Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate's deliberation of the New START treaty and the treaty's implications for our friends and allies in Eastern and Central Europe and, more importantly, the national security of the United States.

On November 17, I came to the Senate floor to discuss my concerns about the treaty and the President's reset policy. Following my remarks, I received a significant amount of feedback--some positive, some critical--and throughout my deliberations on the treaty, my intention was to contribute to advancing this important debate in a meaningful way.

First, I wish to make it clear I remain concerned about the direction of Russia in terms of its commitment to human rights and an effort to reassert its influence over what Russia considers Eastern and Central Europe, their sphere of influence--those countries I often describe as the captive nations. One cannot ignore the statement of Vladimir Putin when he described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

Two years ago, after listening to Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the German Marshall Fund Forum in Brussels, I concluded that Russia's internal political dynamic suggested that its people were deeply concerned by the growth in U.S. influence through NATO expansion and incursion into their part of the world. The Russian people, it seems, believed there was a post-Cold War promise, once the Iron Curtain came down, to not interfere in the region.

As one of the leaders in helping the captive nations movement and to this day regretting the way our brothers and sisters in these countries were treated during the postwar conferences at Yalta and Tehran--I must say I never thought the wall would come down or their curtain torn, but once it did, I did everything I could to ensure these newly democratized countries were invited to join NATO. In 1998, as chairman of the National Governors Association, I worked to get a resolution passed encouraging the United States to invite Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to join the alliance.

One of the proudest moments as a Senator was when I joined President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Myers at the NATO summit in Prague on November 21, 2002. I was in the room when NATO Secretary General Lord Robinson officially announced the decision to invite Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia into NATO. I mention all of this history for a simple reason. I don't think there is a Member of the Senate more wary of the intentions of Russia toward the former captive nations than I.

So it brings me back to the subject of the treaty now pending before the Senate. I take the Senate's constitutional advice and consent duties very seriously. Since the treaty was signed in April, I have attended numerous meetings and classified briefings on the treaty. I suspect I have spent at least 10 to 12 hours on it. Since I last spoke on this floor about the treaty in November, I have held additional consultations with a number of former Cabinet Secretaries, ambassadors, and experts from the intelligence community, including former Secretaries of State Albright, Powell, and Rice, seeking their views about the treaty's effect on our bilateral relationship with Russia, as well as our relationship with our Eastern and Central European allies. While some of those I met with had concerns about specific technical aspects of the treaty, I continually heard that we should ratify the treaty.

I believe it is noteworthy that five former Republican Secretaries of State, including Kissinger, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger, and Powell, in a December 2, 2010 Washington Post opinion piece urged the Senate:

. . . to ratify the New START Treaty signed by President

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It is a modest

and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that

expired almost a year ago.

These former Republican Secretaries of State described some of the outstanding issues with the treaty, but describe convincingly, in my opinion, why ultimately it is in our national interest to ratify the treaty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed piece from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I believe many of these experts remain concerned, as do I, that a failure to ratify the treaty would be exploited by those factions in Russia who wish to revert back to our Cold War posture. Such a failure could easily be used by those factions to play on Russian nationalism, which I fear, from what I have heard from some people, is bordering on paranoia. Since I last spoke about the treaty, a number of our new NATO allies have come out and supported the treaty because they believe the treaty's approval should help advance other issues related to Russia, including the lack of compliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, tactical nuclear weapons, and cooperation on missile defense.

For example, during his recent visit to Washington, Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski has stated he supports the treaty's ratification. And at a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO Lisbon Summit, Hungarian Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi stated:

My country has a very special experience with Russia, and

also a special geographic location . . . We advocate

ratification of START. It is in the interest of my nation, of

Europe and most importantly for the transatlantic alliance.

During this press conference, Lithuania's Foreign Minister pointed out that he saw the treaty as a prologue to additional discussions with Russia about other forms of nuclear arms in the region such as tactical nuclear weapons. About three weeks ago, I received a call from President Zatlers, the President of Latvia, urging me: Mr. Senator, please ratify the START treaty.

Still, as history has taught us, the United States must make clear in regard to our relationship with Russia that it will not be at the expense of our NATO allies. Thus, I was pleased to see President Obama provided the leaders of our Central and European allies public reassurance regarding the U.S. commitment to article V of the North Atlantic Treaty during the recent NATO summit in Lisbon which, by the way, was one of the best NATO summits I think that has been held in the last dozen years. The President reaffirmed this commitment in his December 18, 2010 letter to the majority and minority leaders, and I hope that letter from the President has been circulated among my colleagues. It is very clear on where the President stands.

This NATO Summit meeting in Lisbon last month underscore,

we are proceeding with a missile defense system in Europe

designed to provide full coverage for NATO members on the

continent, as well as deployed U.S. forces, against the

growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic

missiles.

I know that some of my colleagues are concerned with issues related to the treaty, including the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure, missile defense, and verification, and I will discuss each of these issues to explain why I believe they have been adequately addressed.

First of all, as others have pointed out--and I reiterate--Senator Kyl has made a valiant effort to ensure we modernize the U.S. nuclear infrastructure. I have worked with Senator Kyl on reviewing the treaty. I believe his hard work has led to nuclear modernization receiving the attention it deserves. It is long overdue. I remember Pete Domenici talking about the fact that we needed to do something about it and, frankly, we ignored Senator Domenici.

In a December 1, 2010, letter to Senators Kerry and Lugar, the National Lab Directors from Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia stated:

We are very pleased by the update to the Section 1251

report, as it would enable the laboratories to execute our

requirements for ensuring a safe, secure, reliable, and

effective stockpile under the Stockpile Stewardship and

Management Plan.

I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a number of experts I have consulted with have pointed out--and I have agreed with--the need for the President to provide public assurances regarding the U.S. commitment to a robust missile defense system. So I was pleased with the President's letter to our leadership reiterating such support. Here I quote directly from the President's letter:

Pursuant to the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, it

has long been the policy of the United States to deploy as

soon as is technologically possible an effective National

Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of

the United States against limited ballistic missile attack,

whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate.

With regard to the Russian assertion--and we have heard this--that the treaty's preamble prohibits the buildup in missile defense capabilities, the President has stated in very clear language that the ``United States did not and does not agree with the Russian statement. We believe the continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems, including qualitative and quantitative improvements to such systems, do not and will not threaten the strategic balance with the Russian Federation. . . . we believe the continued improvement and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems do not constitute a basis for questioning the effectiveness and the viability of the New START Treaty, and therefore would not give rise to circumstances justifying Russia's withdrawal from the Treaty.''

Mr. President, as I have discussed, I know many of my colleagues have concerns about the treaty. But after my own research and consultations with current and former Secretaries of State and numerous foreign policy experts, including many conservative experts, as well as yesterday's 3-hour closed session in the Old Senate Chamber, I support this treaty and do not believe the concerns that we have heard from some of our colleagues rise to the level at which the Senate should reject the treaty.

The President signed the treaty in April. It is now December, and we are coming up on 1 full year without any verification regime in place. I believe we should work to get this treaty done because these verification procedures are needed now. I am not the only one who believes this. I recently received a letter from Bulgaria's Ambassador to the United States, Elena Poptodorova. I have known her a long time and worked with her to get Bulgaria into NATO. She wrote:

A failure to swiftly ratify the treaty would mean

discontinuation of the verification regime that could result

in negative consequences in the nuclear disarmament,

especially taking into consideration the significant

strategic nuclear advantage of Russia.

In my view, it will also put at risk the future cooperation

with Russia and will impede the negotiations on priorities,

such as conventional forces and tactical nuclear weapons in

Europe. It is of utmost importance that Russia be kept at the

negotiating table beyond the scope of the New START Treaty,

in particular on issues like Iran, Afghanistan and other

global security challenges.

I ask unanimous consent that her letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I also bring to my colleagues' attention a July 14, 2010, letter to Senators Levin, Kerry, McCain, and Lugar, from former commanders of the Strategic Air Command and U.S. Strategic Command. Again, I hope my colleagues will read that letter. They list three reasons for support of the treaty. I quote from their second and third reasons:

The New START Treaty contains verification and transparency

measures--such as data exchanges, periodic dated updates,

notification, unique identifiers on strategic systems, some

access to telemetry and onsite inspections--that will give us

important insights into Russian strategic nuclear forces and

how they operate those forces.

We will understand Russian strategic nuclear forces much

better with the treaty that would be the case without it.

