Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I am here to speak on the legislation that is pending before us. We all know this country faces big challenges. We face a declining infrastructure that is critical to our business. We need safe, reliable transportation if we are going to keep the flow of commerce moving. But as President Obama mentioned in his State of the Union Address, when American engineers took a look at our transportation infrastructure, they gave us a ``D'' grade. That is not quite failing, but it is certainly not very good.

Our declining infrastructure threatens not only our safety but also our global economic competitiveness. America is falling behind economic competitors such as Europe and China which are making significantly more robust investments in their infrastructure. In the United States, we currently spend about 2 percent of our GDP on infrastructure. That is a 50-percent decline since 1960. China and Europe, on the other hand, spend close to 9 percent for China and 5 percent for Europe of their GDP respectively on infrastructure. We need to make the kind of smart investments that will help keep America competitive.

That is why I am very glad we are moving forward with this bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill. It has been almost 4 years since Congress passed an FAA bill, and in that time our economic competitors have continued to invest in their 21st century aviation systems.

Airports are critical to commerce and economic activity in all of our States. The major airport in my home State of New Hampshire, Manchester Airport, generates over $1.2 billion in economic activity every year. Much of that comes from out-of-State residents and foreign travelers. Without that airport, without that air infrastructure, we would not be able to generate that kind of economic activity. The aviation industry in New Hampshire and across the country also provides good jobs for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, air travel controllers, and so many others. Manchester Airport alone provides over 1,900 jobs.

The FAA legislation that is now before us will accomplish the long overdue task of upgrading one critical component of our aviation infrastructure, the air traffic control system. It will upgrade the system to an efficient 21st-century system called NextGen.

I do not think very many people realize that when they get into an airplane, the pilots and the air traffic controllers are using 20th- century technology to navigate the skies. I was just at a meeting of the High Tech Council in New Hampshire and having this conversation with them. They did not realize that that is the kind of aviation system we use to fly our planes.

So although our cell phones and cars have GPS systems, our multimillion-dollar airplanes use World War II era radar systems. The system we have now is inefficient. It wastes the time and money of everyone involved in the aviation industry. As Chairman Rockefeller has pointed out so many times, even Mongolia has a more advanced air traffic control system than we do. That is unacceptable.

Not surprisingly, our outdated system is at capacity. According to the FAA, delays resulting from the constraints on the system cost the United States over $9 billion every year. That number is going to continue to rise if we do nothing.

We need to take action. The FAA forecasts that the aviation system will carry more than 1 billion airline passengers annually by 2023. We cannot afford to let such an important part of our 21st-century economy languish with 20th-century technology.

By investing in NextGen, our air traffic controllers will finally have the 21st-century technologies they need to make our system more efficient. Let me give an example of the progress NextGen would make. Right now, air traffic controllers give all of their commands to pilots over the radio. They tell them when and where they will be landing. Now, because all of the pilots in the area are listening, there is the potential for miscommunication sometimes. Our pilots and controllers are very professional. They do their jobs well. But sometimes people talk over each other and pilots hear the wrong information. This system we currently have wastes time, and it puts the flying public in jeopardy. Once NextGen is in place, controllers will be able to type a command and send it directly to the plane. To all of us who use e-mail, this sounds pretty basic, but it is an example of the kinds of upgrades that are needed to make our aviation system more efficient and safer.

By funding NextGen, this bill will bring our air traffic control system into the 21st century. NextGen will reduce congestion by allowing planes to fly more direct routes, it will conserve energy, and it will make flying safer for everyone.

Of course, some flight delays are unavoidable. We cannot control the weather, as we all know. But when delays cannot be avoided, we can make sure airlines are treating their customers fairly. That is another critical component of this legislation. That is why this bill includes the passengers' bill of rights.

I cosponsored the passengers' bill of rights after a businesswoman from Bedford, NH--a woman named Jennifer Shirkani--told me her stories of being stuck on tarmacs for hours without access to food or water. These experiences were so frustrating to Jennifer that she became a leader in the movement to get this legislation passed. Unfortunately, her stories have been all too common in recent years. According to the Department of Transportation, hundreds of thousands of passengers have been stuck on a tarmac for more than 3 hours. This bill will codify protections put in place last year by the Department of Transportation so we will not go back to the days when airlines left travelers on the tarmac.

I wish to commend Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison for producing a strong bill, and I look forward to being able to support this legislation with all of my colleagues and pass it very soon so we can upgrade our transportation system to compete with the rest of the world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I rise to honor the life of LCpl Michael Geary, who died on December 8, 2010, from wounds received in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. He was just 20 years old at the time of his death, and 5 months into his first tour of duty as a Marine. Michael was a member of the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Lejeune, NC.

A native of Derry, NH, Michael graduated from Pinkerton Academy in June 2009. As early as age 14, he wanted to join the Marines. Michael left for boot camp in North Carolina just 1 month after graduating high school to fulfill his life-long dream.

Admirably, Michael wished to represent our country to the best of his ability--so much so that, prior to his deployment, he studied Afghan culture in order to increase his cultural awareness and to communicate more effectively with the people of Afghanistan, especially Afghan youth.

Michael is described by his loved ones as loyal, good-natured, and driven. From attaining his black belt in karate to competing on the gridiron for the Pinkerton Astros, his drive was truly inspiring. His family attributes the personal growth of his younger cousin, Luke, to Michael's relentless drive and his dedication to the ones he loved. Michael is Luke's hero. This young patriot is also a hero to the State of New Hampshire and our entire country.

LCpl Michael Geary made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of the country he loved and for that he has earned our enduring gratitude. I hope his family can find comfort in knowing that all Americans share a deep appreciation for his heroic service.

