Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I would like to take a moment to welcome back all of my colleagues and particularly the 13 new Republican Senators whom we officially swore in just a few moments ago.

Americans are looking for creative, principled leaders. I am confident this impressive class of new Republicans will not disappoint.

I would also like to welcome my good friend, the majority leader. At a time when some people think the two parties in Washington cannot even agree on the weather, I will note that Senator Reid and I get along just fine. I expect it will stay that way, and I look forward to working with him again throughout this Congress.

The biggest changes today are, of course, happening across the dome, and I would like to welcome the many new Republican Members of Congress who have come to Washington to change the way things are done around here. In this, they will be led by a very talented and determined Ohioan, whom I now have the great honor of referring to as Speaker Boehner. I congratulate Speaker Boehner and the new Republican majority in the House, and I wish them great success in achieving the kinds of reforms and policies the last election was all about.

Americans want lawmakers to cut Washington spending, tackle the debt, rein in the government, and to help create the right conditions for private sector job growth. They also want us to reform the way laws are made. They are looking to Republicans to provide an alternative to the kind of lawmaking we have seen too much of around here in the past few years--a vision that disregards the views of the public in favor of an elite few, a vision that tells people they can look at legislation after it is passed, that Washington knows best. In short, Americans are looking for an entirely different approach.

The new Republican majority in the House has shown every sign that they have heard the public on all of this, and Senate Republicans join them in their efforts, conscious of the limitations and the opportunities that our minority status and the President's veto pen involve. We will press the majority to do the things the American people clearly want us to do, and we will insist in every possible way that the voices of our constituents are heard, realizing at the same time that the best solutions are forged through consensus not through confrontation.

Fortunately, the Senate was designed as a place where consensus could and would be reached. Look through modern history. The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but six Members of the Senate. The Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21. And all but eight Senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act 21 years ago this year.

The lesson is clear: Americans believe on issues of this importance, one party should not be allowed to force its will on anyone else. Thanks to the Senate, it rarely has.

That is why a recent proposal to change the Senate's rules by some on the other side is such a bad idea. For 2 years, Americans have been telling us they are tired of being shut out of the legislative process. They want to be heard. The response they are now getting from some on the other side instead is a proposal to change the Senate rules so they can continue to do exactly what they want with fewer Members than before. Instead of changing their behavior in response to the last election, they want to change the rules.

Well, I would suggest this is precisely the kind of approach a supermajority standard is meant to prevent. It exists--it exists--to preserve the Senate's role as the one place where the voices of all of the people will, in the end, be heard. As a result, it has helped ensure that most major agreements enjoy the broad support of the public and the stability that comes with it.

Regrettably, the current majority has too often lost sight of this important truth. Since assuming control of the Senate in 2007, it has sought to erode the traditional rights of the minority, and, by extension, the rights of our constituents. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has looked into the way the current majority has run the Senate. Its conclusions are revealing.

Here are just a few: The current majority has denied the minority the right to amend legislation a record 44 times or more often than the last six majorities combined. It has moved to shut down debate the same day measures are considered nearly three times more often, on average, than the previous six majorities. And its unprecedented denial of the rights of the minority to debate and amend on the floor is compounded by its practice of regularly bypassing Senate committees. All too often the majority has chosen to write bills behind closed doors, depriving Americans of yet another opportunity to have a say in the legislative process. The current majority has set the record here as well, bypassing committees 43 times or double the previous average.

Now, the goal of all of this, of course, is to pass the most partisan legislation possible while at the same time avoiding difficult votes. To listen to the leaders of the Democratic Party over the past several months, they have had some success at it. The President, the former Speaker, and the majority leader have all described the past Congress as the most successful in memory. Yet the most vocal elements of their party remain frustrated. They say the Senate is broken, even though the same people are describing it as the most successful in memory.

Why? Their primary complaints appear to be these: The stimulus passed, but it was not big enough; the health care bill passed, but it did not include the government plan; the Senate extended unemployment benefits and cut payroll taxes but was blocked from raising taxes on small business owners in the process.

In other words, the majority may have been able to achieve most of what it wanted, but because it did not achieve everything it wanted some are not happy. They are not happy that those Americans who have a different view of things actually had a say in how some of the legislation they have passed over the past 2 years turned out.

The impulse to change the rules is, in some ways, understandable. No one likes to take difficult votes, but that is nothing new. As the majority whip often says: ``If you don't like fighting fires, then don't become a fireman.'' If you don't like casting votes, don't come to the Senate.

Some have also suggested that one's view of the filibuster depends on where one sits. It is true that when I was in the majority, I opposed filibustering judicial nominees. But I opposed doing so when I was in the minority as well. I opposed doing so regardless of who was in the White House. In short, I was against expanding the use of the filibuster into an area in which it traditionally had not been used, period.

One can agree with that view or not, but it is one thing to disagree with expanding the use of the filibuster into nontraditional areas, regardless of who is President and who is in the minority, it is another thing altogether to be in favor of expanding it when one is in the minority, and then turn around and urge its elimination when one is in the majority.