These former military commanders go on to state that the U.S. nuclear armaments--again, I think this is for all of us as American people to realize--``will continue to be a formidable force that will ensure deterrence and give the President, should it be necessary, a broad range of military options.''

I ask unanimous consent that letter sent to the Foreign Relations Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a September 7, 2010, opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State George Shultz, who served under President Reagan. I think all of us who are familiar with George Shultz's record have high respect and regard for him.

In his piece, the Secretary discusses the importance of verification and closes with this thought:

The original START Treaty expired last December. The time

has come to start seeing again, with penetrating eyes, and to

start learning from the new experience.

In other words, the provisions in terms of verification are new compared to the old START treaty.

Finally, I ask my colleagues to take note of Secretary Rice's statement that ``the treaty helpfully reinstates onsite verification of Russian nuclear forces, which lapsed with the expiration of the original START treaty last year. Meaningful verification was a significant achievement of Presidents

Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and its reinstatement is crucial.''

I ask unanimous consent that her article in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in my opinion, the jury has returned its verdict, and the overwhelming evidence is that the Senate should ratify the treaty. Support for the treaty should not be viewed through the lens of being liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, but rather what is in the best interest of our national security, the best interest of the United States of America, the best interest of our relationships with those countries who share our values and understand that nuclear proliferation is the greatest international threat to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this treaty. I am prayerful that we have a good vote for it to demonstrate that we have come together on a bipartisan basis to do something that needs to be done, and something that liberals, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, can come together on to make a difference for the future.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Sure.

Mr. President, I rise today to say farewell to the Senate after 12 years. I would like to take time to convey my heartfelt thanks to all of those who have helped me during my time in the Senate and to reflect briefly on the work we were able to get done, work that I think made a difference for the people of my State and our Nation.

I also will share a few observations with my colleagues, both those who are staying as the 112th, as well as Senators yet to come. At this stage in my life, I look back on my 44 years in public service and I cannot help but thank God for the immeasurable blessings he has bestowed upon me. Each time I walk the steps of the Senate, I look up at the Statue of Freedom on the top of our Capitol dome, and I think of my grandparents who came to America with nothing but the clothes on their back. They could not read or write and spoke only a few words of English.

I have to pinch myself as a reminder that this has not been just a wonderful dream. The grandson of Serbian and Slovenian immigrants who grew up on the east side of Cleveland is a U.S. Senator. Only in America.

Truly none of us should take for granted the economic and political freedoms we have. My dad used to say the reason we have more of the world's bounty is because we get more out of our people because of our free enterprise and educational systems. Mr. Gudikuntz, my social studies teacher, said: A democracy is where everyone has an equal opportunity to become unequal.

So during my final days in the Senate, I think of the people in my life who have gotten me up the steps to this hallowed Chamber: My wife of 48 years Janet is God's greatest blessing to me. She has never pulled or pushed me, but she has always been at my side; my three children on Earth, George, Betsy and Peter, and my angel in Heaven, Molly, and my eight grandchildren, my siblings and their extended families. It is not easy to have a father, brother, or uncle in this business. The people of Ohio who have facilitated my election to seven different offices, who have stuck with me even though on occasion they have not agreed with me, have my deep appreciation. I can never thank them enough. I hope they know that every decision I have made and every policy I have crafted, although not always the easiest or most popular at the time, was aimed to improve and make a positive difference in our lives. I am very humbled to have been given the privilege to serve them through the years.

Here in the Senate, my wonderful staff, both in Ohio and in Washington, I am so proud of what they have done for me and the people of Ohio. I take fatherly pride in having had the chance to touch their lives and see them grow. I also think of our colleagues in the other Senate offices who have helped and cooperated with them as we worked together to solve our Nation's problems, meet challenges, and seize opportunities. My colleagues and I should be most humble; for all we are is a reflection of these wonderful, loyal, hard-working individuals.

I also thank all of you in this Chamber for your courtesies you have extended to me. I miss my first 2 years when I presided over the Senate, the first one to get to 100 hours in the chair. It was a wonderful time, and thank you all for what you have done for me over the years.

The folks in the Attending Physician's Office have taken care of me physically. Our two great Chaplains, Lloyd Ogilvie and Barry Black, along with the wonderful priests at St. Joseph's on the Hill have helped me grow spiritually. I have to mention Jim Inhofe, hosting our Bible study each

week. He honored me by inviting me to a codel to Africa this year. There is no one in this Senate who has done more for public diplomacy for the United States in Africa than Jim Inhofe.

I have learned in my life that you cannot do anything alone. So, of course, I think of my colleagues in the Senate whom I have learned to know and respect. I have been blessed to call them friends. The American people have made it clear that they are not happy with partisanship in Washington. But the fact is, there are some great partnerships here, and those partnerships and relationships result in action.

I do not think many people outside Washington understand that a lot gets done here on a bipartisan basis. Many Americans think the only action in the Senate is on the floor of the Senate. But much of the action in the Senate is in the committees and meetings with other Members off the floor, as well as through unanimous consent.

Once a bill gets through committee, perhaps one or two people might have a problem with it, but we work it out, call them, go see them, it gets done. But it is never reported in the paper about how we are working together on so many pieces of legislation.

I am proud of the contribution I have made to the country in the area of human capital and government management. The fact is, though, without my brother, Dan Akaka--and he is my brother--the changes never would have occurred. There is nobody who has done more to reform the way we treat our Federal workers, to make us more competitive and work harder and smarter and do more with less than what Dan and I have tried to do over the years, 12 years of working at it. It is an area that is neglected by most legislators because they do not appreciate how important the people are that work in government. I call them the A- Team. Any successful organization has to have good finances and good people.

I am also proud of my work in helping to relaunch the nuclear renaissance, which will help deliver baseload energy for America, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and reignite our manufacturing base in Ohio and in our country. I could not have done this without Senator Tom Carper, who has been both a friend and a colleague since our days as Governor. Tom's leadership was key to organizing our recent successful Nuclear Summit in Washington, and Tom has taken the baton from me and will carry nuclear energy to the finish line as part of the future of America's energy supply, along with Mike Crapo, Jim Risch, Lamar Alexander, and others.

I also recall the passage of the landmark PRO-IP bill, a bill to protect our intellectual property, by the way, the last bastion of our global competitiveness. It was a multiyear process that would not have succeeded without the work of the business community and my friend, Evan Bayh, whom I first met when we were Governors of neighboring States.

As many of you know, I have been an ardent champion for my brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia. As such, I am proud to have led the effort to expand NATO and increase membership in the Visa Waiver Program. These two accomplishments would not have happened without the bipartisan leadership of Dick Lugar and Joe Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the help of Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

I pray that the bipartisanship that I have witnessed and enjoyed in both foreign relations and homeland security will continue. I must also acknowledge Senator Jeanne Shaheen for her keen interest in southeast Europe. We traveled together to the region in February of this year, and I am heartened that she has picked up the mantle on our mission to ensure the door of NATO and European Union membership remains open to all states in the Western Balkans, which is key, I believe, to our national security.

I have also championed the cause of monitoring and combatting anti- Semitism, making it a priority within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and our State Department. The progress that has been made over the years could not have happened without the leadership of Senator Ben Cardin, Congressman Chris Smith, and the late Congressman Tom Lantos.

One of the highlights of my career was the passage of the global anti-Semitism bill, which created a special envoy at the State Department to monitor and combat global anti-Semitism. These are just a few examples of great bipartisan work going on in the Senate. But much of the time this is blurred because of the media's addiction to conflict.

Even though I do not agree with the bipartisan resolution on extending the Bush tax cuts, I compliment the President and leaders in Congress for sitting down and working together to find a compromise.

One of my frustrations after working so hard to find common ground on significant issues over the past 12 years has been that it does not happen often enough. The American people know that even when members of a family get along, it is difficult to get things done. So they most certainly know that when we are laser focused on fighting politicking and messaging, their concerns and plight are forgotten, and nothing controversial gets done.

There is a growing frustration that Congress is oblivious to their problems, anxieties, and fears. Frankly, I think one action leaders could take at the beginning of each Congress is to assess the issues at hand. What are the items that Republicans and Democrats agree should get done to make our Nation more competitive and make a difference in people's lives, and set a common agenda. By setting collective goals, by an agreement from leadership, I believe that will set the environment for committee chairmen and ranking members for the year.

Think about it. What kind of planning do we do? Most successful corporations have 5-year plans: Where are we going? What are our priorities? What are the things we agree upon? Let's not spend time on those things where we disagree.