Michael is survived by his parents, Timothy and Nancy Geary of Derry, NH. He also leaves behind a caring extended family and many dear friends. This young hero will be missed by all.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to please join me in honoring the life, service and sacrifice of LCpl Michael Geary.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate two outstanding teachers from New Hampshire.

Stacey Plummer and Angela Gospodarek have been chosen for the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, awards that honor teachers who have made outstanding contributions to the classroom and to the teaching profession. I applaud them for their remarkable accomplishments and dedication to New Hampshire's students.

Recent international test scores show that U.S. students lag behind students of other countries in math and science achievement. Our country's competitiveness in this global economy requires us to nurture skilled engineers and scientists. Teachers like Angela and Stacey are critical to this effort because they are able to engage students and help them to develop a love for these key subjects. That is why I am delighted to see them honored for their work.

Stacey has taught a variety of high school math classes for 16 years and currently teaches at Hollis Brookline High School in Hollis, NH. Her passion for mathematics combined with her talent for teaching allows her to convey to her students the beauty and precision of the subject. In addition to advising the State championship math team, she finds time to mentor student teachers.

To make science meaningful, Angela likes to provide hands-on classroom experiences that allow her students to discover the wonders of science. She began her career as a marine scientist but soon realized she had a talent for and enjoyed teaching others. The students at Iber Holmes Gove Middle School in Raymond, NH, are fortunate to have had her as a teacher for the last 7 years.

The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching are the most prestigious honors given to math and science teachers in the country. As a former teacher, it is a privilege for me to be able to congratulate Angela Gospodarek and Stacey Plummer for their commitment to excellence in teaching. I am extremely proud of the part they play in educating and training future generations of Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to follow in a long history of strong, bipartisan support for reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons around the globe. We have a chance to strengthen American national security and restore American leadership on the nuclear agenda. I am hopeful that the Senate will choose the right path and vote in favor of ratification of the New START treaty.

I want to thank Senators Kerry and Lugar for their tireless, impressive work on the New START treaty.

Former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, in explaining his support for the New START Treaty, told our committee earlier this year that the Senate's decision on New START ``will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge.'' Senators Kerry and Lugar have done everything in their power to make this a nonpartisan effort, and I commend them and their staff for their excellent work.

I want to also take a moment to thank the negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller, Ted Warner, their colleagues at the White House, and all the civil servants responsible for negotiating this agreement. Each of them has a lifetime of experience and impressive expertise on nuclear issues, and they all worked hard to navigate this difficult treaty process. America was well-served by your efforts, and we thank you for your leadership.

At the very beginning of this long process, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked the Senate a very important question: Is the United States better off with an agreement or without it? Today, the Senate has to answer this specific question.

We have had a very long, thorough, and vigorous debate, and some Senators may not agree with everything in the treaty text before us, and some may have problems with the process by which we are here today, but let's be clear. The vote today is not about what each of us might have done differently. The vote today is not about abstract numbers or theoretical point scoring. The historic vote today is simple: Do you believe the United States and the world are better off with an agreement or without one?

The Senate--led in a bipartisan fashion by Senators Kerry and Lugar has done an impressive job of meeting its constitutional responsibilities, and I am proud of the work we have done in giving our advice and consent to the New START treaty. The involvement of the Senate over the last year and a half and the debate we have undertaken have been worthy of the world's greatest deliberative body.

I have heard from many of my colleagues that the Senate should not be a rubber stamp in ratifying the New START Treaty--as if to suggest we have not taken our constitutional responsibilities seriously during this process. This could not be further from the truth.

First, the Senate's influence can be seen throughout the treaty document. A number of Senators met with negotiators numerous times prior to the treaty's completion, and some even traveled to Geneva during the negotiations. In many respects, from the very beginning, our negotiators were operating within a framework and boundaries as set by Senators involved in the process. The treaty itself is really a product of collective input from both the executive and congressional branches. The unique insight and input this Congress has provided throughout the negotiation process could not be replicated in any future consideration.

In addition, since we received the treaty, the Senate has done its job and has thoroughly considered this agreement. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held 12 hearings and heard testimony from 21 expert witnesses. The administration has answered over 900 questions for the record. We have also had more floor time for amendments and consideration than any other treaty of its kind. Our vigorous debate on the floor has added nuance and depth to this already thorough body of work.

It is also important to note that the Senate, in providing its advice and consent, actually writes and approves the resolution of ratification to go along with the treaty. This is not an insignificant document. This is the Senate's opportunity to influence the treaty's future interpretation and implementation and our chance to provide the declarations, understandings, and conditions to the treaty. The resolution succinctly and explicitly expresses the Senate's views on New START, and our resolution actually provides some strong statements with respect to many of the concerns raised by critics of the treaty.

For example, on missile defense, the resolution reads very clearly that the United States remains committed to missile defense, and the New START treaty does not constrain that commitment:

The New START Treaty and the . . . unilateral statement of

the Russian Federation on missile defense do not limit in any

way, and shall not be interpreted as limiting, activities

that the U.S. currently plans or that might be required . . .

to protect U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. allies from limited

ballistic missile attack.

In addition, the DeMint amendment on missile defense in the resolution reads:

The United States is and will remain free to reduce the

vulnerability to attack by constructing a layered missile

defense capable of countering missiles of all ranges The

United States is committed to improving U.S. strategic

defensive capabilities both quantitatively . . . and

qualitatively and such improvements are consistent with the

Treaty.

On tactical nuclear weapons, the resolution reads:

The Senate calls upon the President to pursue . . . an

agreement with Russia that would address the disparity

between tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles . . . and would

secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable

manner.

Finally, on strategic-range, nonnuclear weapon systems:

Nothing in the New START Treaty restricts U.S. research,

development, testing, and evaluation of strategic-range, non-

nuclear weapons . . . [or] prohibits deployments of

strategic-range, non-nuclear weapon systems.

