seventh President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. And Bob's father, Wallace F. Bennett, represented the state of Utah in this very Chamber between 1951 and 1974, serving alongside my father, Tom Dodd.

Throughout the time that I have known and worked with him, I have always found Bob to be receptive to the ideas of others and careful and deliberate in his own evaluation of complex policy questions.

Of course, that is not to say that Bob Bennett isn't also a determined partisan. Indeed, throughout his three terms here, Bob has been one of the Senate's most consistently conservative voices. But in spite of that, Bob has frequently reached across the partisan divide to seek out areas of common ground and mutual interest with Democrats.

That willingness to engage and cooperate with colleagues has perhaps been most evident in his work on the Senate Banking Committee. Throughout our years of service together on that panel, Bob and I have frequently been among the first to reach out across the aisle and search for solutions to the challenges facing our Nation's financial services sector. And from our work together during the savings and loan crisis, to passage of legislation that provides a safety net for our economy in the event of a devastating terrorist attack, we have achieved some important results.

Bob chaired and I served as vice chairman of the Y2K Committee, to ensure the integrity of our Nation's financial services sector. More recently, in the fall of 2008, when the global financial system was on the verge of collapse and our country was standing at the precipice of an economic depression, Bob took a significant political risk by supporting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which established TARP. I realize that this was an incredibly difficult vote for Bob and every other Member of this Chamber at the time.

But I am convinced that without elected officials who are willing to cast those kinds of tough, yet necessary votes, this country would be a very different place.

So I would like to once again thank Bob for his 18 years of service in this body and for his willingness to listen to and work with colleagues with whom he hasn't always agreed. And I would like to once again wish Bob and his family the very best as he leaves the Senate this January.

Blanche Lincoln

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, who, like me, will be leaving the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks. I would like to take this moment to thank Blanche for her service, and wish her, her husband Dr. Steve Lincoln and her two twin boys Bennett and Reece, the very best as they embark on the next chapter in their lives.

As a seventh generation Arkansan, Blanche has dedicated the better part of her adult life to serving the people of Arkansas. She was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992. After two terms representing Arkansas's first district she retired briefly to give birth two her twin sons. However, the call of public service led her to run for a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate and in 1998, at the age of 38, the people of Arkansas elected her to serve them as their U.S. Senator the youngest woman ever to be elected.

As a young woman growing up on her family farm in the small town of Helena, AR, Blanche developed a strong appreciation and understanding for American farmers and ranchers and the important work they do for our country. She carried the lessons she learned, and the values they instilled in her, with her to Congress. Throughout her career in public service, Blanche has been particularly vocal on issues related to agriculture, hunger, working families and children.

In 2009, Blanche became the first ever woman to chair the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. She played the key role in brokering the compromise that led to passage of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, otherwise known as the farm bill, which reauthorizes U.S. agriculture policy every 5 years and is of vital importance to farmers and food producers across the country.

Senator Lincoln and the Agriculture Committee also played a vital role in shaping the derivatives provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill. These were difficult, highly complex matters, and Senator Lincoln worked tirelessly to lead her committee throughout the process. Her seriousness and hard work were a tremendous asset to the overall process, and I commend her and her committee for helping to shape the legislation.

In addition to her work on the Agriculture Committee, Blanche has been focused on our country's children. She formed the Senate Caucus for Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children and the Senate Hunger Caucus. She recently worked to pass the child nutrition bill, which will improve the lives of millions of children in our country.

After Blanche leaves the Senate, I believe she will be remembered as a tireless public servant who was devoted first and foremost to advancing the interests of the people of her beloved home State, Arkansas.

Once again, I would like to thank Blanche for her years of service, and

wish her well as she leaves the Senate. It has truly been a pleasure working with her over the years, and I firmly believe that this body will not be the same without her.

Kit Bond

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to pay tribute to a longtime colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, who like me will be leaving this body in a few short weeks. It has been an honor to serve with him, and I wish him, his wife Linda, and his son Samuel--who is bravely serving his Nation as a 1st lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps and the rest of his family the best of luck in the future.

Senator Bond, or ``Kit'' as many of us know him, knew at an early age that his calling was public service. After earning his law degree and practicing for a few years here in Washington, DC, he returned to Missouri to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1968. While he was unsuccessful in that first run, at the young age of 29 he caught the eye of the then-Missouri Attorney General John Danforth, who hired him as an assistant attorney general.

After heading the Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection, Kit was elected in his own right to serve as Missouri's State Auditor, and later went on to two terms as Governor of Missouri. He still holds the distinction of having been the youngest Governor elected in his State's history at the age of 33.

Kit was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986. During his time in this body, he has established himself as a strong advocate for the people and interests of the State of Missouri. He has also established himself as a national leader on issues that are important not only to his State but to our Nation as a whole.

For years, as a member and later chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, he has served as a leading voice for small businesses.

As the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Bond has worked continuously to ensure our Nation's intelligence community has the tools and resources necessary to keep us safe. Throughout his career in the Senate, he has also been a knowledgeable, leading voice on matters of importance to veterans, and has time and again proven his unwavering support for our men and women in uniform.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, and chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, he has played a significant role in advocating for improvements to our nation's roads and other vital infrastructure.

These are just some of the areas which Senator Bond will no doubt be remembered. But I would like to take a moment to speak to an issue which he and I have worked together for many years, for which he may not receive the attention he deserves--his strong advocacy for the health of our nation's children and families.

Senator Bond and I have worked together on these issues for many years. In 1991, his support was vital to gaining enactment of a piece of legislation of which I am most proud--the Family and Medical Leave Act. To date, this bill has been used more than 100 million times to ensure that workers can care for ailing loved ones, or care for a new child, without the fear of losing their job. This seems like common sense now, but it took 7 years, and 2 Presidential vetoes to finally see this important law enacted.

That wouldn't have happened without the involvement of Kit Bond.

He was also one of the key supporters of the successful effort in 2009 to ensure that airline workers have full access to their Family and Medical Leave Act benefits.

Senator Bond and I have also partnered over the years to improve maternal and child health and end preventable birth defects. I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1998, which he authored. I was also honored to partner with him and others again in 2003, when we were successful in passing the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act. These measures helped to establish, and then expand, the role of the Centers for Disease Control in researching and developing solutions to the problems posed by birth defects and developmental disabilities.

He was also a key Republican sponsor, along with Senator Hatch of Utah, of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, which I authored in the 110th Congress. This legislation is the next step in our work together, and seeks to educate every parent, and provide access for every newborn, to a battery of life-saving prenatal tests. This landmark legislation helps build on the successes which we have had on this issue in the past, and I was pleased that Senator Bond was a supporter yet again, as he has been throughout his career in the Senate.

While we did not always see eye-to-eye on every issue, Senator Bond was always someone with whom those policy disagreements were never personal. He has been an honorable legislator, and a valued colleague during our time serving in the Senate together.