Additionally, an unacceptable amount of time is spent on fundraising. It is my estimate that 20 to 25 percent of a Senator's time is spent on raising millions of dollars, and with it comes the negative fallout in terms of the public view of Congress, bowing to contributions from special interests. In addition to this negative impression, the time spent raising money too often interferes with the time we need for our families, our colleagues, and, most importantly, doing the job the people elected us to do. My last 2 years have been my most productive and enjoyable because I have not had to chase money at home and around the country. None of us like it, but nothing seems to get done about it--nothing seems to get done about it.

Ideological differences aside, it is necessary for us to have good working relationships if we are going to get anything done for the people who elected us. I know it is possible from my personal experience. As mayor of Cleveland, I worked side by side with George Forbes, the most powerful Democratic city councilman in Cleveland's history. My entire city council was Democrats. George and I first met when our children attended the Mayor Works Program in the Cleveland Public Schools System. Who would have guessed that we would become the tag team that turned Cleveland around after it became the first major city to go into bankruptcy?

I was pummeled by the media on occasion in regard to who was actually running city hall. My answer was, both of us. Forbes and I worked together as friends and partners. One of the great satisfactions when I left the job of mayor was that USA Today highlighted both of us: The tall African-American Democrat, Big George, and the short White Republican, Little George, working together to bring about Cleveland's renaissance.

In Columbus, I found a worthy adversary when I was Governor in Democrat Vern Riffe, who was speaker of the house for my first 4 years as Ohio Governor. My office was on the 30th floor of the building named after Riffe while he was still alive and serving an unprecedented 22 years as speaker.

Well, every day when I went over to the Riffe Tower, I had to genuflect before his bust. But, somehow, Vern and I decided we were going to figure out how we could work together and move Ohio forward and become good friends.

Needless to say, folks, I was dismayed when I learned this year that President Obama had held only a single one-on-one meeting with Mitch McConnell. One meeting. When I was Governor, I met with Vern Riffe and Stan Aranoff, who was president of the senate, every 2 weeks, developing good interpersonal relationships and a trust which allowed us to move Ohio forward, from the Rust Belt to the Jobs Belt.

I am hoping we have entered a new era in the relationship between the President and leadership in Congress. Our situation today is more critical--more critical--than at any time in my 44 years in government. How we work together will determine the future of our country. We must also recognize that if we diminish the President in the eyes of the world, it is to the detriment of our Nation's international influence and will impact our national security. We are on thin ice, and we need the help of our allies. They need our help as well.

For example, the START treaty. Although I have had some reservations about it, they have been satisfied. It is vitally important to get done this year or, alternatively, we must make it clear the Senate will ratify the treaty as soon as the 112th Congress convenes. To not do so will do irreparable harm to America's standing with our NATO allies and would be exploited by our enemies, particularly those factions in Russia that would like to break off communication and revert back to our Cold War relationship. There are plenty of them over there still smarting from the fact that the wall went down, NATO expanded, and we encroached on their area of influence.

Two weeks ago Janet and I attended a farewell dinner hosted by Mitch McConnell. Although I have had differences with Mitch, I have to credit him with keeping the Republican team together. There is no one more strategic than Mitch, Jon Kyl, and Lamar Alexander. Still, I share the concern of many of my colleagues that too often the herd mentality has taken over our respective conferences. At the dinner Mitch hosted, I shared with my Republican colleagues what Ohio State University coach Jim Tressel defines as success in his book ``The Winners Manual.''

Success is the inner satisfaction and peace of mind that

come from knowing I did the best I was capable of doing for

the group.

Success is a team sport. Hopefully, this will become the Senate's definition of success, because finding common ground and teamwork is what it will take to confront the problems facing our Nation.

My colleague Senator Chris Dodd hit the nail on the head when he said:

It is whether each one of the 100 Senators can work

together--living up to the incredible honor that comes with

the title, and the awesome responsibility that comes with the

office.

We do have a symbiotic relationship, and I am encouraged that more and more of my colleagues understand that. I was quite impressed with the fact that 60 percent of the Senate representation on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform supported the recommendations of the chairmen, including Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo, Judd Gregg, Kent Conrad, and Dick Durbin. As far as I am concerned, they are true patriots.

As our colleague Tom Coburn said just before the commission vote:

The time for action is now. We can't afford to wait until

the next election to begin this process. Long before the

skyrocketing cost of entitlements cause our national debt to

triple and tax rates to double, our economy may collapse

under the weight of this burden. We are already near a

precipice. In the near future, we could experience a collapse

in the value of our dollar, hyperinflation or other

consequences that would force Congress to face a set of

choices far more painful than those proposed in this plan.

Here we are, in a situation where we are on an unsustainable fiscal course caused by explosive and unchecked growth in spending and entitlement obligations without funding. We have an outdated Tax Code that does not sufficiently encourage savings and economic growth, a skyrocketing national debt that puts our credit rating in serious jeopardy and should give all of us great pause.

For Fareed Zakaria posed questions that should haunt all of us in Monday's Washington Post.

So when will we get serious about our fiscal mess? In 2020

or 2030, when the needed spending cuts and tax hikes get much

larger? If we cannot inflict a little pain now, who will

impose a lot of pain later? Does anyone believe that

Washington will one day develop the political courage it now

lacks? And what if, while we are getting around to doing

something, countries get nervous about lending us money and

our interest rates rise?

I believe the American people get it. They recognize that our fiscal situation is in the intensive care unit on life support.

As I walk down the steps of the U.S. Capitol for the last time, I pray the Holy Spirit will inspire my colleagues to make the right decision for our country's future and work together to tackle our fiscal crisis. You have the future of our Nation and the future of our children and grandchildren in your hands.

I have already spoken too long. If my wife Janet were here, she would be scratching her head. That is the signal she always gives me. I got your signal, dear.

But I would like to finish with a reading from ``One Quiet Moment,'' a book of daily readings from the former Senate Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie which I read every day for inspiration and proper perspective. Perhaps some of my colleagues are familiar with his writings. This was his election day admonition:

. . . May the immense responsibilities they assume, and the

vows they make when sworn into office, bring them to their

knees with profound humility and unprecedented openness to

You. Save them from the seduction of power, the addiction of

popularity, and the aggrandizement of pride. Lord, keep their

priorities straight: You and their families first; the good

of the Nation second; consensus around truth third; party

loyalties fourth; and personal success last of all. May they

never forget they have been elected to serve and not to be

served.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to express my appreciation to the minority leader and the minority whip for all of the courtesies they have extended to me over the last number of years. One of the things, Mitch, I have enjoyed doing is getting to know you and Elaine. I watched you become the leader. I think you have done an outstanding job of keeping your team together. I appreciate your willingness to answer all of my telephone calls. Senator Kyl, the same with you. I can't tell you how much I appreciated that, that we were able to keep an open dialogue on many of the issues in front of the United States of America.

I wish to applaud the minority leader for reaching out to the President. As you know, I don't agree with the compromise on the tax situation, but I think it is something that is important for the future of our country. I have always found that when leaders get together and spend time thinking about those things that bring them together rather than those things that divide them, the people of the State and the Nation benefit from it.

So, again, thank you very much for your kindness to me over the years, both of you.

Madam President, since I joined the Senate almost 12 years ago, I have worked to ensure that Congress deals with our country's unsustainable national debt and budgets that are not balanced as far as the eye can see; to do this, we must undertake tax, entitlement and spending reform. As most of my colleagues know, since 2006, I worked conscientiously to create a commission that would undertake this task. My partner in the House was Congressman Frank Wolf, and we introduced legislation we called Saving America's Future Economy, SAFE, which got 118 House co-sponsors. In the 111th Congress, Joe Lieberman and I introduced the Senate bill and were gathering co- sponsors, then later combined our efforts with Senators Conrad and Gregg, chair and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, to introduce a similar debt and deficit commission bill, which eventually did receive a vote in the Senate.

The Conrad-Gregg bill stipulated that if its commission's recommendations were supported by 14 of its 18 members, it would be fast-tracked for an up-or-down vote in both the House and Senate. One of my biggest disappointments in the Senate is that the Conrad-Gregg bill failed. I believe the reasons for that failure are already known by my colleagues, so I won't revisit that vote. And in any event, as I look back, even if it had passed the Senate, I am not so sure it would have passed the House because many in the Democratic leadership opposed it. Thankfully, sometimes there is good that blows in an ill-wind, and the President created his own debt commission by Executive Order with promises from Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid that they would allow a vote in Congress if 14 of the 18 commissioners supported this commission's recommendations.