When it comes to preserving the right to extended debate on legislation, Republicans have been entirely consistent. What is being considered is unprecedented. No Senate majority has ever--I am going to say this twice--no Senate majority has ever changed the rules except by following those rules; that is, with the participation and the agreement of the minority.

I am going to say it one more time. No Senate majority has ever changed the rules except by following those rules; that is, with the participation and the agreement of the minority. But it also promises to frustrate those who would approve it.

First, it is stating the obvious, that anything that passes in the Senate with a narrower majority than 60 is going nowhere--absolutely nowhere--in the newly Republican House. So any short-term gain ends halfway across the dome. Second, a change in the rules aimed at benefitting the Democrats today could just as easily be used to benefit Republicans tomorrow. Do our friends across the aisle want to create a situation where 2 or 4 or 6 years from now they suddenly find themselves completely powerless to prevent Republicans from overturning legislation they themselves have worked so hard to enact, particularly over the last 2 years?

But the larger point is this: The Founders crafted the Senate to be different. They crafted it to be a deliberate, thoughtful place. Changing the rules in the way that has been proposed would unalterably change the Senate itself. It will no longer be the place where the whole country is heard and has the ability to have its say, a place that encourages consensus and broad agreement. In short, it would make this place even less like the place Americans want it to be.

So it is my hope that our friends on the other side will put aside their plans, respect the rules of the Senate and, more importantly, the voice of the people those rules are meant to protect. Then we can get about the business the people sent us here to do.

Today is a day to renew our purpose and our commitment to bipartisanship, not to double down on a partisan approach that has too often marred lawmaking in Washington over the past 2 years. It is a day to look ahead to what we can achieve together, prompted by the urgings of an electorate that has made its views very clear, and united by a love for this institution and this Nation. The problems we face are enormous--once-in-a-generation challenges that will require vision, hard work, and a commitment to work together to reach consensus, and the Senate is the place for that. At its best, it is a workshop where the Nation's most difficult challenges are faced squarely and addressed with civility and goodwill. At a time like our own, when 1 in 10 working Americans is looking for a job and can't find one, when the national debt threatens the American dream itself, when the solvency of the social safety net is threatened, we must come together. We must find a way to forget the petty skirmishes of the past and forge a new, more hopeful path. We must be motivated by a determination to seek solutions, not mere partisan advantage.

Americans are looking for Republicans to address the problems we face, but Republicans cannot solve them alone. The problems are too big, too demanding for one party, and we will never succeed in solving them if we retreat to our corners until another election comes around. If our predecessors had done that, they would have never solved anything at all, and this institution would have lost its relevance a long time ago. But they didn't, and neither can we.

The men who established this place have left us the right tools for the job. It is my hope that in the weeks and months ahead, we will use them to renew the promise that inspired them and that continues to inspire Americans even in difficult times. That promise is the American dream. It is what unites everyone in this Chamber. Preserving it must be our common task.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I, too, rise to honor our colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, on becoming the longest serving female Senator in the history of the Senate. In achieving this milestone, Barbara passes Margaret Chase Smith, as the majority leader indicated, who served the people of Maine from 1949 to 1973. As was indicated, she is also only the second woman to be elected to both the Senate and the House.

When first elected to the Senate in 1986, Barbara was only the 16th woman to ever serve. Today, there are more female Senators than that in the 112th Congress alone.

Barbara has served as a role model and mentor to many of them, and I know they are grateful for it. She has been a champion of the space program, scientific research, welfare reform, major transportation, homeland security, and environmental issues in Maryland.

I think Barbara would be the first to tell you that becoming the longest serving female Senator wasn't easy. Like all streaks, including that of another Marylander Cal Ripken, there are a lot of bumps in the road. But she has made it through it all and we are happy to share in this milestone with her today.

I wish to recognize Barbara not only for her accomplishment as the longest serving female in the Senate history but also for all of her many accomplishments as a Senator and for the pioneering model she has been to so many women in her distinguished career. Again, congratulations, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I am delighted the Senate was able to reach an agreement to provide health care for the men and women who helped in the rescue, recovery, and cleanup efforts after the 9/11 attacks.

In the years since then, as we all know, a number of these brave Americans have become ill. Today represents an important step in making sure they receive the care they need as a result of their extraordinary service. No one has ever questioned whether to provide the care they need. The only question was how to do so.

Like many of my colleagues, I have been concerned that attempts to rush this legislation at the end of the session would prevent us from ensuring the bill was written in a responsible fashion. I still believe this cause and this legislation would have benefited from a bipartisan committee process. But thanks to the hard work of a number of Senators--most notably Senators Coburn and Enzi and their staffs--we have come a long way in improving this bill.

We have made sure that more compensation will go to victims than trial lawyers. It has got improved oversight, so money isn't siphoned away from the people who need it. We put time limits on the legislation so Congress can come back and review what has worked and where improvements can be made. So this is a much better product.