Once again, I would like to wish Senator Bond, his wife Linda, his son Samuel and his family, and all their extended family the very best in all their future endeavors.

Sam Brownback

I woul'd like to say a few words in honor of Senator Sam Brownback, my colleague from Kansas for these past 14 years. Like me, he will be ending his service in the U.S. Senate at the conclusion of this Congress. I would like to congratulate him on his election as Governor of the State of Kansas, and I wish him and his family the very best in his new endeavor.

His election to the governorship should come as no surprise--he has proven time and again that his first priority is serving the people of Kansas. He has a long track record of service, beginning with his 1986 election to the position of State Secretary of Agriculture. At the time of his election, he was only 30 years old, the youngest person ever to hold the position.

After serving as Agriculture Secretary, Sam was elected to the House of Representatives as part of the famous Republican class of 1994. He quickly ascended to the Senate in 1996 with the departure of a Senate and Kansas legend, then-Majority Leader Bob Dole. Sam had some big shoes to fill, and he has done so admirably.

Senator Brownback will be remembered for many things, his conservatism and his passion to name a few, but perhaps the most important is his dedication to his faith. His religious values provided an anchor for everything he did, and led to his pursuit of issues that provided assistance for those in need.

Senator Brownback's commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur is an example of one of those issues. Tragically, more than 200,000 people have died in Darfur and more than 2.5 million have been displaced as a result of the unrest in Sudan. Senator Brownback's expertise and dedication to this critically important issue has made a real impact on the fight to end this horrific crisis. With his retirement, the Senate will lose one of its great human rights champions.

Senator Brownback and I may not have always seen eye-to-eye, but no one ever questioned his commitment to principle, or his commitment to the people of Kansas.

I wish him, his wife Mary, and their five children all the best. While the Senate will miss him, I wish him luck as he embarks on his next journey as the Governor of Kansas.

James Bunning

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words of farewell to my colleague from Kentucky, Senator Jim Bunning. We will both be retiring from this Chamber when this Congress concludes, and I wish him and his wife Mary Catherine, their sons and daughters and the rest of their family the very best in the future.

As we all know, prior to becoming a politician Jim Bunning was a world-class baseball pitcher. He had a distinguished career primarily with the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies, during which he became the second pitcher in Major League history to record 1,000 strikeouts and 100 wins in both the American and National Leagues. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996.

Of course, after such a distinguished career he could have simply hung up his cleats, moved back to his home state of Kentucky, and enjoyed a quiet retirement with his family.

Instead, he decided to take the work ethic and competitive spirit that drove

him in baseball and use his energy to give back to his community as a public servant. In 1977, he ran for and won a city council seat in Fort Thomas, KY. He was then elected to the Kentucky State Senate in 1979. After serving in the State Senate as Republican leader, he ran to represent Kentucky's 4th Congressional District in 1986. He also won that election, and served for 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 1998, Jim ran to replace Senator Wendell Ford, who was retiring. He kept his winning streak alive, not only winning that initial Senate contest, but also reelection in 2004. When he retires this year, Jim Bunning will have amassed an impressive winning streak in politics, just as he did in baseball.

As you know, life in the U.S. Senate is about working out disagreements through deliberation and debate. This process of lawmaking has served to ensure that the voices of a broad range of Americans are heard as we work to craft the laws and policies we must ultimately all abide by.

As a Senator, Jim Bunning has always stood up for his beliefs, and fought for what he thought was right. As a member of the Senate Banking, Budget, Energy, and Finance Committees, Senator Bunning has been a staunchly conservative voice on economic policy.

While he and I seldom have seen eye to eye on these matters, his deep convictions have given voice to the concerns of citizens who share his point of view, and thereby have helped to shape and enrich our debates on the important questions we have faced over the years.

I wish him further success in whatever endeavors he pursues, as well as many happy, healthy years to come with his family.

Russ Feingold

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime colleague and friend of mine, Senator Russ Feingold, who will be leaving the Senate this January after 18 years of service. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Russ and his family the very best as they embark on this new chapter in their lives.

Born and raised in the city of Janesville, WI, Russ has dedicated the better part of his career to serving the people of his home State. Prior to his first election to the U.S. Senate in 1992, Russ served as a Wisconsin State senator for nearly a decade. Throughout his career in public service, Russ has proven to be a passionate and articulate advocate for the people of Wisconsin and their needs.

Since he first entered the Senate, Russ has perhaps become best-known as one of this body's most stalwart progressives. Indeed, on any number of issues, from campaign finance reform, to the Iraq war, to our work together during Senate consideration of legislation reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Russ has demonstrated a strong commitment towards ensuring that respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democracy remain cornerstones of American policy, both at home and abroad.

Over the course of his three terms in the U.S. Senate, Russ has perhaps become most closely identified in the minds of many Americans with his work on campaign finance reform with Senator McCain. In 2002, when the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill was being considered, Russ took a very courageous position in pushing legislation that, at the time, was relatively unpopular with some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I was proud to join those efforts as the floor manager of McCain-Feingold, and would like to express my gratitude to Russ for his strong and consistent leadership on that issue.

I have long appreciated Russ's strong, principled stands on those issues, and have welcomed the opportunity to work with him over the years. I know that Russ's commitment to justice, fairness, and the rule of law will be missed come January, and I would once again like to wish him the best as he leaves this institution.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime colleague and friend of mine Senator Byron Dorgan who will be retiring from the U.S. Senate when the 112th Congress convenes in January. I would like to take this moment to thank Byron for his service, and wish him, his wife, Kim, and the rest of his wonderful family the very best as they embark on this new chapter in their lives.

Byron has dedicated the better part of his adult life to serving the people of his State. When he was just 26 years old, Byron became the youngest constitutional officer in North Dakota history when he was appointed to serve as the State's Tax Commissioner. In 1980, Byron once again demonstrated his commitment to public service when he was elected to the State's lone House seat. Twelve years later, after six terms in the House, the people of North Dakota once again returned Byron to Washington, this time as their U.S. Senator.

Throughout his career in public service, Byron has been particularly vocal on issues related to U.S. agricultural policy. As a young man growing up in the small town of Regent, ND, Byron developed a strong appreciation for American farmers and ranchers and the important work they do to keep our country fed. Indeed, Byron's own family worked in the farm equipment business and raised cattle and horses. As a result, he has been a consistent advocate for greater economic security and opportunity in rural America.

Since 2005, Byron has also served as chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, where he has played an important role in helping to craft the Senate Democratic policy agenda over the last several years. But after Byron leaves the Senate in just a few short weeks, I believe he will be remembered as a public servant who was devoted first and foremost to advancing the interests of the people of his beloved home State, North Dakota.

