Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Congress for passing an important piece of legislation--the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act incorporated into the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal Act of 2012. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I must note it is one of the most important pieces of foreign policy legislation dealing with human rights we have taken up in recent years. In particular, I want to commend my colleague, Senator Cardin, for his work on the Magnitsky Act. Bringing Russia into the World Trade Organization, WTO, is a good thing. The WTO is a rules- based organization that will create a level playing field for U.S. companies that want to export their products to Russia.

As committed as we are to strengthening trade links between the United States and Russia, we must be even more dedicated to promoting the rule of law and protecting the brave Russian individuals and organizations fighting for democracy and human rights. This is why the Magnitsky Act is so important. In the year following Mr. Putin's return to the Presidency, he has built on his repressive record by instituting laws that crack down on freedom of expression, assembly, and association. A new law makes it easier for the state to accuse a person of treason and members of a female rock band have been jailed for criticizing Mr. Putin. These measures are designed to strike back at a rapidly increasing segment of Russian society demanding an end to corruption, oppression, and calling for genuine democratic governance, human rights, and the rule of law.

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act is named after a man who witnessed the deep-seated rot that is a major part of Russia's governance today and decided to expose it to the public. For those who might be unfamiliar with the case, Mr. Magnitsky was an accountant with Hermitage Capitol Management, which had publicly disclosed several instances of alleged Russian Government and corporate corruption related to state-run industries. The company's founder, Bill Browder, was expelled from Russia by government bureaucrats who viewed him as a threat. In 2007, Russian authorities raided Hermitage's offices and subsequently accused the firm of tax evasion and owing hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes. Mr. Magnitsky investigated these charges and discovered that it was the police who had provided seized tax records to Russian criminal elements who then falsified documents and received a $230 million rebate from the Russian treasury--the largest in Russian history.

What is shocking is that when Mr. Magnitsky went to the Russian Government with the evidence he uncovered in 2008, he was the one arrested and jailed. He was held 11 months without trial, became sick, and was denied medical treatment and visits by his family. Mr. Magnitsky was held in horrible conditions. According to his diary, Russian authorities reputedly pressured him to recant his accusations and instead accuse Hermitage of financial crimes. On November 16, 2009, Mr. Magnitsky died in Russian custody. According to the head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Ludmila Alekseeva, Magnitsky had died from beatings and torture carried out by several officers of Russia's Ministry of Interior. Some people also point to the deliberate denial of medical care for his illnesses as a contributing factor to his death. In standing up for truth, justice, and the rule of law, Mr. Magnitsky gave the Russian people his life. To date, not one senior government official has been held responsible for his death. Instead, in a gesture of mockery, last February the Russian police resubmitted a criminal case against Mr. Magnitsky, making him the first Russian citizen to be tried after his death.

The Magnitsky Act takes a measured and targeted approach to identifying and dealing with those who are responsible for egregious human rights and antidemocratic activities throughout Russia. This bill allows the Secretary of State to identify and compile a list of people responsible for the death of Magnitsky, engaged in its coverup, or having financially benefited from his death. The bill offers significant sanctions on those identified by the State Department. They are to be denied visas to the United States, have any assets in U.S. jurisdiction frozen, and prevented from using the U.S. banking system.

For the record, as a cosponsor of this bill, I want to be absolutely crystal clear on one particular point. While the death of Mr. Magnitsky is tragic, this bill is not reserved just for those complicit in his death. This legislation not only applies to those involved in the death of Mr. Magnitsky, but it also applies to those involved in, as the bill states, ``extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of human rights committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the Government of the Russian Federation; or to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections, anywhere in the world.'' Further, anyone assisting those involved in the abuses described in the legislation can, and should, be targeted.

During Senate debate my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Wicker, spoke eloquently about the ability to hold human rights abusers accountable and in particular cited the cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Planton Lebedev--other recognized political prisoners. To quote my friend from Arizona discussing the situation in Russia today:

This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse

and worse over many years. It has been deepened by the

increased surveillance and harassment of members of

opposition and civil society groups . . . by the continued

violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish the

truth about official corruption and other state crimes in

Russia today . . . and of course, by the continued detention

of numerous political prisoners, not least Mikhail

Khodorkovsky and his associate Platon Lebedev, who remain

locked away but not forgotten.

The cases of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev, both jailed because of Mr. Putin's sanctioned theft and destruction of the oil company, Yukos Oil, headed by Mr. Khodorkovsky, falls squarely within the parameters of this legislation.

Mr. Khodorkovsky, a businessman, was falsely accused of tax evasion and jailed in 2003 after engaging in politics and forcing a discussion of corruption in Russia. His close friend and business partner, Planton Lebedev, was also jailed as part of the theft of Yukos Oil. Both are widely considered political prisoners--in 2011 Amnesty International declared them political prisoners--and there have been numerous House and Senate resolutions that have highlighted Mr. Khodorkovsky's and Mr. Lebedev's cases.