As you know, the President's commission, chaired by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, recently released its final report. I am supportive of the commission's proposal, understanding that there would have been a tremendous amount of negotiation if the report they released had been adopted and sent to Congress.

I am encouraged by the fact that 11 of 18 panelists endorsed the report, including my Senate colleagues Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo, Judd Gregg, Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin. As far as I am concerned, they and the other commission members who voted in favor of the proposal are true patriots who had the courage to do what is right for our country, and for the future of our children and grandchildren.

As my colleague Tom Coburn said just before the commission's vote, ``The time for action is now. We can't afford to wait until the next election to begin this process. Long before the skyrocketing cost of entitlements cause our national debt to triple and tax rates to double, our economy may collapse under the weight of this burden. We are already near a precipice. In the near future, we could experience a collapse in the value of the dollar, hyperinflation or other consequences that would force Congress to face a set of choices far more painful than those proposed in this plan.'' Fast-tracking the commission's proposal for a vote during this lame-duck session would have shown Americans and the world that the Federal Government is, in fact, deeply concerned about the direction we are headed and is not oblivious.

The thing that is of grave concern to me is that in spite of the commission's hard work, it may be for naught. I think back to the Mack- Breaux Tax Overhaul Commission that President Bush created at my urging. I was pleased to see that many of their recommendations were incorporated by the President's current commission, and I urge my colleagues to look at the executive summary of the Mack-Breaux commission that was given to President Bush in 2005.

Frankly, I thought President Bush would review, tweak, and then send the Mack-Breaux recommendations to Congress. Unfortunately--and I have a great deal of respect for our former President--Congress never received a Presidential tax reform package for its consideration. I am anxious to read his book to see if he explains why he didn't do so. It was a missed opportunity for his administration, but more importantly it was a missed opportunity for the country. In my opinion, we would not be in the predicament we find ourselves in now had we addressed these issues in 2005 or 2006.

And so, here we are in a situation where we are on an unsustainable fiscal course caused by explosive and unchecked growth in spending and entitlement obligations without adequate funding. We have got an outdated tax code that does not sufficiently encourage saving and economic growth, and a skyrocketing national debt that puts our credit- rating in serious jeopardy and should give all of us great pause.

I believe that the American people get it. They recognize that our fiscal situation is in the intensive care unit--on life support.

When speaking, I always ask the audience two questions: First, ``Is your standard of living better than that of your parents?'' They answer yes. The second is, ``Do you believe your children's standard of living will be better than yours?'' The overwhelming answer is no. Sometimes, I also ask whether they think they will see their Social Security when they retire. Almost no one raises their hand, unless they have grey hair like me.

In all of my 74 years I have never seen such fear, uncertainty, and concern about the future. I would also point out that it is not only the American people who think we are oblivious to the looming fiscal crisis; just ask the Europeans, the Chinese, and others

around the globe who fund our spending addiction. Many Americans don't realize that foreign governments hold nearly 50 percent of our public debt, and we are going to ask them to keep on purchasing more. Moreover, many have failed to realize just how bad this spending addiction has gotten. I remember speaking at the Brussels Forum last year, and the Europeans were asking us for more money for NATO. When I pointed out to them that we were borrowing 41 cents for every dollar we spend, a hush fell over the room.

It is time for us to do what needs to be done to fix our country's looming fiscal crisis. So I would like to say to my colleagues that when we vote on the Obama bipartisan tax fix, my vote will be NO. I'm not for any of the compromises. I am not for borrowing another $800 billion dollars from China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries. To the contrary, I agree with David Walker, former Comptroller of the GAO and former President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, who said, ``This `deal' is not reasonable from an economic, fiscal and social equity perspective. The compromise evidently was `you give me my tax- cut extensions and more tax cuts, and I'll give you your spending increases.' The result is a bigger bill for our kids, grandkids and future generations of Americans. It's time for Washington to wake up and start dealing with our structural deficits.'' Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, had even stronger words: ``This feels more than a bit surreal. On the heels of the work of the White House Fiscal Commission last week on how to get control of the national debt, the White House and Members of Congress choose to engage in a negotiation that involves adding increasingly larger amounts to the debt? It's utterly exasperating.''

Madam President, I feel the exact same way. It's time to stop kicking the can down the road and let these tax provisions expire and, as a result, force Congress and the President to make the tough choices about not only these taxes, but the entire tax and entitlement crisis facing our country. Perhaps then we would have enough anger from our constituents that we would act to reform a tax system that is far too complicated and does not encourage the growth we need. I would like to remind my colleagues that since 1986, there have been over 15,000 changes to the Internal Revenue Code and it costs all of us $240 billion each year to prepare our tax returns. Think of it. If we could simplify the code and make it cheaper to comply even by 50 percent each year, we would save the American taxpayers $120 billion.

If these expiring cuts are not extended, you can count on it that everyone will take an interest in seeing that we finally deal with a broken tax and entitlement system. Then, perhaps, we will finally get the reforms that will get the floundering ship that is our country back on even keel. It will restore people's faith in the future of America as well as give comfort to the rest of the world--especially our creditors--that we are on the path to fiscal responsibility. It's time for us to face up to what needs to be done.

I will not, after working my butt off from the day I got here to address a broken tax and entitlement system, have one of my final votes as a U.S. Senator be to kick the can down the road by extending these tax provisions and assuming that our fiscal ills will be taken care of next year. Because, you know what, if the history of our recent Congress is any indication of what will happen, nothing will get done.

Just a few weeks ago, when the President's commission released its report, we started to gain momentum towards these long-overdue reforms. We need to take advantage of that momentum. I feel like we are coming to the last mile in a marathon, and rather than push through to the end, we are about to turn around and go back.

My 45-year experience in government has been that in the absence of a crisis, the tough, but necessary, measures that need to be taken are not taken. If the tax cuts and other provisions expire, you can count on it that everyone will take an interest in seeing that we finally all come to the table to work to address these fundamental issues. It will restore people's faith in the future of America as well as give comfort that we, our country's leaders, understand the need to put our country on a path to fiscal responsibility.

I have a modest proposal. The President should reconvene the same group of individuals that worked on the Bowles-Simpson commission and insist that they continue their dialogue and put a package together that the President can submit to the 112th Congress as soon as possible.

By the way, where is the President's leadership? The New York Times reported that the Obama administration is considering comprehensive reforms, but other reports indicate that, once again, it's more talk without action because no working groups are in the works, no Executive-Congressional meetings have been scheduled. The President needs to get his key folks back to the table with Congress to see if they can't come up with some sort of compromise based on the best commonsense, reasonable, and fiscally responsible proposals that we've heard from his Commission.

And so, to my friends that will remain in the Senate for the 112th Congress, and to those that will be new to this body, God bless you. You have the future of our Nation and the future of my children and grandchildren in your hands.

During my time in office, I have tried my best. I have tried my very best. I am pleased with some of the progress that we've made, but believe-you-me, for someone who's been in government service for 45 years, as I have already said, nothing happens unless you have a crisis. So that's what we need. A crisis that says now is the time to deal with tax and entitlement reform; now is the time to deal with budget reform; now is the time to curb our spending addiction and growing national debt; now is the time to balance our budgets.

Madam President, I pray that the Holy Spirit will inspire my colleagues to make the right decisions for our country's future. I pray that the results between now and the end of the year will not be another ``kick the can down the road-we'll take care of it later,'' scenario. Madam President, my time in public office has run out, and from my perspective, so has the country's. Our national debt is one of the most important problems we face. Our failure to begin to address this fiscal crisis now will damage our economy, our national and domestic security, and the kind of future we leave to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, I wish to honor an outstanding Serbian-American, Captain (Ret.) George M. Vujnovich, who was recently awarded the Bronze Star Medal, for his heroic actions during World War

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the moratorium on earmarks that has been proposed by many of my colleagues.

We have done a lot of crusading around here against these so-called earmarks, or congressionally directed spending items, in our appropriations bills. They are often criticized by Members of Congress when discussing the unsustainable fiscal path of the Federal Government or its irresponsible overspending of taxpayers' dollars.

But my colleagues who oppose the use of earmarks miss the point. Earmarks, whether good or bad, are not the problem with our government. According to data from the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office, in fiscal year 2010 earmarks accounted for 0.009 percent of the Federal budget. That is nine one-thousandths of 1 percent. Total earmarks amounted to $32 billion, while the entire Federal budget was over $3.5 trillion. And by the way, I would like to point out that the President-himself requested $22 billion in earmarks.