Once again, I would like to thank Byron for his many years of service, and wish him well as he leaves the Senate. It has truly been a pleasure working with him over the years, and I firmly believe that this body will not be the same without him.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to my colleague, a fellow New Englander and Banking Committee member, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg.

It has been an honor and a pleasure serving with him in this body for the past 18 years. As we both prepare to leave the Senate this year, I would like to take this opportunity to wish him and his family the very best in the future.

Throughout his tenure in the Senate, Senator Gregg has been an ardent advocate for his home State of New Hampshire, and a knowledgeable legislator. Time and again, during floor debate and committee proceedings, he has demonstrated his sharp intellect and deep knowledge of a broad range of issues--particularly on economic and budget policy.

He is a deeply committed public servant, who has been elected by the people of New Hampshire to serve them for 9 years in the House of Representatives, for 4 years as Governor, and as their U.S. Senator for the last 18 years. In fact, they returned him to the Senate in 2004 with the highest number of votes in New Hampshire history. It is clear that his constituents have a great deal of faith in this man, and during his time in Congress, he has represented them and their values extremely well.

As one would expect from a man of New Hampshire, Senator Gregg has always demonstrated his independence, commitment to hard work, and self-sufficiency. Yet he has also been someone that has sought compromise and has been ready to collaborate with those willing to tackle the difficult problems facing our Nation.

In 2001, he was one of the lead Republicans working on the No Child Left Behind law to improve education across the Nation for generations of Americans. In 2003, he and I worked together with Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Lamar Alexander, and Senator Susan Collins to craft the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, which updated our nation's laws to meet the serious problem of child abuse.

Of course, improving education and ending child abuse are issues on which both liberals and conservatives broadly agree, so bipartisanship and collaboration on these matters is easy.

Of course, in the fall of 2008, our Nation was faced with a nearly unprecedented economic collapse--and the

views of liberals and conservatives on how to respond could charitably be described as divergent, at best.

It was at that moment, when our Nation faced a calamity of historical proportions, that Senator Gregg grit his teeth and set to work, negotiating with me, Treasury Secretary Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and others, to fashion a legislative response to the crisis.

Despite the heavy criticism that came with being a party to those discussions, he remained a key negotiator, and in the end, the House and Senate approved the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Today, our economy, though far from recovered, is far better off than it would have been without this bill and many of the institutions which received assistance have repaid the Treasury with interest.

Let me be clear that was a bill that none of us ever, in our wildest dreams thought we would have to write, or vote to pass. However distasteful, it would have been wrong to allow our financial system to go into full cardiac arrest, with little chance of survival.

The politically expedient route to take would have been to walk away, vote against the bill, and join the pundits, commentators, and bloggers who've said ``It never should have passed, and we would have been fine without it anyway.''

But that wouldn't be leadership. That wouldn't be statesmanship. And that isn't the type of legislator that Judd Gregg is.

I would also like to thank Senator Gregg for his work as a member of the Banking Committee. He joined the committee late in his tenure, but his deep knowledge of the economy and expertise in financial matters was greatly appreciated. He played an important role in helping to craft what became the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Though he was a staunch opponent of some of the bill's provisions, he didn't see that opposition as an impediment to continuing to offer ideas and thoughtful debate in order to shape the legislation into what he thought was a better product.

Yet, as fierce a partisan as Senator Gregg is, he is also a consummate legislator. He knows that the people of New Hampshire sent him here to work hard, and work with the other members of this body. He has shown that at the end of the day, even if you work hard on something, you may not be able to support it--but you will know that you have done your best to advocate for your positions and shape the debate.

The Senate will miss his knowledge and work ethic, and I hope that newly elected members--of both parties--will follow his example.

I wish him, his wife Kathleen, his children and granddaughter the very best.

George LeMieux

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague, the Senator from Florida, George LeMieux, who will be leaving the U.S. Senate before the 112th Congress convenes. I would like to take this moment to thank George for his service, and wish him, his wife Meike, and their four children the very best as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

George is a native Floridian who has served as deputy attorney general, and later as Governor Charlie Crist's chief of staff.

When Senator Mel Martinez retired in 2009, George was appointed to fulfill the remainder of the term. Since then he has worked to help the people of Florida through his work as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging.

Though he has only been in the Senate for a short time, Senator LeMieux has been an engaged and hard-working Member of this body. He has emerged as a strong advocate for solving our long-term Federal debt concerns, and a devoted advocate for the people and businesses of his home State of Florida.

While we did not share the same views on a number of issues, Senator LeMieux proved that he was a man of deep conviction who was not afraid to stand up for what he believed. He spoke often on the floor to advocate for his positions. However, he showed that he was a serious legislator, and leader, on issues of vital importance to our Nation.

For example, he was the lone Republican to cast a vote in favor of the Small Business Jobs Act. This legislation was designed to expand access to credit, and provide tax incentives, for small businesses. George recognized that these were two things that Florida's businesses desperately needed--much more than partisan gridlock.

After George leaves the Senate in just a few short weeks, I believe he will be remembered as a public servant who was devoted first and foremost to advancing the interests of the people of his home State, Florida.

Once again, I would like to thank George for his service, and wish him well as he leaves the Senate. It has been a pleasure working with him.

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend and longtime colleague, Senator Arlen Specter, the longest serving U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania history.

As many of you know, Arlen and I were freshmen Senators together 30 years ago. I was the only Democrat newly elected to the Senate in 1980. Senator Specter was one of 12 new Republicans elected that year, in the so-called ``Reagan Landslide,'' that gave his party the Senate for the first time in 28 years.

I bring this up because, even though I was a new Senator in the minority, we quickly began working on a bipartisan basis. For those listening today, the idea of a bipartisan Senate may seem strange. Back then, it was commonplace and I know that Arlen and I both hope that newly elected Members of this body will revive this tradition in the coming years.

Early in our Senate careers, Arlen and I started the Senate Children's Caucus. We believed that as the largest nonvoting constituency in the country, children had the greatest need for champions to advocate on their behalf. The Children's Caucus has provided strong leadership on early childhood education, funding for childcare programs, and making passage of the Family Medical Leave Act reality. I want to thank Senator Specter for being one of my partners on these critically important issues for almost 30 years.

Senator Specter's accomplishments carry beyond his defense of children. Over the course of his career, he has served as the chairman of three important and influential Senate committees: the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary. In each of these capacities he has worked to ensure that America's legal system is true to our best traditions and ideals, while ensuring that we have the tools to prevent terrorism and protect our citizens. He has also used his role on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education to increase research funding for the National Institutes of Health. His work here in the United States Senate has improved the lives of countless Pennsylvanians and countless Americans.

Of all of Senator Specter's achievements, I have yet to mention the most impressive: Since 2005, he has continued to serve while fighting Hodgkin's lymphoma. Twice since being diagnosed, Arlen has undergone chemotherapy for the disease. Yet he continued serving the people of Pennsylvania.