Some have tried to portray this debate as a debate between those who support 9/11 workers and those who don't. This is a gross distortion of the facts. There was never any doubt about supporting the first responders. It was about doing it right.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the course of the last two decades I have had the honor of watching a very smart, but very green young man from Louisville grow into one of the finest people you could ever work with or call a friend.

There is almost no hat that Billy Piper has not worn in the 19 years he has worked in my office--from driver, to mailroom staffer, to legislative aide, to campaign worker, all the way up to chief of staff.

He's done it all. And in the course of doing it all, he became indispensable to me. And that's why it is so hard to say goodbye. But Billy has simply given too much of himself to leave without a proper send-off.

One of Billy's defining traits is that he deflects praise. This morning I would like to deny him the chance.

A native of Louisville, Billy attended the Kentucky Country Day school and then moved to Virginia to attend the University of Richmond. He spent a semester here in Washington studying public policy and politics and did an internship with Senator Lugar's office, which he liked so much he decided to look for a permanent job on the Hill. And I would like to thank Senator Lugar today for inspiring Billy to public service.

Billy was so eager to take a job in my office, in fact, that he agreed to be a driver even after he learned I had a stick shift--which he didn't know how to drive. His knowledge of Washington, D.C., streets wasn't that much better. But he decided the best way to learn both was by driving around a U.S. Senator. Our first day on the road was a little rough. But ever since he mastered the clutch, Billy hasn't made a misstep since. When he wasn't driving, Billy sorted the mail that came into the office. And it didn't take long for me to see this young man had a lot of potential, so I gave him more and more responsibility.

He became a legislative correspondent, handling military and foreign affairs. And in 1996 I asked him to be the finance director for my reelection campaign. Without hesitation, Billy left a secure position and his home for an extremely hard campaign job on the road. It wasn't an easy job. And in any campaign, there's no guarantee of victory. But Billy excelled at it, as usual, and at every task I've given him since.

Ask other members of my staff to describe Billy and they will tell you he's not only a friend, but a teacher and a mentor.

Lots of people come to Capitol Hill with good intentions and wanting to do the right thing--but not all of them learn how to get things done. In my office, the road to mastery of any job usually ran through Billy Piper. First of all, Billy puts everyone at ease, from the college student applying for an internship to heads of state. He treats everyone the same, regardless of their station. He also refuses to take praise, and even if he does, he's usually eager to deflect it onto the rest of the team. He's also got a wicked sense of humor. It's a regular part of the day to hear laughter pealing from Billy's office.

Billy became the chief of staff in my personal office toward the end of 2002. And for the last 8 years, he has shown first-class leadership as the steady

hand at the wheel. He has shown extraordinarily sound judgment. He's always been ready to do whatever he was asked, whatever it took. Most of all, Billy knew who we all worked for: 4 million Kentuckians. For 8 years, Billy has been my right-hand man.

Two years ago, Billy was invaluable to me in my reelection campaign. Once again, he proved himself equal to any challenge. He was the one man who knew everything that was going on and what everyone else was doing. He was and is unflappable, steady, and always confident.

He gave it everything he had--and always with a smile on his face. And it wasn't easy for him, I know. With a young family at home, he sacrificed much. He's very fortunate that Holly's an understanding wife.

More than anyone else, Billy is responsible for fostering the feeling of family in my office. It's one of the things we'll miss most about him. He always made staff feel like they're more than just a group of people in an office. He's grown close to a lot of them over the years, and they all love him and admire him.

But as tough as this change is for me, I know it's as tough for Billy too. Here's a guy who went to the same school from kindergarten through the 12th grade, lived in the same house his whole childhood, and has had the same work e-mail address since we started using e-mail around here. But he is making this change for the right reason. When he announced his decision, Billy said, ``I love this office, I love the Senate, and I love Kentucky . . . but I love my family more.'' And no one can begrudge him that.

So while this is a loss for me, my staff, my colleagues in the Senate, and the many people he's helped in Kentucky over the years, it is a gain for Billy's wife Holly, and their two little boys Billy and Tucker. And I wish the Piper family great happiness. I can hardly believe the man I am saying goodbye to is the same young man who stood for a high-school photo with me back in 1986.

Sadly, Billy's parents aren't here to share in Billy's sendoff from the Senate. But if you knew Bill and Ann Piper, you would not be surprised by the kind of person Billy is or the success he has become. And I know they would be bursting with pride if they were here today to see what their son's accomplished. It was the love of a strong family that started Billy off on the right track, and it is because of his love for his family today that we bid him farewell. You can't say Billy Piper's priorities aren't in the right place.

Before I finish, I would just like to read from an e-mail Billy sent to the entire staff on his last day--an e-mail that sums up the kind of guy Billy is. Here's what he wrote: ``The great honor of my professional life has been being able to call myself a McTeamer for nearly 20 years. This is an experience I will treasure all the more because of the wonderful friends I have made along the way. I am better for having known and worked with each of you. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do. I am in your debt.''