But the biggest threat we face as a nation is not a special request for this or that project. The biggest threat we face is an unsustainable fiscal course caused by explosive and unchecked growth in entitlement spending and no money to pay for it. We have got an outdated tax code that does not sufficiently encourage economic growth, and a skyrocketing national debt that puts our credit-rating is serious jeopardy. In fiscal year 2010, entitlement spending accounted for 55 percent of the budget, compared with the 0.009 percent for earmarks I just referred to.

Now, I will say that I do agree with much of the criticism expressed in this chamber over bad earmarks. I don't support wasteful use of any taxpayer money, especially for egregiously useless projects that my colleagues often highlight as examples of why we should eliminate earmarks altogether.

But why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Certainly there is both

good and bad government spending. I support the kind of government spending that facilitates activity that is helpful to my State of Ohio and to our national economy: transportation and infrastructure, for example. And I am perfectly willing to defend that kind of spending and let the public decide whether my decision to help build roads and bridges in Ohio is an outrageous--or a proper--function of Federal Government. The Senate appropriations earmark process is transparent, and I welcome the public review of the projects I support, which I find constructive especially for hard-working, economically challenged families in Ohio.

The truth is Congress has a constitutional obligation to determine how the Nation spends its money. Banning earmarks cedes this power to unelected Federal bureaucrats in the administration. Congress should not be criticized for spending money, but only for spending it wastefully or irresponsibly, be it through earmarks or other spending. But the media loves to single out earmarks; they are hoodwinking people into thinking that by cracking down on earmarks, Congress is doing something responsible to solve this looming fiscal crisis staring us in the face. It's a disingenuous approach. And Congress is fooling the public by pretending that earmarks are the problem, when the real issues are spending and tax and entitlement reform.

It is interesting to note that many of my colleagues who are so strongly opposed to earmarks voted against the Conrad-Gregg fiscal commission that could very well have forced Congress to act upon tax and entitlement reform recommendations. How could one be so outspoken against earmarks in the name of fiscal responsibility and then oppose the commission that would propose reforms to the tax code and entitlements in order to put the country on a fiscally sustainable path?

So if my colleagues want to demonstrate true fiscal responsibility, if they admit that earmarks they have supported in the past are good use of tax dollars, and if they admit that banning earmarks would cede this control of spending from Congress to the administration, then why take such a blunt approach? Why don't we take more thoughtful and nuanced steps outlined by Senator Inhofe, who suggested we reform the already transparent earmark process and offered specific ideas on how to do it? Some of my colleagues practically admit that banning earmarks is not a very good idea per se, but that eliminating them is only politically expedient, as the public has come to see earmarks as a symbol of Washington's irresponsibility.

I don't want the public to be fooled by this. I don't support every earmark. There will always be examples of some wasteful projects somewhere. But earmarks are not the problem that gravely threatens our country's way of life, and the future of our children and grandchildren. This is why for over 5 years I have worked to create a commission to solve our Nation's real fiscal problems, and why I hope that the commission created by the President can produce a final legislative proposal that will effectively address our unchecked entitlement growth, our outdated and overly complex Tax Code, and return our Nation to a sustainable fiscal path.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the challenges America faces in our relationship with Russia and their implications on the Senate's consideration of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as START.

A number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken about the treaty's impact on global nuclear nonproliferation. I would like to use my remarks today to highlight my concerns about the treaty in the broader context of: one, the Obama administration's ``Reset Policy'' towards Russia; and two, the new START treaty's impact on our allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. I believe these concerns must be addressed by the administration before I can determine my support for the treaty.

Over the last decade I have been an ardent champion of NATO and have worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance. I have also been active in improving our public diplomacy in Eastern Europe through our expansion of the Visa Waiver Program at the request of our friends and allies in Central and Eastern Europe. That legislation which the President signed on Visa Waiver was supported by both our State Department and by our Department of Homeland Security.

In my remaining time in the Senate, I will continue to work to strengthen the Visa Waiver Program which has improved our image in the world and strengthened our borders through shared best practices and enhanced intelligence sharing with our partners and allies abroad.

My passion for foreign relations stems in large part from my upbringing as the grandson of Southeast European immigrants. As an undergraduate at Ohio University, my first research paper examined how the United States sold out Central and Eastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia to the Soviets at the Yalta and Tehran conferences in 1943 and 1945. These states would become the ``Captive Nations'' suffering under the specter of Soviet domination, brutality, and oppression for nearly 50 years.

As a public official in Ohio, I remained a strong supporter of the Captive Nations. During my tenure as mayor of Cleveland, I joined my brothers and sisters in the Eastern European Diaspora to celebrate the independence days of the Captive Nations at City Hall. We flew their flags, sang their songs, and prayed that one day the people in those countries would know freedom.

We saw the Berlin Wall fall and the Iron Curtain torn in half thanks large in part to the leadership of Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, and President George H.W. Bush. But even with the end of the Cold War, I remain deeply concerned that darker forces in Russia are reemerging as a threat to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom, not just for the Russian people but for the citizens of the newly freed Captive Nations.

This concern in 1998 during my tenure as Governor of Ohio and Chair of the National Governor's Association prompted me to pursue an all-50 State resolution supporting NATO membership for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.

When I think about the importance of NATO and our commitment to the Captive Nations, I am inspired by President George W. Bush's speech on NATO expansion in Warsaw on June 15, 2001. President Bush stated: ``We should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.'' There was concern at that time because of the debate with Russia that we would back off and not support further expansion of NATO.

I worked diligently from my first day as a member of the Senate in 1999 to extend NATO membership to my brothers and sisters in the former Captive Nations. I knew NATO membership would provide these fledgling democracies safe harbor from the possible threat of new Russian expansionism. But I also knew the process of NATO expansion would enhance much more than security in Europe.

As I noted in a speech on the Senate floor on May 21, 2002, ``While NATO is a collective security organization, formed to defend freedom and democracy in Europe, we cannot forget that common values form the foundation of the alliance.'' In other words, the foundation of the Alliance is based on common values.

Democracy, the rule of law, minority rights, these are among the values that form the hallmark of the NATO alliance.

One of my proudest moments as a Senator was when I joined President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Richard Myers at the NATO Summit in Prague on November 21, 2002, when NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson officially announced the decision to invite Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to become part of the Alliance. This was truly one of the most thrilling days of my tenure as a Senator.

Later that day, my wife Janet and I were happy to attend a dinner in honor of Czech President Vaclav Havel at the Prague Castle. Following that dinner, at 1:30 a.m. Prague time, I placed a call to Cleveland to talk with my brothers and sisters at home with ties to these NATO aspirant countries. They had gathered in the Lithuanian Hall at Our Lady of Perpetual Help to celebrate that day's historic events, and this was truly a capstone to years of effort.

It is because of my long history and work with the Captive Nations that I continue to worry about the uncertainties of our future relationship with Russia. I have traveled to 19 countries during my 21 trips to the region as a Senator. Presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers in Eastern Europe have told me time and time again it is comforting for them to know their relationship with NATO and the United States serves as a vital hedge against the threat of a future potentially expansionist Russia.

Yet now there is much talk from this administration about resetting the U.S. bilateral relationship with Russia. Moscow seeks to regain its global stature and be respected as a peer in the international community. I do not blame them.

President Obama's May 2010 National Security Strategy states: ``We seek to build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia, based on mutual interests. The United States has an interest in a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia that respects international norms.'' I agree with the administration. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach.

There are indeed key areas where the United States and Russia share common cause and concern:

1. Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and will continue to be essential towards any effective multilateral pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program.

2. Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and has stated a nuclear-free Korean peninsula is in the interest of both our nations.

Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and has stated a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula is in the interest of both our nations.

No. 3, we are partners in the International Space Station, relying on the Russians. Until the August 2008 invasion of Georgia, our government and U.S. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement with

Russia similar to the one we entered into with India. In fact, I worked on that with Senator Lugar. I thought that was a good idea. With the world economy as it is today, the worst thing we can do is break off communication and revert back to our Cold War positions. President Obama's trip to Moscow last year and President Medvedev's reciprocal trip to Washington in June were opportunities to further engage Russia and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can accomplish together for the good of the international community.