The fact is that the Senate has done its constitutional duty and has thoroughly debated and considered this important agreement.

Adding to our extensive internal debate, countless outside experts and former officials have also weighed in on this treaty. New START has the unanimous backing of our Nation's military and its leadership, including Secretary Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the commander of America's Strategic Command, and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. America's military establishment is joined by the support of every living Secretary of State--from Secretary Jim Baker to Secretary Condoleezza Rice--as well as five former Secretaries of Defense, nine former national security advisors, and former Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. The overwhelming consensus from these foreign policy and national security heavyweights has been clear: New START is in America's national security interests.

I think it is important to take a step back and remember the broader picture of the decision before us today. We are no longer talking about abstract numbers, intangible ideas or questions of process. We are talking about real nuclear weapons. We are talking about thousands of the most dangerous weapons in the history of mankind--weapons actually aimed directly at American cities.

Our arsenals are composed primarily of nuclear weapons each yielding between 100 and 1,200 kilotons of power. To give you a sense of the power of these weapons, the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima yielded around 13 kilotons of power. After New START, the United States and Russia will still be allowed an arsenal of 1,550 warheads capable of leveling cities more than five times the size of New Hampshire's largest city of Manchester.

Now, I am under no illusions that the ratification of the New START treaty will somehow by itself meet the threats posed by nuclear weapons around the globe. President Kennedy told us that attainable peace will be ``based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions'' and ``peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.'' He said:

No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of . . .

all can provide absolute security . . . But it can . . .

offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated,

uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

New START is a step away from this ``unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable'' environment.

As the first Nation to invent and then use nuclear weapons, the United States has spent the majority of the last half century trying to reduce the risk they pose. Over five decades ago, President Eisenhower committed the United States to meeting its special responsibilities on the nuclear threat. He said:

The United States pledges before you--and therefore before

the world--its determination to help solve the fearful atomic

dilemma--to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way

by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be

dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.

Eisenhower's early commitment and America's special responsibility have led to unbroken U.S. leadership in the world on the nuclear agenda. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--the cornerstone of global nonproliferation efforts--was born out of President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Peace'' vision. The original START treaty was a culmination of President Reagan's entreaty to ``trust, but verify'' Russia and its actions. The U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which has led to the deactivation of over 7,500 Russian nuclear warheads, was the result of two visionary and farsighted Senators named Nunn and Lugar.

American leadership on the nuclear agenda makes the world safer. Period.

As Secretaries Kissinger, Schultz, Perry, and Senator Nunn told us in their seminal 2007 opinion piece:

The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous

nuclear era . . . Nuclear weapons today present tremendous

dangers but also a historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will

be required to take the world to the next stage--to a solid

consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally

as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation

into potentially dangerous hands.

The New START treaty should be the next step on the path of American leadership on the nuclear agenda. If we turn our back on this treaty at this time, we are turning our back on a generation of bipartisan, American leadership in this field, and we cede the field to a more dangerous and more uncertain world.

The debate over New START is now over, and the only choice left before us is this treaty or nothing. Each of us today will decide--yes or no--whether we think we are better off with a treaty or without one.

I hope we will vote on the side of the overwhelming majority of foreign policy and national security experts who have called on us to support this treaty. I hope we will vote on the side of our unanimous military and intelligence communities. I hope we will vote on the side of a legacy of American leadership on the nuclear agenda.

I am hopeful we will follow in the footsteps of the Senate's strong bipartisan history and ratify the New START treaty today.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. I wish to respond to Senator Risch's amendment because I am very sympathetic to the concerns he is raising.

All who watched Russia's invasion of Georgia had to be outraged about what happened. In fact, I have a resolution I have submitted with Senators Graham and Lieberman. I hope, perhaps, the Senator from Idaho might be willing to take a look at this resolution and work with us on it next year because one of the things it does is it calls upon the Government of Russia to take steps to fulfill all the terms and conditions of the 2008 cease-fire agreement, including returning military forces to prewar positions and ensuring access to international humanitarian aid to all those affected by the conflict.

It also deals with a number of other provisions in that resolution with respect to Georgia.

I also point out, as I am sure my friend from Idaho knows, that Georgia has recognized it is in their interest to have relations with Russia that can address their border concerns in a way that is positive, to have Russia working with the international community as opposed to working as a pariah. They may represent what we have heard from all our NATO allies with respect to the START treaty; that it is in the best interest of our NATO allies. We have heard from those countries that border Russia--Latvia, Poland, and a number of other countries--that they would like to see the United States ratify the New START treaty.

I am in agreement with the concerns Senator Risch raised. I have questions about whether this is the best way to do it, given the confines of the New START treaty and our efforts to get this into effect as soon as possible so we do not continue to have a situation where we do not have inspectors on the ground in Russia who can help gather intelligence, who can see what is going on with their nuclear arms in a way that would also benefit Georgia.

I understand the concerns. I agree with those. But I cannot support this amendment because of the negative impact it might have on ratifying the treaty.

Mr. President, I will speak only for about 1 minute and then give the rest of my time to Senator Feinstein who wishes to speak to the question of the covers.

I do not want to speak to the technicalities that have been raised, but I want to make two points in response to Senator Kyl's concern about verification.

We should all be concerned about the fact that right now we have no inspectors on the ground. We have no way to verify what is going on in Russia. Anything that delays our ability to get that intelligence back on the ground in Russia adds to the urgency of the situation. That is a very important point.

The other issue he raised was relative to why do we need to do this now. The fact is, as Senator Kerry pointed out, we received a letter from ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, yesterday that said the sooner we ratify the treaty, the better. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, said about New START the earlier, the sooner, the better we get this done. There is a lot of reason to believe we need to act on this treaty and need to do it now.