Billy, as usual, you are generous with praise for everyone but yourself. But we're the ones who are thankful. We are the ones who are better for having known you. And the honor was all ours. Most of all, though, the honor was mine to stand alongside you through the years, as your mentor and your friend. I watched as you inspired others. You've inspired me. Thank you for your service and your friendship.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise this evening to acknowledge the retirement of Lula Davis, in appreciation of her dedication to the Senate and her many years of service to this institution. Lula has been a force in every legislative effort we have engaged in since my tenure as Republican leader began, and long before that. I have come to respect her deep knowledge of the Senate rules and the important role she has played in advising Democratic Senators over the past 2 years. She is a constant presence on the floor and an important part of Senate life. We congratulate her on her professional success, from her days as a school teacher to her work on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and we wish her every happiness in the years ahead.

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate in this Congress was able to make good progress on filling judicial vacancies, especially those vacancies that the Democratic majority unfortunately and sometimes inexplicably failed to fill during the last 2 years of the Bush Administration.

The progress we have made is especially noteworthy given the demands placed upon the Judiciary Committee by having to process not one, but two, Supreme Court nominations. The Sotomayor and Kagan nominations together took approximately 6 months of the Committee's time. Nevertheless, the Senate was able to confirm a total of 60 lower court nominations in this Congress, including 19 nominations while the Kagan nomination was pending. By comparison, the last time the Senate had to process two Supreme Court nominations in the same Congress, which were the Roberts and Alito nominations during the 109th Congress, the Senate was able to fill only 51 lower court judicial vacancies, and it confirmed far fewer lower court nominations while the Roberts and Altio nominations were pending.

This Congress was also able to fill some long-standing vacancies, especially on our courts of appeals. At the end of the Bush administration, there

were 15 judicial emergencies; this Congress was able to fill 10 of those 15 judicial emergencies, including numerous judicial emergencies on our circuit courts. The Fourth Circuit is illustrative of the commitment of Senate Republicans to work in a bipartisan fashion to this end.

At the end of the last Congress, the Fourth Circuit was almost one- third vacant, despite the fact that President Bush had nominated outstanding candidates for these positions. These nominees enjoyed strong home State support, including some with strong bi-partisan, home-state support. Yet our Democratic friends refused to move these nominations. By contrast, this Congress put partisanship aside and filled all four of these vacancies, giving badly-needed relief to a long suffering Federal circuit.

We could have made more progress still. But unfortunately, the President failed to put forth, and the Democratic Majority failed to move, nominations for the vast majority of the current federal vacancies. Specifically, the President has failed to even nominate individuals for most of the current district court vacancies, putting forth only 34 nominations, even though there are 76 vacancies. And of those district court nominations he has put forth, 18 of them remain in the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee. The story is similar for our circuit courts: there are 16 vacancies there, but the White House has failed to even nominate candidates for seven of those vacancies. And of those circuit court nominations he has made, 6 remain in the Judiciary Committee. All told, of the current vacancies on our Federal courts 80 percent of these seats remain vacant because the President either has not nominated anyone, or our Democratic colleagues have not processed the ones he has nominated.

Which brings us to the judicial nominations remaining on the Senate floor. Four of these nominations are very controversial. Their statements, writings, and records show a willingness to put their own views ahead of the dictates of the law and the Constitution. As a result, Senate Republicans are not prepared to consent to their confirmation, or to a process that will facilitate their confirmation.

The remaining 15 nominations pending on the Senate floor were not reported out of the Judiciary Committee until the waning days of this Congress. This is unfortunate. Most of these nominations are to fill vacancies that have existed for years; in some cases, for 2 or 3 years, or even longer. I do not know why these nominations were not reported out of the Judiciary Committee until December. While we were worked diligently in the lameduck session to fill numerous judicial vacancies--confirming 19 judicial nominees total--we were not able to process the remaining 15 nominations that the committee approved late in this year.

But our record of confirming judicial nominations in this lameduck Congress certainly compares favorably to the progress that was made on judicial nominations in other lameduck Congresses. In the lameduck session of the last Congress, the Senate did not confirm any judicial nominees. Thirty judicial nominations were not acted upon in that session, despite the urgent need for judges on places like the Fourth Circuit. In the lameduck session of the Congress before that, our Democratic colleagues did not consent to confirming any judicial nominees; the one judicial nomination that occurred in the lameduck session of the 109th Congress was achieved by the Republican majority filing cloture on a nominee. Cloture was invoked on that nomination by a vote of 93 to 0, and he was confirmed. But 38 other judicial nominations were not acted upon in that Congress, including 15 who were ripe for action on the Senate floor. In the lameduck session of the 108th Congress, only 3 nominations were confirmed, all to the district court. Almost two dozen judicial nominations were not acted upon in that lameduck session, including several who were pending on the Senate floor. In fact, the last time a Senate confirmed as many judicial nominations in a lameduck session of Congress as were confirmed in the lameduck session of this Congress was in 2002, when 20 judicial nominees were confirmed at the end of the 107th Congress.