But they are not the only ones. Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev remain jailed but at least are still alive. One of the most horrific stories in the entire Yukos affair is the case of Vasily Alexanyan. While the Kremlin's dismantling of Yukos was well underway after Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest in 2003, Mr. Alexanyan, a Harvard Law School graduate and former Yukos general counsel, stepped up in March 2006 to assume the position of executive vice president of Yukos. At the time

the company was being forced through a state-orchestrated bankruptcy process. Alexanyan's attempts to protect the company's rights in this process ran up against the hostility of government authorities. Mr. Alexanyan was jailed on April 6, 2006. He was held in horrible conditions during his pretrial detention in a freezing cell and subjected to torture. The authorities knew he had HIV and a compromised immune system. They attempted to make him give testimony against Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev and others at Yukos in exchange for better treatment and medicine. He refused. The European Court of Human Rights repeatedly issued interim measures to the Russian authorities requesting medical care be provided to Alexanyan. The authorities did not comply, leaving Alexanyan without antiretroviral treatment for almost 2 years. Because of this state-sponsored torture, he died when he was just 39 years old.

More than 50 criminal cases against Yukos executives, employees, and others associated with Khodorkovsky or Yukos have been filed by Russian authorities. The strategy of Russian investigators has involved investigating or prosecuting business partners, juniors, or even bystanders to obtain statements or court rulings that would produce ``evidence'' and establish the ``facts'' they needed for their trumped up charges against Mr. Khodorkovsky and others connected with Yukos.

There is no question the continuing incarceration of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev is a human rights abuse. The European Court for Human Rights ruled that violations of Mr. Khodorkovsky's fundamental human rights did occur in connection with his arrest and detention between 2003 and 2005--including degrading prison conditions, inhuman and degrading conditions in the courtroom throughout his first trial, detention unjustified by compelling reasons outweighing the presumption of liberty, and unfair hearings reviewing his detention. The court has raised similar concerns with Mr. Lebedev.

Other cases are also clear cut, such as Anna Politkovskaya, the renowned journalist and Kremlin critic, who was shot dead while entering her apartment building on October 7, 2006. Ms. Politkovskaya rose to prominence for her in-depth coverage of the war in Chechnya, exposing incidents of state-sponsored torture, mass executions, kidnappings, and war crimes. Four individuals initially accused of killing Ms. Politkovskaya were found not guilty, and no light has been shed on the true architect of her murder. Her case would be captured by this legislation if those responsible can be identified.

Let's not forget that we are demanding Russia abide by the international agreements that it has ratified and live up to the expectations of the organizations it has joined. The Russian Federation is a member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Council of Europe. It is also a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention against Corruption, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

This legislation is narrowly targeted to hold accountable specific persons for the most heinous of crimes and represents a core U.S. foreign policy value. It is also consistent with targeted sanctions the United States has imposed on other countries with major human rights concerns.

This also strengthens the President's National Security Strategy announced last May, PSD-10, by ``closing gaps'' in our legal system so our country does not inadvertently become a haven for human rights violators. He enumerated grounds for denying admission to the United States, and this legislation complements his initiative by providing a statutory, legal guidelines for the administration.

This bill enjoys enormous bipartisan and bicameral support with a 365 to 43 vote in the House of Representatives and 92 votes in the Senate. In short, there is consensus for this bill and an understanding of the types of cases that fall within the Magnitsky Act's parameters. In Russia, the Magnitsky Act will serve as a deterrent to those engaged in oppression and provide a shield to millions of Russian activists determined to secure greater human rights and establish the rule of law. This bill gives hope to Russian civil society and to echo my friend from Arizona's eloquent comment to Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev that ``they are not forgotten.'' Those in Russia who are oppressed, intimidated, or suffering because they are seeking democracy, truth and justice should know they are not forgotten and your spirit and determination inspire us.

The fact that certain Russian Government officials have lashed out against this law speaks to the powerful tool it can be in support of democracy and human rights in Russia. It is not enough to pass this law--the United States must now publically hold those accountable for persecuting Mr. Khodorkovsky, Mr. Lebedev, and so many others in Russia. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to do so.

Madam President, my colleague, Senator Mike Crapo, joins me in recognizing the opening this month of the Chobani Yogurt production facility in Twin Falls, ID.

This facility, Chobani's first in Idaho, will be capable of producing 4.2 million cases of yogurt per week at full capacity. All of the milk used to produce the yogurt will come from Idaho dairy farms and at the peak of production will use millions of pounds of milk a day.