I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I am here today to express my strong support for the repeal of the don't ask don't tell policy. The Senate took a significant step toward that repeal earlier today. I want to congratulate and thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their strong bipartisan leadership on this issue. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I hope we will soon send it to the President for his signature.

It is not often that the Senate gets the opportunity with a single vote to right a wrong, but we have that opportunity here today. This is a historic vote, one for which this Senate will be remembered for a long time. This is our opportunity to fix an outdated, discriminatory and broken policy and to strengthen America's security. The United States, our military, and our security will be better off because of this legislation.

I completely agree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who strongly endorsed the repeal and urged the Senate to pass this legislation before the end of the year. Secretary Gates and America's military leadership understand that this discriminatory policy undermines our national security and diminishes our military readiness.

A nation at war is a nation that needs the best, most qualified service members we can find regardless of sexual orientation. At a time when nearly 150,000 American men and women are serving in combat overseas, and at a time when our military is stretched thin across the globe, we simply cannot afford to lose some of our finest soldiers.

Since the policy was instituted in 1993, more than 14,000 service members have been expelled from the military, and an estimated 4,000 service members per year voluntarily leave because of this discriminatory policy. One thousand of those expelled were badly needed specialists with vital mission critical skills, like Arabic speakers and other technical experts.

Don't ask, don't tell also ignores the realities of today's combat environment, where American soldiers are fighting next to allied troops from around the world. In fact, at least 12 nations allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly have fought alongside U.S. service members in Afghanistan. At least 28 countries, including our closest allies, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and Israel, already allow open service.

Not only is this policy costing us critical capabilities, it is also unnecessarily costing us a significant amount of money. The military spends as much as $43,000 to replace each individual charged under the don't ask, don't tell policy. At a time of extremely tight budgets with little money to go around, it just does not make sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars to investigate, try, and replace American soldiers based only on their sexual orientation.

Repeal of this policy has earned the backing of an overwhelming majority of America's Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and countless military leaders, including retired GEN Colin Powell, who says that attitudes and circumstances have changed since the policy was first instituted 17 years ago.

In addition, we now have a good understanding of what our own military men and women feel about the repeal of this policy. The military undertook one of the largest and most comprehensive reviews in its history to make sure those most affected by this change had their views heard and incorporated. The in-depth, 9-month review included a comprehensive survey that was sent to nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component service members as well as 150,000 military spouses.

The review's final report, released several weeks ago, found that repealing this policy could be accomplished without undermining military readiness and can be initiated immediately. The report found that more than two-thirds of those questioned found that repeal would have no effect on cohesion, effectiveness, unit readiness, or morale.

We used to tell young Americans, ``Don't ask what your country can do for you.'' Yet now we tell the very people who have answered that call, ``don't ask, don't tell.'' This is a civil rights issue. It is a moral issue, and it is a national security issue. Today, the Senate has an historic opportunity to fix this broken and outdated policy.

Madam President, I wanted to come down and join Senator Kerry and again recognize his leadership, along with Senator Lugar's, on moving the treaty ratification through the Senate.

I wish to address some of the objections and concerns that are being raised by the critics of the treaty this evening. First, I want to point out that if the Senate were to approve the amendment that Senator McCain and Senator Barrasso are proposing, that effectively kills the treaty. I think those people who support that amendment understand that. So that is No. 1.

Secondly, one of the issues that has been raised in a number of the statements this evening has had to do with the concern about dual track. Can the Senate deal with this issue while we have so much other business to deal with? Well, I happen to think that in the Senate we can deal with more than one issue at a time. I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

In fact, during consideration of the original START treaty back in 1992, a treaty that was much more complicated than the one that is pending before us, at the first time the Senate was considering the START nuclear disarmament agreement, the Senate, on the same day we debated the treaty back in 1992, passed an Interior appropriations bill, a DC appropriations bill, and we debated and held two rollcall votes on the Foreign Operations bill. So the concern that we cannot deal with this while we are dealing with other issues is not borne out by the historic precedent.

One of the other issues that has been raised this evening by the critics is that we do not need to do this right away; there is no overwhelming national security concern to get this passed now.

I would point out that we have a number of military leaders in this country who disagree with that. Yesterday, GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

All the joint chiefs are very much behind the treaty. We

need START and we need it badly.

Today GEN Frank Klotz, who is considered one of the military's most experienced and respected nuclear arms experts--he is commander of Air Force global strike command, which is the command that overseas the Air Force's nuclear enterprise--says that the New START treaty with Russia should be ratified immediately.

Again, quoting the general:

I think the START treaty ought to be ratified and it ought

to be ratified right now, this week.

With respect to the issues raised about how this treaty impacts missile defense, it is important to point out what some of the most recognized foreign policy, military, national security experts in the country have had to say about this missile defense issue. First, let me quote ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said:

There is nothing in the treaty that prohibits us from

developing any kind of missile defense.

Then LTG Patrick O'Reilly, head of the United States Missile Defense Agency, said:

Relative to the recently expired START treaty, the New

START treaty actually reduces constraints on the development

of the missile defense program . . . I have briefed the

Russians personally in Moscow on every aspect of our missile

defense development. I believe they understand what that is.

And that those plans for development are not limited by this

Treaty.

And then Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said:

The treaty will not constrain the U.S. from developing and

deploying defenses against ballistic missiles, as we have

made clear to the Russian government. The U.S. will continue

to deploy and improve the interceptors

that defend our homeland. We are also moving forward with

plans to field missile defense systems to protect our troops

and partners in Europe, the Middle East, and Northeast Asia

against the dangerous threats posed by rogue nations like

North Korea and Iran. Separately from the treaty, we are

discussing missile defense cooperation with Russia which we

believe is in the interest of both nations. But such talks

have nothing to do with imposing any limitations on our

programs or deployment plans.