I am hopeful we can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion in the next Congress on judicial nominations and that the President will join us in that effort by not nominating or re-nominating judicial nominees who show a willingness to follow their own beliefs, rather than the requirements of the law.

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

Madam President, later today the Federal Communications Commission is expected to approve new rules on how Americans access information on the Internet. There are a lot of people rightly concerned. The Internet has transformed our society, our economy, and the very way we communicate with others. It has served as a remarkable platform for innovation at the end of the 20th century and now at the beginning of the 21st century. All of this has been made possible because people have been free to create and to innovate, to push the limits of invention free from government involvement.

Now that could soon change. Today, the Obama administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks, and student loans, will move forward with what could be a first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing Federal regulations on its use. This would harm investment, stifle innovation, and lead to job losses. That is why I, along with several of my colleagues, have urged the FCC Chairman to abandon this flawed approach. The Internet is an invaluable resource. It should be left alone.

As Americans become more aware of what is happening here, I suspect many will be as alarmed as I am at the government's intrusion. They will wonder, as many already do, if this is a Trojan horse for further meddling by the government. Fortunately, we will have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the weekend, I indicated that I would be voting against the START treaty. This morning, I would like to explain my decision in a little more detail. And I will begin with the most obvious objection.

First and foremost, a decision of this magnitude should not be decided under the pressure of a deadline. The American people don't want us to squeeze our most important work into the final days of a session. They want us to take the time we need to make informed, responsible decisions. The Senate can do better than to have the consideration of a treaty interrupted by a series of controversial political items.

So leaving aside for a moment any substantive concerns, and we have many, this is reason enough to delay a vote. No Senator should be forced to make decisions like this so we can tick off another item on someone's political check list before the end of the year.

Yet looking back over the past 2 years, it becomes apparent why the administration would attempt to rush this treaty. And it is in this context that we discover another important reason to oppose it. I am referring, of course, to the administration's pattern of rushing to a policy judgment, and then subsequently studying the problem that the policy decision was intended to address, a pattern that again and again created more problems and complications than we started out with.

First there was the Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay without any plan for dealing with the detainee population there. As we now know, the administration had no plan for returning terrorists who were held at Guantanamo to Yemen, and it is still grappling with questions of how best to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Next was the President's rush to remove the intelligence community from interrogating captured terrorists, without any consideration as to how to deal with them, whether they were captured on the battlefield or at an airport in Detroit. This became all the more concerning when the President announced his surge strategy in Afghanistan, which predictably led to more prisoners. And even in announcing the strategy itself, the President decided to set a date for withdrawal without any sense at the time of what the state of the conflict would be in July 2011.

Then there was the administration's approach on don't ask, don't tell. The President announced his determination to repeal this policy during his campaign, before the military had the time to study whether this change in policy was in the best interest of combat readiness, before senior enlisted staff and noncommissioned officers of the military had testified, and before those who are currently serving had told us whether, in their expert opinion, the policy should be repealed. Moreover, when the Commandant of the Marine Corps suggested the change would harm unit cohesion, he was ignored.

The administration has taken the same cart-before-the-horse approach on the treaty before us. In this case, the President came to office with a long-term plan to reduce the Nation's arsenal of nuclear weapons and their role in our national security policy. The plan envisioned a quick agreement to replace the START treaty that was allowed to expire, with no bridging agreement for arms inspections, followed by efforts to strengthen international commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and further reductions in nuclear arms over time. And he spoke of ultimately reducing nuclear weapons to ``global zero.''

In other words, the New START treaty was just a first step, and it needed to be done quickly. Leave aside for a moment the fact that the New START treaty does nothing to significantly reduce the Russian Federation's stockpile of strategic arms, ignores the thousands of tactical weapons in the Russian arsenal, and contains an important concession linking missile defense to the strategic arms. We had to rush this treaty, according to the logic of the administration, because it had become an important component in the effort to ``reset'' the bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. It was brought up for debate prematurely because it was the first step in a pre- determined arms control agenda. The Senate's constitutional role of advice and consent became an inconvenient impediment.

The debate over the McCain amendment to strike the language in the preamble of the treaty was instructive. The language in the preamble concerning missile defense is harmful to

our foreign policy because of how it will be viewed not by our President, but how it will be viewed by our allies in Europe and by the Russians. The Russian government opposed the Bush administration plan to place 10 silo-based missiles in Poland and a fixed radar installation in the Czech Republic. Although the Bush administration had reached agreement with the governments of our two allies, and the proposed ballistic missile defense plan posed no threat to Russia's overwhelming ability to strike Europe and the United States, Russia sought to coerce our eastern European allies.