The 950,000-square-foot production facility was constructed by more than 1,000 workers and will employ between 400 and 500 people next year. More than 300 new jobs have already been created in Twin Falls. It was built at a cost of $450 million and is now the largest yogurt plant in the world.

From its founding in 2005, the Chobani company started with 5 employees and now has more than 1,800 employees worldwide, with more than 1,600 in the United States. Their founder and CEO, Hamdi Ulukaya, is an American success story, having immigrated to the United States from Turkey in 1994.

Like many businesses in Idaho, Chobani will be involved in local charitable work. Chobani's biggest impact, however, will be in providing well-paying jobs and economic growth through manufacturing a delicious and healthy product available throughout the country.

Chobani recognized the many benefits to locating in Idaho--among them the quality milk produced by our Idaho dairy families, a commonsense regulatory environment and hard-working Idahoans who will make the facility a great success.

Senator Crapo and I also recognize the many entities that worked with Chobani to make their opening a reality. Elected officials from Twin Falls County and the City of Twin Falls worked tirelessly on the project, as did the Southern Idaho Economic Development Organization. The Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce and the Twin Falls Urban Renewal District also played a major role in the effort. The State of Idaho and its Department of Commerce helped in the process, and the end result is not only the direct jobs at Chobani, but also a multiplier effect of more than 3,000 additional jobs in the State.

Today, we congratulate Chobani on the opening of their new plant and salute all of the partners and community leaders on a job well done. We welcome Chobani to the great State of Idaho.

Mr. President, today we have heard a lot about the financial condition of this country, and certainly that is foremost on the minds of everyone. It is in the forefront. But in addition, there are national security issues in the world, and, unfortunately, they have been pushed to the back page because of the condition of this country. But I wish to talk for a minute about the national security of the United States. It is something we need to focus on no matter what is happening domestically.

I wish to focus on one small part of our national security. Certainly, we have issues going on in 30 different countries, and a number of those have our embassies under siege. We have had an ambassador killed in recent weeks. This is a foreign policy that is in shambles. In the Middle East, it is a foreign policy of apology, it is a foreign policy of appeasement, it is a foreign policy of dithering and looking the other way. This cannot go on.

Iran continues down a course which is going to force a confrontation with Israel. Israel is the most reliable ally America has--certainly in the region and perhaps in the world. We need a President who will stand and be clear and be firm about what is going to happen if Iran keeps going down the road it is going. That is not happening. It needs to happen.

We need to change foreign policy from a policy of apology to a policy of leadership.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate and acknowledge

the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city of Melba, Idaho. Starting August 17, 2012, the citizens of Melba will gather throughout the weekend to commemorate this special time in their southwestern Idaho community.

Melba was founded by Clayton C. Todd, naming the yet-to-be town after his 4-year-old daughter. Stopping in Idaho on his way to Alaska to mine for gold, Mr. Todd heard about a State land sale. He purchased 160 acres of land and laid out the town site. He had done his homework and saw that this land with a siding on the railroad and expanding farms throughout the area would cut five miles off the route to the nearest town of Nampa and the mainline railroad.

Melba became a small boom town in the middle of an agricultural area. Shortly after World War I, the area became famous for its sweet corn seed. Area farmers expanded their seed operations to grow carrot, onion and alfalfa seed, along with the corn. The rich, fertile soil, abundant water and the hot summer days with cool nights earned Melba the moniker ``The Seed Heart of America.''

Like many small communities in our great country, they have seen times of struggle. In 1949, Melba was hit hard by an epidemic of infantile paralysis, also known as polio. The residents not only supported one another, in 1950 they held the first Polio Auction, raising $2,000 for medical research on the disease. Now called the Melba Community Auction, area residents continue the tradition of helping one another as they raise funds for nonprofit organizations that provide services to those in and around Melba.

The spirit of small town America is alive and well in Melba. They believe in helping their neighbors as well as strangers. Their schools are a source of pride and strongly supported by the community. And as to their Fourth of July celebration? Let me put it this way--no one can question their patriotism and love of America! Theirs is a grand celebration of our Nation's birthday.

So, Madam President, I am very proud to recognize this landmark anniversary and congratulate the community of Melba for this centennial. Melba has much to celebrate as well as to look forward to in its next century.

Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to urge an affirmative vote for Senator Inhofe's resolution. With all due respect to my friend from Vermont, this is not a job-creating bill. Virtually everyone who has looked at that has said this will kill jobs; this will move jobs overseas. Everyone who has looked at this has said it will increase the cost of energy for the American taxpayer.

It does two things: It kills jobs and it increases the cost of energy. Why would anyone vote for this? This is absolute foolishness. Today, Americans are concerned about jobs--they are really concerned about jobs. Everywhere I go, people ask me about jobs. They ask me about the economy.