One of the earlier speakers talked about concerns about those within our security umbrella, our allies and NATO, and how they might be affected by the START treaty. The fact is, every one of our NATO allies has come out in support of passage of the New START treaty. They have all said it is in the interest of the NATO countries.

To go back to what some of the experts have said about missile defense, GEN Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said:

As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing

global missile defense plans, operations and advocacy, I can

say with confidence that this treaty does not constrain any

current or future missile defense plans.

Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger said:

I don't think it inhibits missile defense in a serious way.

I do not think that we will be inhibited by this treaty or

even by the Russian pressure with respect to defending

ourselves against North Korea and ultimately naturally

against Iran.

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry said:

The treaty imposes no meaningful restraints on our ability

to develop and deploy ballistic missile defense systems.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said:

The treaty does not unduly restrict our ability to build

and deploy an effective missile defense system.

Finally, former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger, and Colin Powell wrote in the Washington Post:

New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile

defenses.

The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.

I know we have a lot of experts in the Senate on this issue, but I certainly believe the experts who have spoken about the lack of an impact on our ability as a country to develop a missile defense system are people who should be believed, because they know what they are talking about.

The other thing it is important to point out--and I know Senator Kerry did this earlier--is with respect to the resolution of ratification and some of the concerns that Senator DeMint raised this evening. I want to read what is in this resolution of ratification. This is language that Senator DeMint had amended into the resolution to address the concerns he had:

(2) Defending the united states and allies against

strategic attack.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

(A) a paramount obligation of the United States Government

is to provide for the defense of the American people,

deployed members of the United States Armed Forces, and

United States allies against nuclear attacks to the best of

its ability;

(B) policies based on ``mutual assured destruction'' or

intentional vulnerability can be contrary to the safety and

security of both countries, and the United States and the

Russian Federation share a common interest in moving

cooperatively as soon as possible away from a strategic

relationship based on mutual assured destruction;

(C) in a world where biological, chemical, and nuclear

weapons and the means to deliver them are proliferating,

strategic stability can be enhanced by strategic defensive

measures;

(D) accordingly, the United States is and will remain free

to reduce the vulnerability to attack by constructing a

layered missile defense system capable of countering missiles

of all ranges;

(E) the United States will welcome steps by the Russian

Federation also to adopt a fundamentally defensive strategic

posture that no longer views robust strategic defensive

capabilities as undermining the overall strategic balance,

and stands ready to cooperate with the Russian Federation on

strategic defensive capabilities, as long as such cooperation

is aimed at fostering and in no way constrains the defensive

capabilities of both sides; and

(F) the United States is committed to improving United

States strategic defensive capabilities both quantitatively

and qualitatively during the period that the New START Treaty

is in effect, and such improvements are consistent with the

Treaty.

This is language Senator DeMint proposed that is adopted in the resolution that makes very clear that missile defense is not affected by the treaty.

Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues who believe that now is the time to ratify the New START treaty. The New START treaty is a continuation of a long history of bipartisan arms control cooperation and it is the culmination of President Ronald Reagan's consistent appeal, as mentioned in previous remarks, to trust, but verify when we are dealing with Russia. At a time when much of America is fed up with this body's inability to work in a bipartisan fashion, I hope we can still work across the aisle to strengthen America's national security and deal with the threat that is posed by nuclear weapons. I certainly applaud the leadership of Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar and the work they have done on this issue heading the Foreign Relations Committee.

Much like previous arms control treaties, including the old START treaty signed by President George H.W. Bush and the SORT treaty signed by President George W. Bush, the New START treaty is squarely in the national security interests of the United States. The New START treaty will reduce the limit of strategic nuclear arms aimed at the United States. The United States and Russia will be bound to a lower number of nuclear weapons, which will be 30 percent fewer than the current limits under the SORT treaty. The treaty's new rules allow us to count Russia's nuclear weapons more accurately. That is a critical piece as we listened to the concerns of Senator Chambliss about whether we can verify what is going on. These new counting rules give us the ability to more accurately figure out what is happening with Russia's nuclear arsenal.

In addition, New START leaves us the flexibility to determine our own force structure and maintain a robust deterrent capable of protecting us and our allies.

Despite all the concerns raised, this treaty does nothing--let me repeat

that, this treaty does nothing--to constrain our missile defense plans. Further, it allows for the modernization of our nuclear weapons complex. We have already heard from the three directors of our nuclear labs that they are happy with the commitment this administration has provided to modernization of our nuclear arsenal. The treaty restores a critical verification regime that was lost when the old START treaty expired. We have gone over a year without important intelligence from these on-the-ground inspections. This gap hinders our insight into Russia's program.

Much like previous agreements, this treaty deserves broad bipartisan backing in the Senate. Past treaties have benefited from overwhelming support in this body. The original START treaty was ratified by a vote of 93 to 6. We can see that on this chart. START II was ratified 87 to 4. The SORT treaty, negotiated by George W. Bush, was ratified by a vote of 95 to 0. That is incredible--no opposition to that treaty. New START has earned the backing of an overwhelming number of foreign policy experts and national security officials across a broad political spectrum, both Republican and Democratic. New START has the unanimous backing of our Nation's military and its leadership, including Secretary Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the commander of America's Strategic Command, and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. America's military establishment is joined by the support of every living Secretary of State from Secretary Jim Baker to Secretary Condoleezza Rice, as well as five former Secretaries of Defense, nine former National Security Advisers, and former Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. I know people cannot read this because the writing is so small, but this is the column of former Presidents and Cabinet-rank officials who support New START. Look how long the list is. This is the list of those Cabinet-rank officials who oppose it.