However, I believe our reset policy with Russia should not establish a relationship with Moscow at the expense of the former Captive Nations. We simply do not know how our relationship with Russia will transpire during the years to come. Will Russia fully embrace a democratic government, free markets, and the rule of law or will Russia seek to reestablish its influence over the former Soviet Union whose collapse then-President and now-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described in 2005 as ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe'' of the 20th century? This is what Putin had to say about the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a pretty striking comment coming from the former President and now Prime Minister.

This brings us to the topic of the new START treaty, which the Senate may consider in the coming weeks. America's grand strategy toward Russia must be realistic. It must be agile. As I have said, it must take into account the interests of our NATO allies. I am deeply concerned the new START treaty may once again undermine the confidence of our friends and allies in Central and Eastern Europe. Let me be absolutely clear: I do not ideologically oppose the administration's nonproliferation agenda. The President's stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons is noble, but I believe the Senate's consideration of the new START treaty must be considered through a wider lens that includes the treaty's implications for our friends and allies in the former captive nations.

Let's talk about what is going on right now. First, I am concerned about the uncertainties surrounding a Russia that could revert back to a country seeking to expand its influence on the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. President Medvedev's February 2010 National Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, released 2 months before the conclusion of the new START treaty in April of this year, explicitly labels NATO expansion as a national threat to Russia's existence and reaffirms Russia's right to use nuclear weapons if the country's existence is threatened. I am sure such statements, combined with Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, send shivers down the spines of our brothers and sisters in Central and Eastern Europe, even if they don't say so publicly.

The concerns of our captive nation brothers and sisters regarding Russia are not abstract. They are rooted in blood and tears and in a history of abandonment. My hometown of Cleveland, OH, was once the city with the world's second largest population of Hungarians after Budapest. I remember vividly the stories my Hungarian brothers and sisters told me about the Hungarian revolution of 1956. Encouraged by the implicit promise of intervention from the United States and the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of Hungarians protested against the People's Republic of Hungary in support of economic reform and an end to political oppression. Those protests spread throughout Hungary. The government was overthrown. But Moscow sought to maintain its control over the captive nations, took advantage of America's inaction on the rebellion, invaded Hungary, crushed the revolution and established a new authoritative government. Over 2,500 Hungarians were killed in the conflict, and 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees to the West. Hungary would suffer under the oppression of the Soviet Union for nearly another half century. Of course, there was a similar episode in Czechoslovakia during the Prague spring of 1968.

The former captive nations have accomplished so much as free market democracies and members of the NATO alliance. Our friends and allies must have absolute confidence negotiations toward the new START treaty did not include side agreements or informal understandings regarding any Russian sphere of influence in those Captive Nations. Moreover, I remain deeply concerned, even in the absence of agreements of understanding, that the former Captive Nations may once again wonder: Will the West abandon us again? Will agreement with Russia once again be placed above the interests and concern of our allies? Will we forget what happened after Yalta and Tehran? We cannot let this happen again.

Second, the former Captive Nations are also closely watching Russia's military activities. Last September--and nobody made a big deal out of it--Russia undertook Operation West, a military exercise involving 13,000 troops simulating an air, sea, and nuclear attack on Poland. Not much said about it. These war games, which took place during the 70th anniversary of Polish independence, were the largest Russian military exercises since the end of the Cold War. If we look at the Russian military's recent activity, one cannot help but understand our allies' concern Moscow may be reverting to the past. I hope President Obama will meet with leaders from the former Captive Nations this weekend during the NATO summit in Lisbon. The President should provide these leaders public reassurance that the United States remains committed to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on any member of NATO shall be considered to be an attack on all.

One of the best ways to alleviate the anxiety about the Russian military amongst our Captive Nation allies is for this administration to pursue negotiations with Russia toward its compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the CFE. The Senate's potential consideration of a new START cannot be disconnected from Russia's prior track record on treaty compliance. Russia decided in 2007 to suspend its compliance with the CFE treaty, a treaty signed by 22 countries that placed balanced limits on the deployment of troops and conventional weapons in Europe. This unilateral decision by Moscow should serve as a reminder to Senate colleagues about Moscow's commitments to its international obligations. Russia's compliance with the CFE treaty is essential to sustained security and stability in Central and Eastern Europe. Again, complying with it would send a very great signal to the people worried about Russia's direction.

Our friends in Central and Eastern Europe are worried about the uncertainty surrounding a Russia that appears at times to be reverting back to an authoritative state seeking to weaponize its oil and natural gas resources as a means to expand its influence on Europe and the West. Russia has the largest reserves of natural gas and the eighth largest oil reserves. Moscow turned off the tap to Europe in the recent past. They could do it again. We should also be concerned about Moscow using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of NATO against each other. I know when I was at the German Marshall Fund Brussels forum this year and last, I spoke with our friends in the EU and encouraged them that rather than unilaterally negotiating with Russia in terms of natural gas, they should all come together and negotiate as a team so they wouldn't be pit against the other. Unfortunately, most of them ignored that.

Finally, I am deeply troubled that the Obama administration has decoupled Russia's human rights record from America's bilateral relationship with Russia. The United States and Russia are both signatories of the 1975 Helsinki Declaration, which clearly states that:

Participating States will respect human rights and

fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought,

conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction

as to race, sex, language or religion.

In recent years, we have seen anything but a respect for human rights in Russia. Prime Minister Putin stated during a recent interview with the Kommersant newspaper that prodemocracy demonstrators in Russia assembling without prior permission ``will be hit on the head with batons. That's all there is to it.''

The actions of the Russian Government speak louder than words. We have seen protests canceled, newspapers closed, activists detained and abused.

Yet we have seen little effort by this administration to engage in a sustained dialog with Moscow on its human rights record and commitments under the Helsinki Declaration. We did more about human rights violations 20 years ago in Russia than we are doing today. It is like we have tape over our mouth.

As David Kramer of the German Marshall Fund of the United States notes in a Washington Post opinion on September 20:

The human rights situation in Russia is bad and likely to

get more worse as [Russia's] March 2012 presidential election

nears. Those in power will do anything to stay in power . . .

Enough already with U.S. expressions of ``regret'' about the

deteriorating situation inside Russia--it's time to call it

like it is: Condemn what's happening there and consider

consequences for continued human rights abuses.

I believe the Obama administration's inaction and reluctance to confront Russia on its human rights record sends a dangerous signal to Moscow that there are little or no consequences for bad behavior. At a minimum, such coddling of bad behavior by the West only serves to embolden Moscow as to our resolve to hold Russia to account on its international obligations, a distressing thought as we consider the new START in the Senate.

I have fought all my life to secure freedom for my brothers and sisters in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia. Once they received their freedom, I championed--and continue to champion-- their membership in NATO and the EU. I am working with Senator Shaheen right now in the former Yugoslavia to see how many of those countries we can get into the European Union and how many we can get into the NATO alliance. I will be darned, at this stage in my life, to do anything that would jeopardize their security and economic prosperity. I have seen too many opportunities for the region slip away during my lifetime. I will not let it happen again.

Political expediency should never be an excuse to rush to judgment on public policy, let alone our national security. Treaties supersede all laws and acts of Congress. The Senate's advice-and-consent duties on treaties are among our most solemn constitutional duties. I cannot, in good conscience, determine my support for this treaty until the administration assures me that our reset policy with Russia is a policy that enhances rather than diminishes the national security of our friends and allies throughout Europe.

Moreover, I must receive the strongest assurances that this policy does not once again amount to the United States leaving our brothers and sisters in the former Captive Nations alone against undue pressures from Russia.

When I finally cash out, I want to know these countries we forgot at the end of the Second World War, where millions of people were sent to the gulag, will never be forgotten again.

I think this President has an obligation to look at this treaty beyond just the nonproliferation side. He has an obligation to look at it as part of resetting our relationship with Russia, and we ought to get some things cleared up before we go ahead and sign this treaty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the late Senator Stevens as we prepare to travel to Arlington Cemetery to lay Senator Stevens to rest. Today, Janet's and my thoughts and prayers are with the Stevens family and the others who died, were injured, or had loved ones on that tragic plane trip.

Senator Stevens was the first senator Alaska knew. His tenure lasted 40 years in this Chamber. I am proud to have served with him for 10 of those years, most closely on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. During his time in the Senate, he was chairman of the Commerce Committee, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Ethics, Rules and Governmental Affairs Committee, and chairman of a number of subcommittees and President pro tempore of the Senate. He was the embodiment of an effective Senator and leader as he fought every day for Alaska.