Today, we, as Senators, have the opportunity to do something about that. The failure of this resolution and the implementation of the rule the EPA has put in front of us is going to kill jobs and is going to increase the cost of energy in America. It is going to do precisely what so many Senators come to the floor and whine about; that is, run jobs overseas.

If you are a job creator, if you are someone thinking of investing, if you are someone who wants to move the American economy forward, you look at every single aspect of it. When you see something like this-- and it is not just this, it is this and a parade of never-ending rules and regulations that kill jobs and increase the costs for the job creators--these are things that clearly urge job creators to create jobs in a place other than America. That is just flat wrong.

That is not what I am here today to talk about primarily. What I am here today to talk about is the way we are going about it. The Founding Fathers did a good job when they set up our government. Indeed, out of the thousands of governments that have been created over the years, most of which have failed, only one has had the success our Founding Fathers had. They created a government out of fear of government. They didn't create a government that said: How can we do this? How can we do that? They were interested in keeping government away from them, keeping government away from their jobs, from their businesses, and from their investments. That is what they wanted to do, and it worked for about 200 years. For about 200 years the Federal Government left the American people and the job creators alone.

Today, over the last 3\1/2\ decades or so, the Federal Government has stuck its nose into every single aspect of our lives, and here we go again. What we have here is the Federal Government using its power and its regulatory process to get its nose into places where it should not be. This is the job of Congress. It is not the job of the bureaucracy to pass these kinds of laws. This isn't a rule or a regulation as the Founding Fathers anticipated these sorts of things. The Founding Fathers set this up with three branches of government to fight with each other so they would leave the American people alone. They said the job of creating laws, the job of creating regulations, the job of creating rules was the job of the Congress.

Somewhere along the line, we have lost our way. Last year the Congress passed about 2,000 pages of legislation, and that included the spending bills. Last year the bureaucracy passed about 70,000 pages of rules and regulations that have the same force and effect as law.

The Congress has lost the ability to pass the laws that govern conduct in the United States. People will argue, yes, but Congress won't do it; Congress won't act. That is precisely the point. We were elected by the American people to act or not act as is appropriate. When we don't act, when we don't do something, it is just as important as when we do something. Indeed, I would argue many times more important. Well, what it has come to today is 2,000 pages versus 70,000 pages.

In Idaho we had the same problem for a lot of years. In Idaho it was the same way. The bureaucracy could pass a rule or regulation that had the force and effect of law.

We have changed that and gotten it to where the legislature has full control. This has to change. Congress has to take back its ability to handle the law as it is imposed and the burden that is imposed on the American people.

I yield the floor.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much.

Fellow Senators, I am going to speak briefly on this issue, and I thank those who have actually put this on the table for us to talk about.

Every single American should watch the debate on this issue. This debate strikes to the heart of the freedoms we as Americans enjoy. Why do we have these freedoms? We have them because in 1776 the people decided they were sick and tired of the King telling them they had to do this and they had to do that and had totally wiped out a number of freedoms they had--not the least of which was speech and religion.

We will remember, these people operated under a King who was so powerful--the Monarchy was so powerful, it established a religion and said: You must belong to this religion if you are a citizen of this country.

When we fought to be free of that, when we fought to be a free people, the Founding Fathers put together a document that specified very clearly the freedoms we would have.

We have come many years since then, but we will lose these freedoms if we do not guard them when even a little chip comes out of it. That is what they are doing here. Think about this for a minute. We have gotten to the point where this government has gotten so big and so powerful that it has said: Look, we do not care about what you believe in your religion because what we are doing is a good thing and, therefore, you must do what we are telling you because the ends justify the means--the means is to chip away at the religious freedoms we as Americans enjoy.

It is wrong. It is the way we lose our freedoms. If we turn our back and let a government do this to us, this is how we lose our freedoms.

This government is big. It is getting bigger by the day. It is getting more powerful by the day. When they sat around the table in 1776, they had just fought with a government that had been terribly oppressive. They argued amongst themselves: Well, what are we going to do? We are going to create a government.

They knew from a historical perspective, and they knew from their recent experience, that any government they create needed to be distrusted, needed to be watched, needed to have shackles on it because if they did not, that government would abuse them--just as every government had throughout history.

So that is why they drew the document we live under today, the Constitution we have. They not only gave us one government, they gave us three governments. They gave us a legislative branch, an executive branch, and a judicial branch--each with the duty to watch the other and beat the other over the head if, indeed, they got out of line. They were so afraid of a government that they did everything they possibly could to see that government did not abuse them.

Well, we learn frequently that their fears were well founded. Today we see, once again, their fears were well founded. What we have is a government that is saying: We do not care what your religious beliefs are; you must do what

we are telling you to do because we think it is the right thing to do regardless of your religious beliefs.