I have worked with Senator Specter both as a Democrat and a Republican, and I can tell you this his commitment to bipartisanship and independence should be a model for all current and future Members of the U.S. Senate.

I would like to thank Arlen for his many years of service, and wish him and his wife Joan well as he leaves the Senate. It has truly been a pleasure working with him over the years. I know the State of Pennsylvania will miss their senior Senator and I firmly believe that this body will not be the same without him.

George Voinovich

I rise today to honor Senator George Voinovich, my colleague from Ohio who has served with me in this body for 12 years. Senator Voinovich has had a distinguished career in Ohio politics, spanning every level of government. His work as a public servant began when he was a bright young assistant attorney general, and has taken him through the Ohio House of Representatives, the mayor's office in Cleveland, the Ohio Governor's Mansion and the U.S. Senate.

Not only will Senator Voinovich be remembered for the more than four decades of service to his fellow Ohioans but also for his bipartisanship. He was never afraid to put his beliefs ahead of party, opposing President Bush's $750 million tax cut proposal in 2003 for example.

I was especially proud to work with Senator Voinovich on legislation to help ensure the United States' continued dominance in the world aeronautics industry. Our bill, the Aeronautics Competitiveness Act of 2007, increased research funding, technology transfer, and workforce development, all of which are vital to maintaining the United States' competitive edge. I was also proud to have served on the Foreign Relations committee with him for 5 years, working to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.

Senator Voinovich was known as the resident Senate ``debt hawk'' and has long stood for fiscal responsibility at the local, State and Federal levels.

It has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Voinovich. As we depart the Senate, I know this body will miss the presence of one of its more esteemed members and the people of Ohio will miss one of their most dedicated servants. I wish him and his wife Janet many more years of happiness.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and former colleague of mine, former Congressman Stephen Solarz, who passed away late last month at the age of 70. I would like to take this moment to convey my heartfelt condolences to Stephen's wife, Nina, the rest of his family, and everyone else who knew, worked with, and enjoyed Stephen during his life.

Stephen and I were both elected to the House of Representatives for the first time in 1974, members of a historic class of 75 Democratic freshmen who came to Washington in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Stephen remained a stalwart of the House, serving the people of his Brooklyn-based congressional district with distinction for nearly two decades.

Throughout his tenure in Congress, Stephen was always attentive to the needs of his constituents, even going so far as to nickname himself ``Representative Pothole'' for his work on local issues. But in spite of this, Stephen's tenure was perhaps most clearly defined by his work on foreign policy issues. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee throughout his nine terms, Stephen demonstrated a strong and abiding passion for world affairs. Indeed, during his first month in office, Stephen went on an 18-day congressional delegation trip to the Middle East, meeting with the leaders of Israel, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Beginning in 1979, Stephen took on some important leadership positions within the committee, serving first as chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, and subsequently as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs. During that time, Stephen was absolutely committed to ensuring that human rights and respect for the rule of law remained key pillars of U.S. policy in those regions.

He was an uncompromising supporter of sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa; one of Congress's most vocal and persistent critics of the authoritarian government led by Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines; and a tireless advocate of peace in Cambodia. Stephen was also a strong proponent of diplomacy and engagement, becoming the first United States Congressman to visit North Korea in nearly three decades in 1980. And perhaps just as significantly, Stephen was a committed defender of the House of Representatives who worked extremely hard to carve out a more prominent place for that body in foreign policy discussions.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee myself, I had the opportunity to work with Stephen on a number of occasions. And I must say that I was consistently impressed by Stephen's tenacity, intelligence, and commitment to justice and democracy. In nearly everything he did as a Member of Congress, Stephen was always well- prepared, knew the issues inside and out, and was not afraid to challenge those with whom he disagreed. That is the Stephen Solarz that my colleagues and I got to know over the years, and that is, in my view, the kind of Congressman Stephen will most be remembered as.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere condolences to Stephen's family and all those individuals who, like me, had the privilege of knowing him over the years. And I take this opportunity to thank Stephen for his many years of service to this country and his tireless efforts to create a more just and peaceful world.

Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you to the wonderful staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Earlier this week I had the privilege of chairing my final hearing in that committee, and I want to take a moment to extend my thanks and gratitude to those who have made this committee run so smoothly and professionally over the years.

Bertie Bowman's tenure here dates back to Senator Fulbright, and his extraordinary career, as the longest serving African American on Capitol Hill, speaks volumes about his character and commitment. It has been a true pleasure seeing Bertie at every hearing and it is largely thanks to his efforts, that our hearings run so smoothly.

Meg Murphy, the committee's protocol and foreign travel coordinator, has done a truly wonderful job ensuring that our travel, business meetings, and committee coffees always went off without a hitch. Her phenomenal attention to detail and thoroughness, in addition to her dedication and good humor has made her an invaluable asset to the committee.

I would also like to recognize Samantha Hamilton, Susan Oursler, as well as Gail Coppage for their hard work and dedication.

Last, I would like to thank Frank Lowenstein, staff director of the committee, whom I have gotten to know over the years, including during a trip we took together to the Middle East. I had the privilege of knowing Frank's father, Al Lowenstein, and I can say without a doubt how proud he would be of his son Frank.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act. I realize that this legislation has stoked intense passions both among Members of this body and the public at large, and I would like to take a few moments to explain my thoughts regarding this legislation and my vote here today.

I have served in this Chamber for nearly 30 years now. And during that time, I have frequently been confronted with the extremely difficult necessity of voting for legislation that, while deeply flawed, includes provisions that are incredibly important for the well- being of the American people. Today is no exception.

Indeed, to say that the tax legislation we are voting on today leaves much to be desired is a vast understatement. There is quite a bit about this legislation that I find extremely objectionable.

By extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, including the top 3 percent in our country for 2 additional years, what we are ultimately doing is driving our country deeper into debt with foreign creditors, forcing damaging funding cuts during already tight budgetary times, and increasing the burden of paying for our excess on our children and grandchildren.

This legislation would also create generous new parameters for the estate tax, raising the exemption level to $10 million for couples and reducing the top tax rate to 35 percent--providing millions of dollars in tax breaks to the 39,000 wealthiest Americans. Indeed, in my own State, it is likely that fewer than 100 estates will actually be subject to any tax under the estate tax provision included in this bill.

And that is to say nothing of the fact that the agreement we are voting on today fails to extend numerous successful programs included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, like the TANF emergency contingency fund and the COBRA premium subsidy, or that the provisions that will actually stimulate economic growth are only extended for a mere year.

But in spite of my strenuous objections to much of what is included in this bill, I believe it would be a grave mistake for us to defeat this measure today. Because while it would be incredibly easy to simply vote against this legislation and head home, the truth is that what is at stake here is far more than my opposition to tax breaks for our Nation's wealthiest families.