America's intelligence community also strongly supports the New START treaty. It has now been 376 days since we last had inspection teams on the ground in Russia monitoring its nuclear program. Every day we go without this critical intelligence is another day that erodes our understanding of Russia's intentions, plans, and capabilities. New START gives us on-the-ground intelligence we currently do not have and also, for the first time, includes a new unique identifier system which allows us to better track Russia's missiles and delivery systems.

I heard the Senator from Georgia expressing a question about whether this gives us the ability we need to verify what Russia is doing. New START gives us more inspections per facility per year than the old START treaty did. Without this critical information, our intelligence community is hindered from an accurate assessment and our military is forced to engage in costly worst-case-scenario planning.

Our NATO allies also support New START. As chair of the subcommittee responsible for NATO, I am mindful of the defense and security of our NATO alliance members living in Eastern Europe. I was pleased that at the recent NATO Lisbon summit, all 28 NATO allies gave their strong unanimous support for ratification of the New START treaty. In fact, some of the treaty's strongest backers are those countries that are our allies along Russia's borders. The NATO Secretary General said: ``A delay in the ratification of the START treaty would be damaging to security in Europe.''

Finally, ratification of this treaty should be important to those who are concerned with the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea or who are worried about the threat that is posed by terrorists around the world who are seeking a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials.

I know some critics look at the New START treaty in isolation and say this arms agreement has nothing to do with these proliferation threats. I couldn't disagree more. What does it say to our allies and partners around the globe if we turn our back on a long history of bipartisan support for working with Russia to reduce the nuclear threat? Delaying ratification of a treaty with so much bipartisan support from our military and the national security and foreign policy establishments, a treaty that is so obviously in our national interest, tells the world we are not serious about the nuclear threat. It says we are not serious about our responsibilities under the nonproliferation treaty. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree we should do everything in our power to make sure Iran and North Korea and al-Qaida do not have nuclear weapons. If we abdicate our position as a leader on nuclear arms control, we risk losing the authority to build international consensus and stopping rogue nations and ending nuclear proliferation around the globe.

Earlier this year, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser under President George H.W. Bush, testified to the Foreign Relations Committee that ``the principal result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos.'' It is much too dangerous to gamble with nuclear weapons or our national security at a time when we are working with our international partners to press Iran and North Korea on their nuclear weapons programs.

In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger said that a failure to ratify this treaty would ``have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others with regard to, particularly, the nonproliferation issue.''

That sentiment was echoed by five former Republican Secretaries of State in an op-ed written for the Washington Post a couple weeks ago.

One of the arguments we have heard this afternoon is that we are rushing consideration of this treaty. This is not true.

This chart is an outline that shows how much time has been spent in the past as treaties have come to the floor. The fact is, the Senate has thoroughly considered the New START agreement. We have had plenty of time to review the treaty. Since it was signed in April, the treaty text has been available for everyone to read. It has not changed. We have had over 250 days to examine the treaty and ask questions of the administration. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held 12 hearings on the treaty.

There were another nine held by other committees. In contrast, there were only four committee hearings held on the SORT treaty and only eight held on START II. The Foreign Relations Committee also accommodated some Members' concerns earlier this year by delaying a vote on the treaty during the August recess. The Obama administration has answered over 900 questions for the record on New START. Nearly every major foreign policy or national security expert has weighed in on the treaty, either in testimony, briefings or in the press.

The history of treaties such as New START shows that the concern that there isn't enough time on the floor to consider this treaty is not accurate. In general, arms control agreements take an average of 2 to 5 days of floor time. The original START treaty, which was much more complicated and complex and the first of its kind, took only 5 days of floor debate. START II took 2 days of floor consideration. The most recent SORT treaty took 2 days of floor debate. We have already had almost 2 days of floor debate. Other arms control agreements, such as the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and the Chemical Weapons Convention, took 2 days of floor time. We have had more than enough time to consider this treaty on the floor.

Finally, some have expressed concerns that the Senate should not be forced to work so close to their holiday vacations. I think it is important to repeat what retired BG John Adams said in response to that concern. He said:

We have 150,000 U.S. warriors doing their job over

Christmas and the New Year. The U.S. Senate should do its

job--and ratify this treaty.

I could not agree more with Brigadier General Adams. The Senate should get its work done. We should ratify New START. We should do it before the holidays, before we go home, in this session of Congress. It is time to vote on this critical national security concern.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been a privilege to serve as a member of the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee over the past year. We have been part of a rare event in the history of this Congress and our country and it has been fascinating to watch this process unfold. I want to join my fellow committee members in thanking Chairman McCaskill and Vice-Chairman Hatch for leading a fair, effective, and efficient operation. They provided remarkably decisive leadership on complex legal issues while also respecting the rights and the interests of both parties to this matter.

I am proud of the report our bipartisan committee produced, and I would like to once again thank and recognize the trial committee's staff for their hard work. Their efforts were an indispensable part of this unique and historic undertaking.

Judging Articles of Impeachment drawn up by the House of Representatives is one of the more solemn duties given to Senators by our Constitution. After spending more than a week with my fellow committee members hearing the evidence against Judge Thomas Porteous, and after reviewing the parties' final submissions, I concluded that he should be convicted on all four articles and removed from office. I would like to explain the principles I used to reach this conclusion and touch on some of the evidence that supported conviction.

There has been much discussion by the parties about the standard of proof to be employed in an impeachment proceeding, and what constitutes an impeachable offense. The Constitution provides us with limited guidance on these issues. Ultimately, in keeping with precedent established by this body in the past, each Senator must individually decide what conduct is impeachment-worthy and how much proof is necessary to reach that conclusion.

In my opinion, the question before us is whether Judge Porteous's conduct calls his integrity and impartiality into question and whether we must remove him from office to protect the reputation of the judiciary and preserve the public's trust in it. Our courts are the places where citizens expect to receive a fair and legitimate resolution of their disputes. This is a cornerstone of civil society. Any conduct by a judge--whether on the job or off that causes people to seriously question his honesty and basic willingness to dispense justice fairly is a violation of the public trust.