It is wrong. It has to be fought. It must be reversed.

I thank the Senator for bringing this issue to the attention of everyone.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. Like everyone, I have been perusing the numbers to try to figure out whether this gets us somewhere and whether it will actually come to fruition.

A quick look at history. As the Senator points out, this will be the fourth year, if we don't adopt a budget, where we haven't had one. There isn't an entity in the world that operates without a budget. We have to have a budget if we are going to do anything responsibly. Budgeting is not that difficult; it

is merely a way of taking the money we have coming in and allocating it on a priority basis for what we think money should be spent for. There is never enough money. There isn't an enterprise in the world that has enough money. Everyone has to make decisions as to what are the priorities and do the best they can with the money they have.

As I said, over 1,000 days have passed since the Senate has adopted a budget. Last year, a similar budget the President produced was actually put on the floor here of the Senate for a vote. It failed, with zero ``yea'' votes to 97 ``no'' votes. That is not a party-line vote.

This budget, one can only conclude, just like the budget produced by the President last year, spends too much, taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

The budgeting process is something that is extremely important. The American people demand it. Common sense demands it. Anyone who has ever operated a government or a business enterprise knows we must budget. Every Governor in the United States does it--all 50 States. Every legislature does it. As was pointed out by Senator Johanns, when he was Governor he had to cut 7 percent.

Let me tell my colleagues about the state of play in Idaho. When I was Governor, the budget was $3.5 billion when I left. The current Governor is operating with a $2.5 billion budget. He cut $1 billion out of a $3.5 billion budget. If it can be done at the State level, it can be done at the national level, and, indeed, it has to be done at the national level. We are going to have to cut.

The proposed budget spends about $10.4 billion every day, and I put it on a daily basis because when we start talking about trillions, people's eyes glaze over. There is no possible way--there is no human being on the face of this planet who can determine what $1 trillion is, let alone the $3.8 trillion this budget spends. But if we put it on a daily basis, it is $10.4 billion every day. Remember, in the State of Idaho, for a year, the State spends $2.5 billion. This government spends $10.4 billion every day. That comes down to about $7.2 million every minute.

One wouldn't have a whole lot of argument about that if indeed the government had $10.4 billion to spend every day or $7.2 million to spend every minute. But, indeed, every day, under this budget, the Federal Government will borrow $2.4 billion--every single day. The borrowing comes down to about $1.7 million every minute.

When we put it in terms of how much it is a day and how much it is a minute, it becomes staggering. Right now, because we have been dealing with this, every time I see nationally a business engaged in a huge deal at $5 billion or something such as that, we can put it in perspective of how the Federal Government is doing its business. This borrowing that is being done every day by the Federal Government has yielded us now a $15 trillion debt. Again, I don't know what that is; nobody knows what that is. But what I do know is we will never pay it off in our lifetime. It will be our kids and our grandkids who are saddled with that particular amount. That is the real deal.

I wish everybody could have the experience I had, and a number of Senators have done this. Every day, the Federal Government has to pay its bills at the end of the day. They are not like businesses; they don't pay every month. They pay at the end of the day. How do they do this? When I first got here, I thought: This is staggering, and what have you. But I went and watched them do it. The Treasury has a checkbook, like everyone else does, and at the end of the day it has a balance, like everybody else. How does it balance it? It balances it by going out and borrowing the money. I watched them borrow. This is indeed borrowing. About a fourth of it comes from China, about a fourth comes from other countries, and about half comes from wealthy institutions including banks and trusts and individuals around the world. But it is real borrowing and it has to be paid back. Indeed, they not only borrow the amount of money they need every day for the daily deficit, but they borrow enough money to pay back the people whose debts are coming due that day.

After you walk out of there and watch them actually do that, you can't help but walk away from it feeling sick. Because when we look at these kinds of numbers, the government can't pay its bills at the end of the day. The only way it can pay its bills is if it borrows.

We need systemic change. Everything has to be reformed. If I were in charge of everything, the first thing I would reform is this ridiculous idea that we budget on a 10-year basis. That is outrageous.

Mr. President, 10-year budgeting allows smoke and mirrors and allows gimmicks and games so you can stand up and say: Why, this budget saves $4 trillion. It does not save a dime next year. All this alleged savings is 10 years out, and, indeed, on this 10-year cycle they use to budget, the second year never comes.

We need an annual budget. We need to look in the mirror and talk about how much we are spending next year versus how much is coming in. Forget this 10-year basis. It is absolute nonsense.