At the end of the day, this is about the well-being of the American people, far too many of whom are hurting during this period of continued economic turmoil and uncertainty. In Connecticut, nearly 9.1 percent of the State's workforce--some 172,400 men and women--were out of work in October alone. And nationally, the numbers are even worse.

So, while there is much in this legislation that merits indignation, the fact remains that there are many provisions that are far too important to all those Americans who have fallen on hard times over the last several years to warrant its defeat.

Besides extending tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, this legislation will also extend tax cuts for middle class families making under $250,000 annually, putting additional cash in the pockets of working Americans and their families.

This legislation will also extend and expand two critically important tax credits for lower income families for 2 additional years--the $1,000 child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit. Together, these provisions will benefit millions of working families and their children at a time when they need these benefits the most.

And perhaps most importantly, this legislation renews Federal emergency unemployment insurance through the end of 2011, preventing nearly 7 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the current recession--including nearly 80,000 in the State of Connecticut from prematurely losing their benefits next year as they look for work.

So, while my decision to vote in favor of this legislation today was incredibly difficult to make, I nevertheless believe it is the right one. Simply put, while it is a difficult pill to swallow, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act-- the Middle Class Tax Relief Act--represents the best chance we have right now to extend some critically important benefits for working families in this country. These are the people who have been hit the hardest by the current recession, and as their representatives, I believe we owe it to them to provide some relief, even if it does come in the form of the flawed legislation before us today.

Mr. President, today the Senate passed the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, S. 3817, and cleared it for the President's signature. This bill reauthorizes several important statutes--the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, CAPTA, and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, FVPSA, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. I would like to thank Chairman Harkin for his work on this reauthorization, and for his tireless efforts on behalf of abused and neglected children and victims of domestic and dating violence. I would also like to thank the ranking member of our committee, Senator Enzi, and the ranking member of my Subcommittee on Children and Families, Senator Alexander. They have been good partners in this process. I also thank Chairman Miller, who brought this bill to the House floor this week and worked hard to ensure that we passed it before adjourning for the year.

I would also like to thank the great work of the advocate communities that work constantly to protect children and victims of domestic and dating violence, including the National Child Abuse Coalition and the National Task Force to End Violence Against Women. Work on this reauthorization would not have been possible without the expertise and on-the-ground knowledge that these groups possess.

The numbers of children abused or neglected and individuals affected by domestic and dating violence are astounding and intolerable. In fiscal year 2008, 772,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect, 1,740 children died due to abuse or neglect, and 38 percent of victims of abuse did not receive postinvestigative services. Nearly one in four women is abused by a partner in her adult life, three women are killed by a partner each day in this country, and 15.5 million children are exposed to domestic violence each year. We cannot be complacent on these issues with numbers like this.

The programs authorized under CAPTA and FVPSA provide vital direct services and prevention efforts to the victims they target. I am pleased with some of the improvements we were able to make to these programs in this reauthorization bill.

CAPTA funds State and discretionary grants designed to help States strengthen their child protective service agencies to prevent and treat child abuse and neglect, including research, home visitation, outreach, and education. It also funds community-based efforts to develop, operate, expand, enhance, and coordinate initiatives aimed at strengthening and supporting families in the prevention of child maltreatment, and to foster an understanding of diverse populations to more effectively prevent and treat child abuse and neglect.

For CAPTA, our bill encourages States to adopt a differential response model in working with at-risk families to improve their outcomes and prevent child abuse and neglect from ever occurring; addresses the co-occurrence of child abuse and neglect along with domestic violence, mental health problems, and substance abuse disorders; strengthens data collection regarding our child protection service systems in States; and increases parental involvement in the planning and implementation of programs under these grants, to better meet the needs of children.

FVPSA is the primary Federal funding stream for domestic violence shelters and direct services to victims of domestic violence and their children. Over 2,000 shelters and programs receive grant funding under FVPSA, which provide emergency shelters, hotlines, counseling and advocacy, and primary and secondary prevention for victims of domestic violence. For FVPSA, our bill recognizes dating violence victims as recipients of FVPSA services, and acknowledges that women between the ages of 16 and 24 are at greatest risk for being victims of domestic violence; addresses the needs of underserved populations that find it challenging to access FVPSA services; and codifies a program to provide services for children exposed to violence in their homes and communities.

The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act provides assistance to abandoned

infants by supporting recruitment of and training for foster families. The Adoption Opportunities program is designed to promote adoption, eliminate barriers to adoption, and provide permanent, loving homes for children, especially children with special needs. Adoption promotion and post-adoption support are both critical components in successfully achieving the goals of the program and I am pleased that our bill reauthorizes these two programs as well.

We have an enormous responsibility to provide for some of our most vulnerable citizens--children who have been abused or neglected, victims of domestic violence and their children, children who have been abandoned, and those awaiting adoption. The programs reauthorized under S. 3817 represent some of the Federal Government's best approaches for addressing these issues and challenges and I am pleased to see this Chamber recognizing their importance.

I would again like to thank my colleagues for their work on this important bill and pledge to continue to do the work we need to and have the responsibility to do to prevent child abuse and neglect, and domestic and dating violence in this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, a bipartisan measure that will guarantee our Nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency medical personnel the right to bargain collectively with their employers. I have been proud to work with Senator Gregg on this important legislation for many years. I also want to acknowledge my good friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, who long championed this bill.

Now more than ever, the risks taken by our first responders are greater than they have ever been. From the increased risk of terrorist attacks, to the catastrophic hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires that have ravaged our country from coast to coast, each and every day we ask more from our emergency workers, and they always rise to the challenge. These are people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to serving their communities--making the streets safe, fighting fires, providing prehospital emergency medical care, conducting search-and-rescue missions when a building collapses or a natural disaster occurs, responding to hazardous materials emergencies, and so much more.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act provides these brave men and women with basic rights to bargain collectively, a right that workers in many other industries have

used effectively to improve relations with their supervisors. This bill is carefully crafted to allow States a great deal of flexibility to implement plans that will work best from them. All it requires is that States provide public safety workers with the most basic collective bargaining rights--the right to form and join unions and to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. It also will require a mechanism for settling any labor disputes. These are rights that a majority of States, including my home State of Connecticut, already provide these workers, and this bill does nothing to interfere with States whose laws already provide these fundamental rights.

This bill will allow States to continue enforcing right-to-work laws they may have on the books, which prohibit contracts requiring union membership as a condition of employment. This bill even allows States to entirely exempt small communities with fewer than 5,000 residents or fewer than 25 full-time employees.