Unfortunately, I think any reasonable citizen walking into Judge Porteous's courtroom would have ample reason to question his commitment to doing justice. This is a judge who used his judicial offices at both the State and Federal levels to routinely obtain personal perks, including meals, alcohol, a bachelor party for his son, trips, and eventually cash kickbacks totaling some $20,000.

Any reasonable citizen would also doubt this judge's ability to be impartial. The House presented substantial evidence related to a multimillion dollar piece of litigation in which Judge Porteous had an obvious conflict of interest but failed to recuse himself. He took thousands of dollars in cash gifts from a lawyer friend representing a party to the case during the course of his deliberations. He then turned around and issued a decision favoring his friend's client. Judge Porteous's ruling was overturned in an absolutely scathing opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which called his decision ``inexplicable'' and ``close to being nonsensical,'' among other rebukes.

While on the State bench, the Judge maintained close relationships with bail bondsmen working for defendants in his courtroom. The evidence showed that he continuously set favorable bail levels that while perhaps within the bounds of his legal discretion had been suggested by the bondsmen to maximize their profits. For this, the judge enjoyed complimentary steak lunches, midday martinis, at least one trip to Las Vegas, as well as home and car repairs.

I was totally unpersuaded by the defense team's argument that Judge Porteous's ``pre-Federal'' conduct should be outside the scope of our deliberation. I do not believe the act of being confirmed to a Federal judgeship by the Senate erases or excuses an individual's conduct up to the point of confirmation.

Had the Senate known in 1994 what we know now about Porteous's conduct as a State judge, it would have undoubtedly disqualified him from becoming a Federal judge. No judge at any level should accept gifts that would even appear to be designed to affect his judgment or influence his decisions. Yet there is no doubt Judge Porteous did just that.

It is unfortunate that those charged with investigating Judge Porteous's fitness for office in 1994 did not raise more flags about his history. This does not eliminate our duty to act. I see no reason not to remove him from office today when these events still bear on his integrity and impartiality. Plain and simple, the judge perjured himself before this body during his confirmation by representing that nothing in his history would cast doubt on his fitness to hold office.

Finally, Judge Porteous also perjured himself during his own personal bankruptcy proceedings. The House presented evidence that he failed to disclose gambling debts during his bankruptcy, failed to disclose a number of assets, and made other willful misrepresentations in his filings like using a false name in his initial petition. I understand that this conduct may not have been a direct abuse of the judge's office, but his deception during this period reflected a lack of respect for the law and an unwillingness to follow it. A sitting Federal judge should have erred on the side of overdisclosure. Instead, I believe the House has shown that Judge Porteous repeatedly committed perjury.

Serving as a judge is a privilege, and it demands strict adherence to the highest ethical standards. The evidence in this case, taken as a whole, showed that Judge Porteous failed this test routinely over the course of some 15 years. The House presented ample credible evidence to support the charges in each of the articles, and I felt compelled to vote to convict on all four to protect the integrity of the judiciary and its credibility in the eyes of the public.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of a young veteran, Daniel Edward Duefield, who died at the age of 24 on November 17 at his home in Grafton, NH. A veteran of the Iraq war, Daniel served his country on two tours of duty as a member of the 10th Mountain Division in the U.S. Army.

A native of New Hampshire, Daniel was born in Franklin on December 14, 1985. He attended Mascoma Valley Regional Schools and graduated from Mascoma Valley Regional High School in June 2004. From playing video games with his nephew, Josh, to relaxing on a fishing trip, Daniel enjoyed spending time with family and friends.

He also felt a deep and abiding love for his country, enlisting in the Army in June 2005. Daniel graduated from Army basic training in Fort Benning, GA, and joined the 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, NY. He was excited to have the opportunity to protect his country and family and succeeded in doing so throughout his service until he was honorably discharged in July 2008. The American people will forever be grateful to Daniel for his willingness to serve.

Daniel was a true patriot whose service to his country and family will endure in our memories. No words can lessen the pain of losing this young hero and brave New Hampshire son. It is now up to us to honor him by continuing to improve the support we provide to our veterans and their families and ensuring America's continued security.

Daniel is survived by his parents, Harold ``Duffy'' E. Duefield III and Ruth E. Duefield of Grafton, NH; his fiance, Alicia Vasquezi of Grafton, NH; his grandfather, Harold E. Duefield, Jr., and extended family. This young patriot will be dearly missed.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life of Daniel Edward Duefield.

Mr. President, I am honored to be here on the floor today to join Senator McConnell and my other colleagues in recognizing the service Senator Judd Gregg has provided to the people of this country, and for us, importantly, to the people of New Hampshire.

I have had the good fortune to know Senator Gregg since I first got elected to public office. In the New Hampshire political tradition, you learn to work together with people on both sides of the aisle for what is in the best interests of New Hampshire. Senator Gregg has been a fine example of that tradition.

I have enjoyed working with him over the years, and his presence in the Chamber and the Senate halls will be missed both by me and, as we have already heard, by the rest of our colleagues. I think, as Senator Gregg was giving his remarks, the number of Senators who were here to say goodbye shows the respect and how much he will be missed by all of our colleagues.

Throughout my own public life, I have always appreciated the civility and generosity Senator Gregg has shown me. When I was elected to the State senate in New Hampshire, it was then-Governor Gregg who swore me in for the first time. When I was elected to the Senate, he was the first Republican to call me, not just to offer his congratulations but to offer his advice and help in getting started in Washington.

The Senator and I have followed similar paths to the Senate, although his service has been longer than mine, although we are the same age.

So I will not say your service has been older than mine, Judd.