Senator Blunt talked about Greece. Greece is going through what we are going to have to go through at some time; that is, cutting back. They lived happy for decades. Well, they spent their children's and their grandchildren's money, and all of a sudden what happened to them? Nobody would loan them money anymore. If that happens to us, we are out of business. If nobody will loan us any money on a daily basis, we are out of business.

So what do we need? We need compromise. It is compromise that got us into the position we are in. Compromise every year caused us to take each budget item, where the Democrats wanted to spend more, the Republicans wanted to spend less, so they compromised somewhere in the middle. Now we are operating, even under this budget, at a trillion- dollar deficit for the year.

It is time to compromise again. But we need to go in the other direction. We need to compromise on: How much are we going to cut this year? The Republicans are going to want to cut more. The Democrats, I hope, will agree that we need to do some cutting and we need to wind up somewhere in the middle. That is the only way we are going to get this back on track. This budget does not cut it. This budget does not even come close to it. We are going to bankrupt America if we do not start doing things differently.

I see Senator Isakson has joined us on the floor.

First of all, one of the things people have to accept--and it does not happen around here--is we do not have an income problem. We have a spending problem. All the money in the world would not get us to where you are able to solve every problem that comes down the pike and people want to resolve.

The President is urging that somebody is not paying their fair share. I wish he would hang more details on that. I wish some media person would ask him: Identify these groups for us, please. I think he is trying to create a national dialog as to who is or who is not paying their fair share. I think that might be appropriate.

I think when the American people started on this, they took the numbers and said: OK, if you take the first half of income earners from the lowest to the median, they are paying zero percent in taxes; the top 10 percent is paying 70 percent of all the money the government takes in, so let's have a dialog as to which of those two groups is paying their fair share.

There are some very good sociological reasons why the upper income pays more than the lower income, and I do not think anyone is going to argue with that.

But there is only so much we can do. I am not here defending the rich. The rich take care of themselves. They can move their capital wherever they want to move it. Indeed, we all know a good deal of it is moved offshore. There is $2 trillion offshore right now that Americans--American businesses--want to bring back, but they will not bring it back because there is a war on capital in this country with the government trying to take the capital. We need to have a national dialogue about that. We need to land in the middle someplace.

Again, no one is going to defend the rich. They do not have to; the rich can take care of themselves. But the fact is, we have to come to the conclusion at some point that the resources of the American people are finite. Be it the rich, be it the poor, be it the middle class, their ability to pay for government is finite. There is a point at which we have to say wait instead of saying we are going to bring in more. We have to say we are going to have to prioritize the money we have and how we are going to spend it.

I think that is the way we get out of this situation, having an acceptance that there is a finite amount of money. It is too easy for us to borrow money. We have seen that in our own lives. We have seen friends of ours who have gone down to the bank and borrowed money. If the money is too easy to borrow, they get into trouble, and they get into trouble relatively quickly.

Well, we have gotten into trouble because it is so easy for us to borrow. People still want to loan us money. People are still loaning us money every day. They lend us billions and billions. Indeed, if they did not, we would be out of business. So it is time for this national dialogue on where we are going to go.

As I said, the only way this is going to be resolved is if we compromise. Instead of talking about how much more we are going to spend, we need to do something we have not done since World War II; that is, compromise on how much we are going to cut.

Mr. President, today I join with Idaho's senior Senator Mike Crapo to recognize and pay tribute to the exceptional dedication of Marty Peterson, who is retiring after 51 years of public service in our great State.

For nearly 20 years, Marty has served as the special assistant to the president of the University of Idaho. He has served seven U of I presidents during that time, giving them valuable insight into the politics of the State as he oversaw the government affairs work of the university.

Marty has an in-depth understanding of Idaho's government, having served as the budget director under Governors John Evans and Cecil Andrus. He also served on the staff of U.S. Senator Frank Church and was executive director of the Association of Idaho Cities. His counsel was always valuable and insightful.

It is no wonder, when Idaho was going to celebrate its 100th birthday in 1990, he was asked to oversee the planning and implementation of the State's centennial celebration. Twenty years later, he was the cochair of the committee that planned the rededication of Idaho's newly restored capitol building. Marty could always be counted on to deliver quality results.

His education and military service may have had something to do with his success. At the age of 17, as a junior in high school, he joined the Army National Guard. Marty served 8 years and was a staff sergeant when he was discharged.

Marty is a graduate of Columbia Basin College, the University of Idaho, and Harvard University's Senior Managers in Government Program. But through the years, Marty never stopped learning. He adapted, he studied and continued to provide good counsel to those who sought out his advice.

He consistently shares his time and expertise with community groups. Currently, he serves on the board of directors of the Foundation for Idaho History, North Idaho Chamber of Commerce, Idaho Humanities Council, and the James A. and Louise McClure Center for Public Policy, as well as on the advisory board for the School of Journalism and Mass Media at the University of Idaho.