Importantly, this bill takes every precaution to ensure that the right to collectively bargain will not interfere with the critical role these workers play in keeping our communities safe. It explicitly prohibits any strikes, lockouts, or other work stoppages. But the key to this bill is truly to foster a cooperative atmosphere between our first responders and the agencies they work for. Cooperation between labor and management will inevitably lead to public safety agencies being better able to serve their communities. Unions can help ensure that vital public services run smoothly during a crisis, and this bill will further that goal.

I would add that this legislation enjoys enormous bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, the House passed it by a vote of 314-97, and the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a vote of 69-29. In the 111th Congress, the Cooperation Act has five Republican cosponsors, including the lead sponsor, Senator Gregg. Moreover, the House version has 50 Republican cosponsors. In an era that is all too often dominated by party-line votes, this is an extraordinary show of support from both parties. That is because we recognize the unique and essential role these workers play in every single community, and we recognize that by granting them these basic rights they will be able to better serve those communities.

This bill addresses some of the most critical concerns of our Nation's first responders. It goes beyond negotiating wages, hours and benefits. In this circumstance, for this group of people, it means so much more. It means that the men and women who run into burning buildings, resuscitate accident victims, and patrol the streets of our towns and cities can sit down with their supervisors to relate their real life experiences. They can discuss their concerns and use their on-the-ground expertise to help improve their service to the community. Granting our first responders this basic right is not only in their best interest--it is in all of our best interests. It will allow these men and women to better serve their communities by fostering a spirit of cooperation with the agencies and towns that employ them.

When tragedies have struck us, from the September 11 attacks to Hurricane Katrina, it is these workers who are the first people on the scene and the last to leave. We owe them everything, and all they have asked of us in return is dignity and respect in the workplace. They stand with us every single day on the job, and it is time we stand with them. I urge all my colleagues to join me and the millions of first responders who form the backbone of our Nation's homeland security by voting to pass this crucial legislation.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe two pieces of legislation which were before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and recently secured full approval of the Senate.

The first piece of legislation is H.R. 6162, the Coin Modernization, Oversight, and Continuity Act of 2010. This bill principally addresses the issue of how to approach the costs of metals used to make our Nation's circulating coinage. In recent years, market prices for various metals--including those used for our Nation's coinage, such as nickel, copper, and zinc--have risen to such a point that it costs the U.S. Mint more than a penny to make a penny, and more than a nickel to make a nickel. By giving the Treasury Secretary the authority to conduct research and development on metallic materials for all circulating coinage, as appropriate, and mandating a biennial report on the status of current coin production costs and an analysis of alternative content, this legislation will equip the U.S. Mint with the tools necessary to present detailed legislative recommendations to Congress. Should the Congress decide to act on any such prospective recommendations for lower cost metallic materials and combinations, there could be considerable savings to the taxpayer over time. In addition, this bill gives the Secretary flexibility in determining the quality and quantity of gold and silver bullion coins produced. The Mint has recently taken drastic but prudent measures to meet the extraordinary demand for silver and gold bullion coins and has suspended production of its proof and uncirculated versions, which are of great intrinsic value to collectors and coin enthusiasts. Going forward, the Mint will be able to simultaneously offer these higher- quality versions directly to the public while continuing to satisfy demand for bullion coins.

The second piece of legislation is H.R. 6166, the American Eagle Palladium Bullion Coin Act of 2010, which authorizes the Secretary to mint and issue a $25 palladium bullion coin, subject to the submission of a report to Congress demonstrating sufficient public demand for such coins and no resultant net cost to taxpayers. Palladium is a sought- after investment-grade precious metal whose market price is often reliably above silver and below that of gold and platinum. Other governments have issued palladium bullion coins before as investment vehicles and collector's items, and this bill lays the groundwork for the U.S. Mint to carry out a unique palladium coin program that would benefit investors and numismatists, and cost nothing to the taxpayer.

The Coin Modernization, Oversight, and Continuity Act of 2010 and the American Eagle Palladium Bullion Coin Act of 2010 have both passed the House, and will now await the signature of the President. I am pleased that these two bills were approved by this body, as they reflect sound and measured policy towards improving the state of our Nation's coinage, and thank my colleagues for their help in getting these measures adopted.

Mr. President, it was a great honor to have Father Gregoire Fluet, my parish priest in East Haddam, CT, provide the opening prayer this morning. I thank him immensely for his words. Reaching back to Archbishop Carroll was a wonderful way to begin the session.

Father Fluet is not only my parish priest, Mr. President. He is a dear friend and practically a member of my extended family. Father Fluet and I first met nearly 30 years ago when he was pastor of St. Joseph's Church in North Grosvenordale, CT. Since his appointment in 1998 as pastor of my home parish, Saint Bridget of Kildare in East Haddam, Father Fluet has been an important figure in my life, providing spiritual advice and counsel to me on a number of occasions. Father Fluet has also played an important role in the lives of my two daughters, Grace and Christina. He baptized both of them after they were born, and provided religious instruction and first communion to my older daughter, Grace.

In addition to being a great spiritual leader, Father Fluet has long dedicated himself to the study of our Nation's history and particularly to the history of New England. Ever the consummate scholar, Father Fluet was awarded a doctorate in American History by Clark University in 2002, taught Western Civilization and World History as an adjunct professor at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Danielson, CT, and even published a history of the Diocese of Norwich.

But beyond his love of history, Father Fluet has always, first and foremost, demonstrated an unshakeable commitment to his flock and the people of our community. He is a wonderful human being, and I am confident that Saint Bridget of Kildare will continue to be blessed for years to come by Father Fluet's dedicated spiritual leadership.

Once again, I would like to reiterate what a true honor it has been to listen to Father Fluet's words this morning. Thank you for taking the time to be here today, Father Fluet. But most of all, thank you for everything you have done over the years for the people of our community.

Mr. President, first of all, let me express my gratitude to all of the colleagues and other individuals who have come to the Chamber at this moment.

Everyone who serves in Congress usually recalls two moments in their service: the maiden speech they give shortly after their arrival and their closing remarks. I can't recall what the first speech I gave as a new member of the House of Representatives 36 years ago was even about. I do, however, recall very vividly that there was no one else in the Chamber when I gave it. It was an empty hall early one evening with the exception of one colleague, Johnny Dent from Pennsylvania. He was sitting in his chair with his trademark dark glasses, listening patiently as I gave my knee-rattling, hand-shaking maiden address. Midway through the speech, he walked up to me and said quietly: You know, kid, it is not on the level. Well, that was my first speech before the House, and I am deeply honored that so many of you have come out to listen to my closing remarks today so I do not have to speak to an empty Chamber.

For more than 200 years, a uniquely American story has unfolded here in the Chamber of the United States Senate--a fascinating, inspiring, often tumultuous tale of conflict and compromise, reflecting the awesome potential of our still-young democracy and its occasional moments of agonizing frustration.