It was an honor to serve with Ted and amazing to think that his service in the Senate was only part of a life of service. He was instrumental in Alaska achieving statehood. He was a Harvard Law School graduate. He was an U.S. attorney in Fairbanks. He flew cargo over the Hump and into China during the Second World War. He was a decorated war veteran, part of America's Greatest Generation. He was a prostate cancer survivor and an advocate for research and funding to find a cure. He was an inspiration to all and an example of what one individual can do if he puts his nose to the grindstone and gets to work.

I was able to get to know Senator Stevens on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where I got to see his great love of Alaska and the Senate, which you saw everytime he would speak about his fellow Alaskans, as he worked to assist all Americans, whether Alaskans, Louisianans, Ohioans, or others, respond to natural disasters. I will never forget Ted standing up at our Police and Steering Committing lunches and telling it like it is and showing his knowledge, experience, and common sense. When he talked, everyone listened. I regret that his voice is absent from the Senate at this critical time in our Nation's history. I also saw his strength as he worked to prepare all of us against the threat of terrorism.

Senator Stevens always strove to do what was best for his home State of Alaska and the United States. You could be sure that if legislation was good for Alaska, Ted Stevens would support it regardless of the politics. We need more politicians today who are willing to do what is right regardless of party. His friendship and work with Senator Inouye should be a model for us all.

He was a lion of the Senate. While Ted is gone, his legacy will live on. You see it here with his former colleagues and his former staffers. You see it in the legislation he championed, such as title 9, legislation on the Olympics, aid to rural Alaska, telecommunications, and, of course, his unwavering support for our military.

May God bless Senator Stevens, his family and all who held, and still hold, him dear.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the passage of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. I am pleased that we got cloture on this legislation earlier this week, so we can get a final vote on the bill before the Senate completes its work for the week.

Things are more challenging now for our Nation than at any time during my life. Americans are worried about our Nation's future and their own personal well-being, and this uncertainty reveals itself in the answers to two questions I often ask when I speak to people. The two questions I ask are, one, do you have a better standard of living than your parents had? To which I always hear yes. And two, do you believe your children will have a better standard of living than the one you have? To which I almost always hear no.

To recover from this recession, we need to restore the faith of the American people in their future. We need to convince them that the glass is half full, and not half empty. And until we stabilize and repair our broken economy, and restore the flow of credit to businesses and individuals, the uncertainty and pessimism will remain.

This small business bill gives us one opportunity to address our economic challenges. The small business bill will improve the environment for small businesses by, among other things, including a number of small business tax breaks, expanding Small Business Administration loan programs, providing tax incentives for new small business investment, and expanding small business access to credit.

The bill will increase the guarantee of SBA's most popular loan program, which provides credit for small businesses that cannot otherwise obtain favorable loan terms, and it would provide higher maximum loan amounts for investments in major fixed assets, such as land, buildings, equipment, and machinery. It would also provide a variety of export assistance tools to help our small businesses expand their reach into world markets and compete better in the global economy. These include a new grant program, counseling and education, redirecting SBA personnel, and improving export financing programs. Finally, this bill will extend tax incentives, such as section 179 expensing and bonus depreciation, which will generate new investment.

I have heard from many Ohio businesses regarding this small business bill, especially manufacturing businesses, which are the backbone of Ohio's economy. These small business owners have asked me to work with my colleagues and finish work on this legislation. A number of manufacturing organizations, which represent small businesses in Ohio and around the country, have written to me in support of the bill, including the Ohio Manufacturers Association, the Precision Machined Products Association, PMPA, the Precision Metalforming Association, PMA, the National Tooling and Machining Association, NTMA, and the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. They share many of the same concerns; they are worried about their member companies' ability to obtain credit and keep afloat long enough to get out of this recession.

Many small businesses have been unable to obtain credit from their traditional lenders, which has led to less spending and more layoffs. For example, I was told that a Cleveland-based PMPA manufacturer that has been in business for over 50 years, and whose owner has served on the board of directors of several major banks, could not find sufficient credit in the United States. As a result, the company had to seek offshore lending, which it eventually found in Germany. I have heard similar stories from a number of small business owners. They complain that they cannot get loans or their lines of credit are being reduced or withdrawn despite their company's creditworthiness.

These groups, which represent thousands of small businesses and their employees, have sent me letters in support of this legislation, and I will ask that these letters be printed in the Record. I wanted to share one comment from a longtime friend of mine, James B. McGregor, Sr., vice chairman of McGregor Metalworking Companies in Springfield, OH, who said that this bill would ``help to jumpstart manufacturing in America by improving the credit market for small businesses.'' Jim is the owner of a family-owned manufacturing company, and he knows as well as anyone how tough things are out there for manufacturers.

In addition to small manufacturers, others organizations also support this small business bill. Many community banks say it would allow them more latitude to lend to small businesses. The Independent Community Bankers Association, which represents 5,000 of the Nation's 8,000 community banks,

said in a letter to the two Senate leaders that of all the provisions in this bill, the Small Business Lending Fund, SBLF, ``holds the most promise for small business creation in the near term. Failure to even consider the SBLF in the Senate would be a missed opportunity that our struggling economy cannot afford . . . [i]t would provide another option for community banks to leverage capital and expand credit to small business.''

The American Bankers Association, ABA, has expressed support for the bill because it would allow ``community banks to find new sources of capital . . . [and] provides an option for banks to . . . continue meeting the needs of their communities.'' The ABA also supports the bill because it would enhance SBA loan programs, which it says is ``critically important and will help lenders provide loans so that small businesses can create jobs in their communities.''

Other business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and Financial Services Roundtable support the bill because they know it contains important tax provisions, strengthens existing SBA programs, and helps our economy.

So, my support for the small business legislation is based upon the many calls of support I heard from Ohio's small and medium manufacturers, most of whom are still struggling to recover from this recession. At the same time, these manufacturers are experiencing the fiercest competition I have seen in my lifetime.

My support of Ohio's manufacturers is not new, and my support of this bill is a part of my longstanding concern for and support of Ohio's manufacturing companies. As Governor of Ohio, I am proud that we gave high priority to manufacturing and that it grew for the first time in many years during my administration. We instituted several incentives for manufacturing, including a job-creation tax credit, a manufacturing and equipment investment tax credit, and the technology investment tax credit. As Governor, I went on nine business, trade, and investment missions, with the intention of helping open new markets for Ohio products, and I am hopeful that the export promotion efforts in this legislation will help Ohio's manufacturers take advantage of selling in the global market.

When I came to the Senate, I continued to support manufacturing, making it a key priority of my legislative efforts. For example, during President Bush's first term, I worked with the administration, when it filed the section 201 action, to support the U.S. steel industry at a time when imports were coming in at an increasing rate and threatening the industry's existence. And after a painful period of adjustment, the steel industry came back. I am afraid of what might have been the fate of this important industry had President Bush not taken action. I am also proud that I was the chief advocate to the President and Secretary of Commerce Don Evans of the need for an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing as well as a plan to support manufacturing. From 2006 to 2008, I worked closely with Senator Bayh, who is also from a manufacturing State, to pass legislation to improve our Nation's intellectual property theft enforcement efforts. These efforts were rewarded when the PRO-IP Act became law in October 2008. Our efforts to pass this legislation may have surprised some who view IP theft as something related to knockoff purses and software, but IP theft has such a damaging effect on our manufacturers, we both viewed this as an important way to help our manufacturers compete on a level playing field in the global economy.

Most recently, I have worked to protect manufacturing from onerous cap-and-trade legislation that would have a devastating effect on manufacturing, while doing little to improve emissions from countries such as China and India. I have also worked on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize the surface transportation act. This is another must-pass bill that would provide certainty to a number of industries and would help our manufacturers recover from this recession. I have spoken to the President about the need to pass a highway bill, and I was encouraged that he has promised to take a leading role in getting it done.

I know that my Republican colleagues have concerns with the lending facility and what it means for the role of government in the private sector. I have heard their concerns, but based on the feedback I have heard, mostly from Ohio's small businesses, I reached the conclusion that this $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund will help banks that serve local communities to expand their lending at a time when credit to small businesses has tightened for a variety of reasons. These are the community banks that make the small but necessary loans to restaurants, small manufacturers, home improvement contractors and the like to keep their businesses afloat and hopefully begin to expand as the economy recovers. In addition, the program is voluntary for these banks, and the lending fund is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to save money. In other words, the lending fund will not add to the budget deficit or the national debt, and it will not increase taxes. So this fund amounts to a relatively modest, voluntary, revenue- neutral financial tool for small community banks helping to restore the flow of credit small businesses desperately need.