But I think that experience--both of us having served as Governor, leading New Hampshire--has given us a much more similar mindset than most people would expect. I think it contributes to our concern about controlling the debt and ensuring that this government is functioning in the best interests of all of its citizens. I, again, appreciated his commitment to addressing that debt for future generations in his remarks this afternoon.

While we have not always agreed on the best approach to solve those problems, Senator Gregg's civility has never wavered. Since coming to the Senate, I have noticed that he extends that same civility and courtesy to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In a town that is not always known for its good manners, Senator Gregg reminds us we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Senator Gregg, of course, is known for his expertise on budgetary matters and his dedication to one of the gravest issues that faces this country; that is, its rapidly ballooning deficit. His expertise will not be easily replaced, especially at a time when our Nation so urgently needs a New Hampshire-style approach--strong, bipartisan, and no-nonsense. It is a concern about the deficit that we share, and I hope in some small way I can continue his search for solutions to this challenge.

What might be less known to people in Washington--although Senator McConnell mentioned it--is Senator Gregg's passion for the preservation of open lands. He is a conservationist in the fine Republican tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, and he has helped preserve New Hampshire's wonderful legacy of forests and lakes.

For those of you who may some day visit the New Hampshire statehouse, you will be surprised to see that Senator Gregg appears in his formal gubernatorial portrait in the mountains of New Hampshire, as I think is fitting for somebody who cares so much about the environment.

In 2001, when I was Governor and Senator Gregg was here, we worked together to preserve the Connecticut Lakes Headwaters. At more than 171,000 acres, it was the largest contiguous block of land in New Hampshire in private ownership, and with his leadership we were able to ensure that future generations could enjoy the beauty of this beautiful working forest and part of New Hampshire.

As another well-known Senator--again, one that Judd alluded to when he spoke--Daniel Webster once said:

We have been taught to regard a representative of the

people as a sentinel on the watch-tower of liberty.

In Congress and the Governor's office, in Washington and in New Hampshire, Senator Gregg has served as that sentinel. He will be missed. I join my colleagues and the people of New Hampshire in wishing him and Kathy and their whole family well in all of their future endeavors.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here on the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to talk about the need for us to deal with our deficits and our debt in this country.

I made the decision to vote for the tax cut package that we are going to be voting on this evening. I did that with some sense of ambiguity, because it does not adequately put in place a plan to address our debt in this country. All the economists, however, I have spoken to have indicated that this is important for us as we are looking at continuing to stimulate our economy and provide the relief that middle-class families and small businesses need.

So despite the fact that there are things in it that I do not like, I am going to support it. But I would feel a lot better about it if it contained language that all of us have talked about, that says, as part of doing this, once we get this economy moving again, we have also to address the long-term debt we face in this country. And make no mistake about it, we have to do that both by addressing spending and by addressing tax reform.

I was at a small business in Salem, NH, yesterday, at a company called MSI. They do HVAC systems. They are a small business. They have about 25 employees. I asked them what they were looking for from us in Washington, and they said, a fair, simple Tax Code.

So we have to get serious about this problem. All we have to do is look at what is happening in Europe to know that we are headed that way if we do not get this debt under control. We have to make some tough decisions that include both tax reform and fiscal restraint. I would feel better if this language were in the legislation that we are going to be voting on, but I think it is clear it is the sense of the Senate--if we can get this resolution done, it will be important to send that message to everybody in the country about what we need to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think most of us believe we should not play partisan politics when it comes to nuclear weapons. But in a speech this morning at the Heritage Foundation, my colleagues, our colleague, Senator Jim DeMint, claimed the new START treaty weakens our national security. I like our colleague from South Carolina. He has been the ranking member on the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, which I have chaired for the last 2 years, and we have worked very well together. But on this issue he is just wrong.

Nearly the entire foreign policy and national security establishment, Democrats and Republicans alike, completely disagree with him. Senator DeMint is arguing that this treaty somehow weakens our national security and limits our strategic options. That argument has little basis in reality and is opposed by every living former Republican Secretary of State, five former Secretaries of Defense, seven former commanders of our strategic nuclear weapons, foreign policy and national security giants from seven former Presidential administrations and former President George H.W. Bush. All of these national security heavyweights argue the exact opposite of Senator DeMint, and they all agree the new START treaty strengthens our national security.

The new START treaty has the unanimous backing of America's military leadership and America's NATO allies. According to the most recent CBS news poll, the treaty now has the support of 82 percent of Americans. Now is the time to vote on the new START treaty. No one is rushing this treaty. Since the treaty was signed back in April, the Senate has had 245 days--I want to repeat that, 245 days--to thoroughly review and consider this agreement. After 20 Senate hearings, more than 31 witnesses, over 900 questions and answers, and 8 months of consideration, including a significant delay during the August recess for additional time before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the consensus is clear. New START is in our national security interest, and the Senate should not wait any longer to ratify this treaty.

I ask the opponents of this treaty to consider our broader national security interests. Think about the effect stalling this treaty or publicly rejecting it will have not only on our ability to monitor Russia--because we have had no inspectors on the ground in Russia for over a year now because the treaty expired on December 5, so it has been over a year--but on all of our counterproliferation efforts around the world. Failing to ratify New START this year tells the world we are not serious about the nuclear threat.

I know my colleagues don't want Iran or North Korea or al-Qaida to have the bomb. We have heard that from everyone in this Chamber. Everyone is clear about that. Last week five former Republican Secretaries of State from five former Republican Presidents connected the passage of New START to our efforts on Iran and North Korea.

Again, I ask opponents of this treaty, are ideological goals worth the risk to our national security? Delaying a vote on New START into next year is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with this Nation's security. I hope the opponents of this treaty will reconsider their opposition and recognize how important it is to this country's security to pass this treaty this year in this Congress.

I yield the floor.