For much of my life, this story has intersected with my own in ways that have been both thrilling and humbling. As a 14-year-old boy, I sat in the family gallery of this very Chamber watching as my father took the oath of office as a new Senator. A few years later, in 1962, I sat where these young men and women sit today, serving as a Senate page. John F. Kennedy was President and Lyndon Johnson presided over this body. Eighteen years later, in the fall of 1980, the people of Connecticut gave me the honor of a lifetime when they asked me to give voice to their views, electing me to serve as their U.S. Senator. For the past 30 years, I have worked hard to sustain that trust. I am proud of the work I have done, but it is time for my story and that of this institution, which I cherish so much, to diverge. Thus, Mr. President, I rise to give some valedictory remarks as my service as a U.S. Senator from Connecticut comes to a close.

Now, it is common for retiring Senators to say the following: I will miss the people but not the work. Mr. President, you won't hear that from me. Most assuredly, I will miss the people of the Senate, but I will miss the work as well. Over the years, I have both witnessed and participated in some great debates in this Chamber, moments when statesmen of both parties gathered together in this Hall to weigh the great questions of our time. And while I wish there had been more of those moments, I will always remember the Senate debates on issues such as Central America, the Iraq war, campaign finance reform, securities litigation, health care, and, of course, financial reform.

And when I am home in Connecticut, I see the results of the work we did every day. I see workers coming home from their shifts at Pratt & Whitney, Electric Boat, the Sikorsky helicopter plant--the lifeblood of a defense manufacturing sector so critical to our national security and to the economic well-being of my home State. I see communities preparing for high-speed rail and breaking ground for new community health centers. I see the grants we fought for helping cities and towns to build sustainable communities and promote economic development.

When I am home, I meet parents who, because of the Family and Medical Leave Act, don't have to choose between keeping their jobs and taking care of their sick children. I visit with elderly folks who no longer have to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and paying for their heat. I hear from consumers who have been victimized by unfair practices on

the part of credit card companies and who will no longer be subject to those abuses. And I meet young children as well who, through Early Head Start or access to afterschool programs, have blossomed academically in spite of difficult economic circumstances.

As proud as I am of the work that has made these stories possible over the last three decades, I am keenly aware, particularly today, that I did not do any of this alone. Until this last Congress, with rare exceptions, every major piece of legislation I authored that became law--including the ones I have just mentioned--had a Republican cosponsor as well as support from my Democratic caucus. So to my Democratic and Republican Senate colleagues who joined me in all these efforts over 30 years, I say thank you this afternoon.

I also want to thank, if I can, the unsung heroes of this institution--the Senate staff and my personal staff. It would be a grievous understatement to simply say they make the trains run on time. Without them, as all of us know, the trains would never leave the station at all--the floor staff, the cloakroom professionals of both parties, and the hundreds of unknown and unseen people who show up every day in this body to make this critical institution of democracy function. Without them, no Senator could fulfill his or her obligations to the American people.

Many of my personal staff and committee staff are present in the Senate gallery today. Neither I nor the millions of Americans whose lives you have enriched or whose burdens you have lightened can ever thank you enough. I only hope your time with me has been as fulfilling as my time with you.

Of course, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the people of Connecticut, whose confidence, patience, and spirit have given my life and its work deep meaning. As rich as our common language is, words cannot even come close to capturing the depth of my affection for and appreciation of the people of the State of Connecticut. For almost four decades--three terms in the House of Representatives, five terms in this Chamber--you have entrusted me to labor on your behalf, and I deeply thank you for that honor.

And lastly, my family. My parents are long since deceased, but their guidance, inspiration, and example have never departed. For the past 30 years, I have sat at this very same desk occupied by my father during the 12 years he served in this Chamber. His courage, character, and conviction have been a constant reminder of what it means to be a U.S. Senator. I thank my siblings and their children and other relatives for their enthusiastic support, particularly during the rough patches. From time to time, we all need the safe harbor of family at the darker moments. And to Jackie, Grace, and Christina, who have supported and inspired me every day: You mean more to me than I could ever say in these few short moments. So come January, I am glad I will have more time to say it to you more often. And to Jackie in particular: You have been my anchor to windward in the rough and turbulent waters of public service. When it was the darkest, you were the brightest. I love you more than life.

As this chapter in my career comes to a close, a new chapter in the Senate's history is beginning. When this body is gaveled to order in January, nearly half of its Members will be in their first term. And even though I could spend hours fondly recalling a lifetime of yesterdays, this new Senate and the Nation must confront a very uncertain tomorrow. So rather than recite a long list of personal memories or to revisit video highlights of my Senate service, I would like to take this brief time, in these few short moments, to offer a few thoughts to those who will write the Senate's next chapter.

I will begin by stating the sadly obvious. Our electoral system is a mess. Powerful financial interests, free to throw money about with little transparency, have corrupted, in my view, the basic principles underlying our representative democracy. As a result, our political system at the Federal level is completely dysfunctional. Those who were elected to the Senate just a few weeks ago must already begin the unpleasant work of raising money for their reelection 6 years hence. Newly-elected Senators will learn that their every legislative maneuver, their every public utterance, and even some of their private deliberations will be fodder for a 24/7 political media industry that seems to favor speculation over analysis and conflict over consensus.

This explosion of new media brings with it its own benefits and its drawbacks--and it is occurring simultaneously as the presence of traditional media outlets in our Nation is declining. So while the corridors of Congress are crowded with handheld video and cell phone cameras, there is a declining roll for newspaper, radio, and network journalists reporting the routine deliberations that are taking place in our subcommittee hearings. Case in point: Ten years ago, 11 or 12 reporters from Connecticut covered the delegation's legislative activities. Today, there is only one doing the same work.

Meanwhile, intense partisan polarization has raised the stakes in every debate and on every vote, making it difficult to lose with grace and nearly impossible to compromise without cost. Americans' distrust of politicians provides compelling incentives for Senators to distrust each other, to disparage this very institution, and to disengage from the policymaking process.

These changes have already had their effect on the Senate. The purpose of insulating one-half of the national legislature from the volatile shifts in public mood has been degraded. And while I strongly favor reforming our campaign finance system, revitalizing and rehabilitating our journalistic traditions, and restoring citizen faith in government and politics, I know that wishes won't make it so.

I have heard some people suggest that the Senate as we know it simply cannot function in such a highly charged political environment; that we should change Senate rules to make it more efficient, more responsive to the public mood--more like the House of Representatives, where the majority can essentially bend the minority to its will. I appreciate the frustrations many have with the slow pace of the legislative process, and I certainly share some of my colleagues' anger with the repetitive use and abuse of the filibuster. Thus, I can understand the temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so unique and simultaneously so terribly frustrating. But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.

We 100 Senators are but temporary stewards of a unique American institution, founded upon universal principles. The Senate was designed to be different, not simply for the sake of variety but because the Framers believed the Senate could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift America up to meet its unique challenges.