In addition, he is the current president of the Historic Silver City Foundation and a past president of the City Club of Boise and the Idaho Hemingway House Foundation.

As a well-known Hemingway scholar, Marty has lectured on Hemingway throughout the United States, Spain, and Cuba. He has also been very involved in the preservation of Ernest Hemingway's home in Ketchum, ID and in Cuba.

Although Marty will be retiring from the working world at the end of 2011, we know he will continue serving these and other groups throughout the State. His retirement will give him more time to spend with his wife Barb and their family and especially the grandchildren.

When people ask us what makes Idaho such a great place, we could talk about the beautiful mountains, skiing, whitewater rafting, hunting and fishing, or a myriad of other things. But in reality, it is people such as Marty Peterson who work to make Idaho even better--that is why Idaho is so great.

It is with our sincere thanks and well wishes that Senator Crapo and I recognize Marty Peterson for his many contributions to the State of Idaho and its people. We wish him a happy and productive retirement.

First of all, let me say I think there has been an adequate compromise that has been reached, and we are to have a side- by-side to vote on which will give everybody the opportunity to express themselves. Let me say that every single one of us on this floor has a goal to protect the rights of U.S. citizens.

This country was founded by people who had just gone through some very difficult times with a government that was very oppressive on them, and they wrote the Constitution specifically to protect themselves and to protect individuals from the government. Those constitutional provisions today are as good as they were then. Every single one of us wants to see that American citizens are protected; that is, protections that take place in the case of criminal cases.

In the case of a war, in the case where a U.S. citizen joins enemy combatants and fights against the United States, there is a different standard--although a delicate division--that exists. If we look at the provisions of section 1031, where covered persons are defined, it is very clear it applies only to people who participated in the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, and it applies to people who are part of it or who have substantially supported al-Qaida and the Taliban or its associated forces and have actually committed a belligerent act or have directly participated in the hostilities.

This is drawn very carefully and very narrowly so a U.S. citizen can--as my good friend from Kentucky always says--be able to file a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. district court and have the U.S. district judge determine whether a person is actually an enemy combatant. If that U.S. district judge turns it down, that person does not necessarily go free. The U.S. Government can then charge them with treason or any one of a number of crimes, but they will be tried in the U.S. district court.

On the other hand, if they are found to be an enemy combatant by a U.S. district judge whose decision is reviewable by the circuit court and if the Supreme Court chooses--by the Supreme Court, if they are found to be the enemy combatant, then they will, indeed, be subject to this.

So this has been very narrow. People who are watching this and who are concerned about the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, as I am, as people in Idaho are, as people in every State in America are, under those circumstances, those people will be well protected. We will have the amendment here that everybody will have the opportunity to express themselves on.

I will yield the floor.

We have no objection.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Ed Strickfaden. Today, the Idaho State Police will be naming a building after Ed, who served as the director of the Idaho State Police and was a 35-year veteran of the department. He is very deserving of this honor, and I congratulate him on this special day.

Ed Strickfaden graduated from Council High School, located in a small rural town in southwestern Idaho. He honorably served in the U.S. Air Force before beginning his career with the Idaho State Police. In 1967, he was hired as a port of entry officer, and from there he worked his way up the ranks, serving in almost every region of the State.

In 1980, he was promoted from a patrolman in the Lewiston area to a sergeant in Twin Falls. By 1984, he was district commander in Idaho Falls, then moving to the district commander position in Coeur d'Alene the following year.

He served in the headquarters office beginning in 1991, first as a major in charge of field operations, then as a deputy superintendent of the Idaho State Police. He was appointed ISP superintendent by Gov. Phil Batt and served 4 years in that position prior to his appointment as director of the Department of Law Enforcement by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne in January 1999.

Colonel Strickfaden undertook a major reorganization of the Idaho State Police, streamlining its functions and enhancing training throughout the department. He even initiated the name change to Idaho State Police, effective July 1, 2000.

With his years of service, rising through the ranks and serving in all parts of Idaho, Colonel Strickfaden understood more than most what was needed and how to do it. He was a man of uncompromising integrity and had the utmost respect of those he led and the respect of the state's elected officials.

Today, the Idaho State Police and the people of Idaho honor this humble man by putting his name on the building at ISP headquarters. It is a fitting tribute to a great leader and a wonderful human being. We are all very grateful for the many years of exemplary service Colonel Ed Strickfaden has provided to our great State.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention Colonel Strickfaden's wonderful family and especially his wife Barbara for her strong support throughout Ed's career. Together, they have served the people of Idaho with great distinction.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize a great loss suffered by the people of Idaho and the Takasugi family in particular. Last week, Idaho State Representative Pat Takasugi passed away after a 3- year battle with cancer. During that fight he was fortunate to have the loving support of his wife Suzanne, his three children, and his parents.