It is worth noting that neither Poland nor the Czech Republic ratified the agreements to go forward with the plan, which the Obama administration cancelled. The McCain amendment would have removed any strategic ambiguity that the Russian Federation will exploit to intimidate NATO members. Many of our NATO partners have been slow to accept the concept of territorial missile defense, and rest assured that they will be slower to fund the program. It is a certainty that if the language in the preamble survives, and this treaty is ratified, the Russians will mount a campaign to obstruct missile defense in Europe. There is no good argument for having voted against the McCain Amendment, which would have significantly improved this treaty.

The principal argument raised against the McCain amendment was that any amendment to the treaty would result in the State Department having to return to a negotiation with the Russian Federation. That may be true, or the amended treaty could be considered by the Russian Duma. In either case, the argument brings into question the Senate's role in providing advice and consent to ratification. If it is the position of the majority that the treaty cannot be amended, as the Senate was unable to amend so many other matters before us these last weeks of this session, why have any debate at all?

This leads us to the subject of verification--a second matter of serious concern. Although the Senate will meet today in closed session to discuss the flawed nature of the verification procedures envisioned by the New START treaty, the majority has filed cloture and stated that the treaty cannot be amended. The senior Senator from Missouri, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, has provided his views to the Senate on this matter, and I join him in his concerns.

Senator Bond has provided a classified assessment of the details related to verification and chances of Russian breakout of the treaty's warhead limits which is available for all Senators to review. To quote the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

I have reviewed the key intelligence on our ability to

monitor this treaty and heard from our intelligence

professionals. There is no doubt in my mind that the United

States cannot reliably verify the treaty's 1,550 limit on

deployed warheads.

I agree with the conclusion that the New START treaty central warhead limit of 1,550 cannot be conclusively verified. The New Start treaty allows the Russians to deploy missiles without a standard or uniform number of warheads. The limited number of warhead inspections provided for under this treaty also limits the access of our inspectors to an upper limit of three percent of the Russian force. It can thus be said that this treaty places higher confidence in trust than on verification.

Compounding these concerns is the history of Russian treaty violations. As the State Department's recent reports on arms control compliance make clear, the Russians have previously violated provisions of the START treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention.

This is a not a track record to be rewarded with greater trust. It is a reason to take our verification duties even more seriously.

Despite my opposition to this treaty, I hope the President remains committed to modernizing the nuclear triad. The war on terror has required an expansion of our nation's ground forces, the Marine Corps, the Army, and our Special Operations Forces, and our near-term readiness. As we continue the effort to dismantle, defeat and disrupt al-Qaida, we must also plan for the threats that our country will face in the coming decades.

We must invest not only in the delivery systems and platforms that will preserve our nuclear delivery capability, such as the next generation bomber, nuclear submarines and a new intercontinental ballistic missile, but also in the strike aircraft and naval forces required to control the Pacific rim as economic growth and the military capabilities of China increase.

Although the President has decided there is value in pursuing a disarmament agenda, this country may determine in the coming years to place a greater reliance upon the role of strategic arms, and we must remain committed to defense modernization. Our Nation faces many challenges in the coming decades, some economic, some strategic. It would seem short-sighted to think that as North Korea, Iran and others work to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities we could draw our arsenal down to zero.

So I will oppose this treaty. I thank the chairman and ranking members of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees for the service that they have provided the Senate in reviewing it. It is unfortunate that something as important as the Senate's consideration of a treaty like this one was truncated in order to meet another arbitrary deadline or the wish list of the liberal base. And it is deeply troubling to think that a legislative body charged with the solemn responsibility of advice and consent would be deprived of this role because it would inconvenience our negotiating partners.

As debate over this treaty has intensified over the past few days, these and other concerns have become increasingly apparent to a number of Senators and to the American people. We should wait until every one of them is addressed. Our top concern should be the safety and security of our Nation, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year. Americans have had more than enough of artificial timelines set by politicians eager for attention. They want us to focus on their concerns, not ours, and never more so than on matters of national security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we yield back our time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we will soon be voting on two consequential and contentious matters, the DREAM Act and repeal of the legislation concerning the Defense Department's don't ask, don't tell policy. As our ranking member on one of the two committees of jurisdiction recently made clear, the Democratic majority in the Senate is again depriving the American people of the right to have their concerns addressed through debate on amendments by depriving the minority of its right to offer amendments.

When Democrats were in the minority, my good friend, the majority leader, said: This is a ``very bad practice,''

and it ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' In fact, he suggested we should not shut off debate ``before any amendments had been offered.''

With back-to-back blockage of amendments on both the DREAM Act and legislation repealing don't ask, don't tell, the current majority has set a dubious record by denying the minority its right to amendment a total of 43 times. Let me say that again. The current majority has set a dubious record by denying the minority its right to offer amendments a total of 43 times.

To put that in perspective, in his 4 years as the majority leader, Senator Frist did this 15 times. The current Senate majority in the same amount of time has done it three times--three times--as often. In fact, the current majority has blocked the minority from offering amendments more often than the last six majority leaders combined. The current majority has blocked the minority from offering amendments more often than the last six majority leaders combined.