As a Senator from the State of Connecticut--and the longest serving one in its history--I take special pride in the role two Connecticut Yankees played in the establishment of this very body. It was Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, delegates from Connecticut to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, who proposed the idea of a bicameral national legislature. The Connecticut Compromise, as it came to be known, was designed to ensure that no matter which way the political winds blew or how hard the gusts, there would be a place--one place-- for every voice to be heard.

The history of this young democracy, the Framers decided, should not be written solely in the hand of the political majority. In a nation founded in revolution against tyrannical rule which sought to crush dissent, there should be one institution that would always provide a space where dissent was valued and respected. E pluribus unum--out of many, one. And though we would act as one, and should, the Framers believed our political debate should always reflect that in our beliefs and aspirations, we are, in fact, many. In short, our Founders were concerned not only with what we legislated but, just as importantly, with how we legislated.

In my years here, I have learned that the appreciation of the Senate's role in our national debate is an acquired taste. Therefore, to my fellow Senators who have never served a day in the minority, I urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change Senate rules. And

to those in the minority who routinely abuse the rules of the Senate to delay or defeat almost any Senate decision, know that you will be equally responsible for undermining the unique value of the Senate--a value, I would argue, that is greater than that which you might assign to the political motivations driving your obstruction.

So in the end, of course, I would suggest this isn't about the filibuster. What will determine whether this institution works or not, what has always determined whether we fulfill the Framers' highest hopes or justify the cynics' worst fears is not the Senate rules or the calendar or the media; it is whether each of the 100 Senators can work together, living up to the incredible honor that comes with this title and the awesome responsibility that comes with this office.

Politics today seemingly rewards only passion and independence, not deliberation and compromise as well. It has become commonplace to hear candidates for this body campaign on how they are going to Washington to shake things up--all by themselves. May I politely suggest that you are seeking election to the wrong office. The U.S. Senate does not work that way, nor can it, nor should it. Mayors, Governors, and Presidents can sometimes succeed by the sheer force of their will, but there has never been a Senator so persuasive, so charismatic, so clever, or so brilliant that they could make a significant difference while refusing to work with other Members of this body.

Simply put, Senators cannot ultimately be effective alone.

As I noted earlier, until last year's health care bill, there had not been a single piece of legislation I had ever passed without a Republican partner.

Of course, none of those victories came easily. The notion that partisan politics is a new phenomenon, or that partisan politics serve no useful purpose, is just flat wrong.

From the moment of our founding, America has been engaged in an eternal and often pitched partisan debate. That is no weakness. In fact, it is at the core of our strength as a democracy, and success as a nation.

Political bipartisanship is a goal, not a process.

You do not begin the debate with bipartisanship--you arrive there. And you can do so only when determined partisans create consensus--and thus bipartisanship.

In the end, the difference between a partisan brawl and a passionate, but ultimately productive, debate rests on the personal relationships among those of us who serve here.

A legislative body that operates on unanimous consent, as we do, cannot function unless the Members trust each other. There is no hope of building that trust unless there is the will to treat each other with respect and civility, and to invest the time it takes to create that trust and strengthen those personal bonds.

No matter how obnoxious you find a colleague's rhetoric or how odious you find their beliefs, you will need them. And despite what some may insist, you do no injustice to your ideological principles when you seek out common ground. You do no injustice to your political beliefs when you take the time to get to know those who don't share them.

I have served with several hundred Senators under every partisan configuration imaginable: Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, divided government and one party control.

And as odd as it may sound in the present political environment, in the last three decades I have served here, I cannot recall a single Senate colleague with whom I could not work.

Sometimes those relationships take time, but then, that is why the Framers gave us 6-year terms: so that members could build the social capital necessary to make the Senate function.

Under our Constitution, Senators are given 6 years, but only you can decide how to use them. And as one Senator who has witnessed what is possible here, I urge each of you: Take the time to use those years well. I pledge to those of you who have recently arrived, your tenure here will be so much more rewarding.

More importantly, you will be vindicating the confidence that the Framers placed in each person who takes the oath of office, as a U.S. Senator, upholding a trust that echoes through the centuries.

I share the confidence that Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, and the Framers placed in this body and in its Members. But I am not blind. The Senate today, in the view of many, is not functioning as it can and should.

I urge you to look around. This moment is difficult, not only for this body, but for the nation it serves. In the end, what matters most in America is not what happens within the walls of this Chamber, but rather the consequences of our decisions across the Nation and around the globe.

Our economy is struggling, and many of our people are experiencing real hardship--unemployment, home foreclosures, endangered pensions.

Meanwhile, our Nation faces real challenges: a mounting national debt, energy, immigration, nuclear proliferation, ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and so much more. All these challenges make the internal political and procedural conflicts we face as Senators seem small and petty.

History calls each of us to lift our eyes above the fleeting controversies of the moment, and to refocus our attention on our common challenge and common purpose.

By regaining its footing, the Senate can help this nation to regain confidence, and restore its sense of optimism.

We must regain that focus. And, most importantly, we need our confidence back--we need to feel that same optimism that has sustained us through more than two centuries.

Now, I am not naive. I am aware of the conventional wisdom that predicts gridlock in the Congress.

But I know both the Democratic and Republican leaders. I know the sitting members of this chamber as well. And my confidence is unshaken.

Why? Because we have been here before. The country has recovered from economic turmoil. Americans have come together to heal deep divides in our Nation and the Senate has led by finding its way through seemingly intractable political division.

We have proven time and time again that the Senate is capable of meeting the test of history. We have evidenced the wisdom of the Framers who created its unique rules and set the high standards that we must meet.

After all, no other legislative body grants so much power to each member, nor does any other legislative body ask so much of each member.

Just as the Senate's rules empower each Member to act like a statesman, they also require statesmanship from each of us.

But these rules are merely requiring from us the kind of leadership that our constituents need from us, that history calls on us to provide in difficult times such as the ones we're encountering.

Maturity in a time of pettiness, calm in a time of anger, and leadership in a time of uncertainty--that is what the Nation asks of the Senate, and that is what this office demands of us.

Over the past two centuries, some 1,900 men and women have shared the privilege of serving in this body. Each of us has been granted a temporary, fleeting moment in which to indulge either our political ambition and ideological agenda, or, alternatively, to rise to the challenge and make a constructive mark on our history.

My moment is now at an end, but to those whose moments are not yet over, and to those whose moments will soon begin, I wish you so much more than good fortune.

I wish you wisdom. I wish you courage. And I wish for each of you that, one day, when you reflect on your moment, you will know that you have lived up to the tremendous honor and daunting responsibility of being a United States Senator.

To quote St. Paul, ``. . . the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.''

So, Mr. President, it is with great pride, deep humility and incredible gratitude, as a United States Senator, that I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I thank the Senator.

Thank you very, very much.