Finally, for those who are trying to make this a partisan bill, I will say there is enough blame to go around. The Democrats in Congress delayed passing this bill for many weeks. They denied Republicans the opportunity to amend the bill for many weeks, while we held political votes on a number of issues. The President then went on to politicize the bill, ignoring legitimate complaints about the lack of amendments from my side of the aisle. It is worth remembering the Senate moved to the bill on June 29, then abandoned it repeatedly to vote on unemployment benefits multiple times, financial regulation, supplemental appropriations, executive nominations, the DISCLOSE Act, and the teacher bailout, which took us into the August recess. Then when discussions about Republican amendments were finally starting to receive serious consideration, these amendments were countered by Democratic amendments, leading to an amendment tit for tat, which is too often the case.

But while I am disappointed that my colleagues were unable to offer amendments to this bill, which is one of the traditions of the Senate, I felt we could no longer wait to pass this legislation. We needed to do something now to help the economy get going, and hopefully we will get back to the Senate tradition of offering amendments and having votes. Finally, I am pleased that there was a vote on at least one Republican amendment, the amendment offered by Senator Johanns, which would repeal an extremely burdensome reporting requirement for small businesses included in the health care reform bill. While I am disappointed that it failed and small businesses continued to be threatened by this burden, I am hopeful that this amendment process has brought enough attention to the problem and it can be fixed before the end of this year.

Finally, Mr. President, I will continue to work to pass a robust highway reauthorization bill this year, which I strongly believe would help improve our economy, and once again, I ask President Obama and Majority Leader Reid, to work with the relevant committees to complete work on a multiyear, paid for, reauthorization of the highway bill before the 111th Congress adjourns.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters to which I referred.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I will not support General Kagan's nomination. I did not come to this decision lightly. As I said last August during the debate on Justice Sotomayor, the role of the Senate in the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is to give its advice and consent on the President's nomination, with the Senate to judge whether an individual is qualified based on a number of factors. Among these factors are the nominee's education, legal experience, prior judicial experience, written record, judicial temperament, commitment to the rule of law, and overall contributions to the law. Based on my review of Elena Kagan's record and using these factors, I have determined General Kagan at this time does not meet the criteria for membership on our Nation's highest Court.

The President deserves deference in his nominations and, of course, Presidential elections have a direct impact on the makeup of our judiciary; that is to say, elections do have consequences.

But Senate confirmation should not be a simple mechanical affirmation of the President's selection, especially when the nominee will enjoy a lifetime appointment. A Senator is duty bound to conscientiously review the qualifications of the President's nominee and make an independent assessment of the nominee's qualifications.

General Kagan is well educated, intelligent, bright, and engaging, and advanced quite rapidly in her career of teaching and law school administration. But one must ask, is that enough? I believe it is not. I believe a judicial nominee must have substantial experience in the law, especially when the nominee is seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.

After reviewing her background, I believe General Kagan does not have that relevant experience. General Kagan is the first nominee to the Supreme Court with no prior judicial experience since 1971, almost 40 years ago. While I do not believe a lack of judicial experience should bar one from serving on the Supreme Court, I note that reviewing prior judicial service is obviously the easiest way to assess a nominee's fitness for the Court. This lack of judicial experience does not prevent her nomination, but in my opinion it does shift the burden to the nominee to demonstrate her relevant experience.

For example, when the Senate considered Justice Sotomayor's nomination, there were over 1,000 prior opinions one could review to decide if she was ready for the job. With General Kagan, there are none. When I asked her to name opinions she worked on with Justice Marshall with which she disagreed, she stated she could not remember any individual opinion she worked on, much less whether she disagreed with Justice Marshall on any of them. She could not remember.

During our meeting, General Kagan noted her service as Solicitor General, another job I did not think she was qualified to hold, and said it was relevant because she was the Solicitor General. I agree it is relevant, but her time as Solicitor General has been too short. Since President Kennedy's Solicitor General, Archibald Cox, only one confirmed Solicitor General has served for a shorter period of time than General Kagan.

General Kagan argued her first case before the Supreme Court less than a year ago, and now we are going to confirm her as a member of that Court?

If we base her qualifications on her earlier legal experience, her experience is particularly limited. General Kagan worked for 2 years as a practicing attorney. Justices Rehnquist and Powell, the last two Supreme Court nominees without prior judicial experience, each spent many years in the active practice of law. Justice Rehnquist practiced in Arizona for over 16 years. Justice Powell was a partner in a major Virginia law firm for over 25 years and in practice for 38 years. General Kagan has 2 years of experience in private practice and 1 as Solicitor General.

I also think it is worth noting that the independent Congressional Research Service has found that, on average, the 39 Justices who lacked prior judicial experience had over 20 years of experience in the practice of law. General Kagan's experience pales in comparison.

During Justice Sotomayor's confirmation, I spoke about how President Obama's standard for selecting judicial nominees based on what was in their heart flew in the face of meritocracy--flew in the face of meritocracy. We, as a nation, aspire to hire people for jobs based on their skill, not on where they are from or who they know. Justice Sotomayor, in addition to her 17 years of total service on the trial and appellate benches, was in private practice for 8 years and was a district attorney for 4 years. Justice Sotomayor's experience as a lawyer and a judge, her judicial temperament, and the fact that her opinions were within the judicial mainstream gave me confidence that she had the relevant experience to sit on the Supreme Court.

Because there is such a limited record with General Kagan and because she has gone out of her way, quite frankly, not to answer questions, I have no idea what she will do on the bench and whether she will be able to suppress her own values to apply the law. The fact is, we really do not know much about her views.

Frankly, I have been surprised by some of my colleagues who attempt to compare her to the famous Justice Brandeis, another Justice with no prior judicial experience. Justice Brandeis practiced the law for almost 30 years before his nomination, much of his practice being pro bono in his later years. Furthermore, Justice Brandeis is widely regarded as one of the great legal minds of not just his time but of American history, having developed numerous areas of modern law from scratch. Yet, again, General Kagan pales in comparison.

In my meeting with General Kagan, I asked her about how little writing she had published, and she responded that she had more academic writing than other members of the Supreme Court. This is factually incorrect and misleading. First, this is incorrect. Justice Scalia is widely published with numerous articles and books. Justice Ginsburg went so far as to learn Swedish to coauthor a book on Swedish judicial procedure. And Justice Breyer was one of the most foremost authorities on administrative law, with many books and articles to his name before joining the Court. Second, it is misleading because each Justice publishes hundreds of pages a year in the form of opinions, greatly eclipsing General Kagan's academic production.

There are over 800 Federal judges, many of whom clearly have the experience, intelligence, and legal skill to serve on our Supreme Court. Additionally, if one believes, which I do not, that the Federal judiciary is somehow out of touch with our society, thousands, if not tens of thousands, of State court judges are out there with lengthy judicial records, many ready to serve on the Supreme Court. I think back to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was on the supreme court of the State of Arizona for 8 years before she became a member of the Supreme Court.

As an aside, only a former law professor would think that the dean of a law school is somehow more in touch with everyday people than a judge. Every day, a judge is presented with the facts of everyday life and must apply them to the law. A dean at a law school, surrounded by professors earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and donors worth millions and students soon to enter into a professional career, never gets to see everyday life and is never faced with the factory worker, the farmer, or any other hardworking blue-collar Americans. How is a law school dean more in touch--more in touch--with everyday people?

Some of my colleagues would like to have had a less liberal person nominated by the President. My position is, the President will surely nominate a liberal. The most important question is, Is that liberal nominee qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court? I would argue that General Kagan has been nominated based on her friendships and personal attachments with President Obama and others at the White House, not based on objective qualities that would indicate she is qualified to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In closing, lack of judicial experience should not be an absolute bar to serving on the Supreme Court. However, Solicitor General Kagan not only lacks judicial experience but has limited experience as a practicing attorney with only the last year as Solicitor General and 2 years as a junior associate making up her entire practice.

Additionally, General Kagan has had an extremely limited written record--I mean limited written record--which should make all of us unsure as to what sort of Justice General Kagan will be.

For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support the nomination of General Kagan to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three law clerks with Senator Cornyn's staff--Amanda DeVuono, Suzanne Brangan, and Walker Hanson--be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of this week.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.