The danger of following this practice is underscored by the flawed process used on the very measures before us now. The DREAM Act the Senate will vote on today has never had a Senate hearing. In fact, it has not had any Senate committee action in 7 years. But, of course, this is a House bill, and the legislative record there is more sparse still. The House, similar to the Senate, has never had a legislative hearing on the DREAM Act, and it has never had a markup there either. Now the Senate majority is preventing their colleagues from addressing the concerns of the American people by shutting off the ability to offer any amendments on the floor.

So, in sum, there has never been an amendment offered to the DREAM Act at either the committee or floor stage in either House of Congress since President Bush's first term.

I guess our Democratic colleagues believe this bill is so perfect it doesn't need any amendments whatsoever--just a few last-minute rewrites during a lameduck session. I don't think that is what the American people believe.

In regard to the ill-conceived effort to repeal the military policy on don't ask, don't tell, the majority leader has insisted on pressing forward with this effort, despite the fact that the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee has established the need for additional hearings. The All-Volunteer Force has had many successes, but has this body become so alienated from the enlisted men and women in uniform that liberal interest groups have more influence over military personnel policy than the senior enlisted leaders of the Army and Marine Corps who were denied the opportunity to testify?

This repeal will be rushed through, despite the fact that it is concerning to those in Army combat arms units, and 58 percent of those in Marine Corps combat units believe repeal will be harmful to unit readiness. Should we ignore the volunteers charged with the most difficult missions in our military, combat with the enemy? I think not.

Democrats will deny the opportunity to amend the bill to require the service chiefs to certify that this repeal will not harm combat readiness, although they are responsible for training the force. Why would anyone oppose this change or even the opportunity to vote on this change?

This is harmful during a time of war and an irresponsible manner in which to change policies that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has actually stated could risk lives.

I am going to recommend to my colleagues to heed the advice of my friend from Nevada, which he gave a few years ago, and not vote to shut down the debate and amendment process for these bills, at least until the minority is allowed to offer, debate, and vote on a limited number of amendments, and the Senate is allowed to be the Senate once again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to report two pieces of good news out of Congress today. After 2 years of policies that lacked public support, the tide is beginning to turn.

Today the President will sign a bill that ensures no American--not a single one--gets a tax hike on January 1. Republicans have fought hard for this legislation. Up until last week, most Democrats resisted. But in the end the American people were heard. That is a welcome change from the last 2 years.

The American people have finally been heard on another matter as well. Yesterday, Republicans united against a 2,000-page, $1.2 trillion spending bill that Democrats were trying to ram through Congress in the final hours of this session. The goal of this bill was perfectly clear. Its purpose was to lock in for another year the same big government policies voters overwhelmingly rejected on November 2.

By approving this bill, we would have helped cement for another year massive increases in spending and helped pave the way for a health care bill most Americans are asking us to repeal.

Once those details became clear, it was imperative that we reject it.

The voters don't want us to wait to cut spending and debt and fight the health care bill next October--they want us to do these things immediately.

So I am proud of my conference for sticking together on these principles.

Here in these final days of the 111th Congress we have held the line on taxes.

We have held the line on spending.

Next, we turn to cutting spending and cutting debt.

The American people are seeing change here in Washington.

They can expect more in the New Year.

tribute to retiring senators

george lemieux

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a man who has made the most of a short tenure here in the Senate. Shortly after George LeMieux was sworn in last September he said that his goal was to get years of work done in 16 months. And I don't think there is any doubt the junior Senator from Florida made good on that promise.

In his short tenure, George has served the people of Florida with honor, integrity, and purpose. And while he may be leaving us soon, I am certain this will not be the last time we hear from this incredibly gifted man.

George grew up in Coral Springs, FL, or ``God's country'' as he refers to it. He went on to college at Emory, where he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. As an undergraduate, George interned for Congressman Clay Shaw and Senator Connie Mack. And then it was on to Georgetown for law school and then private practice back home in Florida.

George got his start in local politics as chairman of the Broward County Young Republicans. He then went on to make his own bid for the Florida State house in 1998, knocking on more than 10,000 doors in the heavily Democratic district he was hoping to represent.

Despite George's own campaign loss, he impressed a lot of Republicans and was elected chairman of Broward County Republican Party. In 2003, he was asked to serve as deputy attorney general. And George answered the call, leaving the law firm he was working in at the time. As deputy attorney general, George was responsible for a team of 400 lawyers. He also argued and won a death penalty case that earned a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

George would go on to serve as the chief of staff to Florida Governor Charlie Crist overseeing the Governor's legislative agenda, policy initiatives, and messaging.

After a year as chief of staff, George wanted to return home to his young family. ``I've got three little men at home,'' George said at the time, ``and a wife who's a saint.''

Despite the demands of work, George has always made sure not to lose sight of his first priorities. And we have all seen and been touched by the special pride he has for his wife Meike and their three boys Max, Taylor, and Chase, and their newborn daughter Madeleine.

After a couple of years of private practice, George got the call again to serve when Mel Martinez announced he was retiring from the Senate.

And from the moment he got here, he was determined to do the best job he could. He wasn't going to be a placeholder or a seat warmer, as he put it. Floridians expected vigorous and principled representation, and that is exactly what they got. At the time of his appointment, George may have been the youngest sitting Member of the Senate, but that didn't stop him from rolling up his sleeves and getting to work. He made an immediate impact by inserting himself into the health care debate as an eloquent and passionate opponent of greater government intervention and an enemy of waste, fraud, and abuse. And the first bill he introduced was the Prevent Health Care Fraud Act of 2009, which proposed a more aggressive approach to recovering the billions of dollars that are lost each year to health care waste, fraud, and abuse.

George has been deeply involved in efforts to raise awareness about the national debt and promoting free trade. He has been involved in Latin American and Cuban policy. And he was a leader on the gulf oilspill.

He has worked tirelessly to hold BP and the administration accountable fo the cleanup and the protection of Florida's beaches. He has been an outspoken critic of the bureaucratic red tape that kept more skimmers from cleaning up the Florida coast. And through his relentless efforts at exposing this lax response, he was able to get dozens of skimmers sent to the Florida coast for cleanup. As George put it at the time, ``We must ensure that BP does not abandon the hardworking families, businesses, and local communities devastated by the spill once the media leaves . . .'' After just a few months of on- the-job training as U.S. Senator, George had found his voice in the midst of the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history.

Upon arriving in this Chamber, George has always maintained a pro- business, anti-tax, and anti-waste voting record, which has made him the recipient of several awards. In August of this year, George was recognized as the ``Taxpayer Hero'' by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste for his work to expose and end wasteful government spending. The following month, George was honored the ``Guardian of Small Business'' by the National Federation of Independent Business, as well as the ``Tax Fighter'' award by the National Tax Limitation Committee.

While George's impressive tenure in this Chamber has been brief, we enjoyed getting to know him and working

with him to advance the best interests of Floridians and all Americans. He has been one of our sharpest and most passionate spokesmen on some of the most important issues we face. He is smart, capable, and willing to work hard. He should be proud of his service. I know I have been proud to call him a colleague and a friend.

We thank him for his impressive service to this Chamber, the people of Florida, and the Nation. And we wish him and his young family all the best in what I hope will be many years of success and happiness ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want the American people to see something. This is the bill the majority would have us pass, this Omnibus appropriations bill. It is 2,000 pages long. I think the American people should think back to this time a year ago--last December--when the Democrats did the very same thing. At that point, it was a 2,700-page health care bill because, frankly, they didn't want us to see what was in it. Only afterwards did we find out about the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' and all the rest.

This is eerily familiar to anyone who remembers the health care debate. We even have snow in the forecast, which is reminiscent of last year. Last year we voted on health care in a blizzard--the 2,700-page health care bill in the middle of a blizzard.

This bill is so enormous it took the Government Printing Office 2 days to print it. It spends more than $\1/2\ billion a page. Let's take a look at it again.

Here is the bill. It spends--right at 2,000 pages in this bill--it spends $\1/2\ billion a page. It has more than $\1/2\ billion in it for the Democratic health care bill we passed last year, the 2,700-page bill that looked pretty much like this. It has $\1/2\ billion in it for that health care bill we passed last year.

An ever-growing number of Americans looking at that health care bill would like for us to repeal it, not fund it. This is exactly the kind of thing the American people voted against last November--just this kind of thing. We had a referendum on November 2 on how the American people felt about what we have been doing for the last 2 years, and right at the top of the list was the 2,700-page health care bill.

Frankly, it is just unbelievable. Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don't want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this 2,000-page bill. They want to ram this gigantic, trillion-dollar bill through Congress, and they are using, once again, the Christmas break as an inducement to vote for it.

Look, we all know this is not the way to legislate. Americans expect more from Congress and they demanded more on election day. That is why today I am introducing this clean, one-page continuing resolution that would operate the government through February 18. So we have a choice. We can pass this 2,000-page bill spending $\1/2\ billion a page, or we can do this one-page, clean continuing resolution through February 18 of next year. That is the choice we have.

Once the new Congress is sworn in, we will have a chance to pass a less expensive bill, free of this kind of wasteful spending. Until then, we need to take a step back and respect the will of the voters.

I think the message was pretty clear last November. One pundit referred to it as a restraining order. In other words: Quit doing what you have been doing. Here we are 1 month after the election attempting to pass this 2,000-page bill when we could pass a one-pager that would simply continue the government through February 18.

So we are going to have an opportunity to do this. I hope it makes sense on a bipartisan basis, this one-page continuing resolution until February 18, as an alternative to this 2,000-page monstrosity that spends $\1/2\ billion a page. I don't think there is any question it is the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues decide in the end that is the direction we ought to take. I am going to introduce this, and I just wanted to highlight it for my colleagues.

Tributes to Retiring Senators