When I was Governor, I had the great fortune to appoint Pat to my cabinet to serve as my director of the department of agriculture. Pat was an unwearying advocate for agriculture. He understood what farmers faced, since he was one of them. He started farming in 1977 and successfully grew his business from 32 acres to a 1,500-acre operation.

Pat served as the director of the department of agriculture for 10 years, and during that time he worked tirelessly in promoting the products grown in Idaho. In 2003, before the local food movement became popular, he instituted the Idaho Preferred brand to help consumers identify locally grown products.

He had numerous accomplishments as director that moved Idaho's agricultural industry forward. He created the Idaho Food Quality Assurance Lab, established the Seed Indemnity Fund, pushed cooperative weed management, and streamlined regulations, among others.

Pat encouraged the next generation of farmers to be involved in various agricultural boards and commissions and to become leaders in their community. Pat walked his talk, as he was a member of numerous local and national organizations, including a term as president of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

His service continued when he decided to step down as the agriculture director and run for the Idaho House of Representatives. He was handily elected in 2008 and again in 2010, and he was a strong advocate for lower taxes and less government regulations.

For those of us who knew Pat, it was not hard to see why he was so popular. He had an infectious sense of humor, great optimism about life, and truly cared about the well-being of others. It can be said that his smalltown roots had something to do with that.

Pat grew up in the Wilder, ID, area and attended schools there before graduating from Vallivue High School. He attended the local college, the College of Idaho in Caldwell, which is an outstanding educational institution.

He volunteered for the U.S. Army after graduating and served a total of 10 years in Active and Reserve Duty. Pat was promoted to the rank of captain and qualified for Airborne wings, the Ranger tab, and Special Forces Green Beret. Pat loved his country and was grateful for the opportunities he had to succeed through his own efforts and hard work.

Mr. President, while it is difficult to sum up all that Pat Takasugi did for agriculture in Idaho and the many lives he touched through his service, let me conclude by saying that he was a great American. Vicki and I extend our condolences on behalf of all Idahoans to Suzanne and all of the family for their loss.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the valor and accomplishments of the 389th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron. The 389th--better known as the T-Bolts--is part of the 366th Fighter Wing based at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. At Mountain Home, the squadron is composed of 80 airmen from across the United States, including aviators and essential ground personnel. While deployed, the squadron grew to over 400, including maintainers, intelligence personnel, and support staff from the 366th.

In May 2011, the T-Bolts deployed to Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, with 18 F-15E Strike Eagles to support Operation Enduring Freedom. In the process, they demonstrated resolve and what can be accomplished through fierce loyalty to each other and to our country. The T-Bolts prosecuted 3,100 combat missions and dropped 800 tons of ordnance. They supported 3,700 ground missions by American and allied forces and responded to 820 ``troops in contact'' emergency combat support calls. In addition, they worked directly with special operations forces to destroy 170 enemy weapons caches and capture 620 detainees, including 90 high-value individuals.

The diligence of the maintainers and ground personnel ensured that the 389th met 100 percent of their taskings without missing a single sortie. And the pilots and weapons system officers broke the F-15E deployment record, flying more than 14,000 hours in just over 6 months.

Through their excellence and determination, the 389th kept relentless pressure on the al-Qaida network, killing key members of their senior leadership. Additionally, they directly supported numerous large-scale coalition ground operations with kinetic and non-kinetic effects as they provided lethal close air support across Afghanistan.

The men and women of the 389th made a real and substantial contribution to the safety of America, the success of the global war on terror, and the destruction of al-Qaida and those who would do us harm. By successfully taking the fight to the enemy, the T-Bolts helped write the history of the early 21st century through their tenacity and courage.

No one summed it up better or more eloquently than the commander of the 366th Fighter Wing, COL Ron Buckley, who said of his airmen:

I am incredibly proud of the professionalism and dedication our gunfighters displayed while flawlessly executing their mission to deliver precise combat air power for joint operations on the ground. From aircrews to maintainers to support, the T-Bolts carried on the incredible legacy of the gunfighters and answered our Nation's call.

I also want to take this important opportunity to honor America's unsung heroes by recognizing and commending the families and loved ones of those who serve in the 389th. We are also

proud of their service, their commitment, and the immense sacrifices they made and continue to make on behalf of our country.

The T-Bolts served honorably in defense of a grateful nation, and I am pleased today to recognize the heroic members of the 389th for their valorous service while deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

I am reminded of the core values of the Air Force: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all you do. There is no better example than the airmen of the 389th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron. With consummate bravery and boldness, the T-Bolts honor every American through a spirit of dedication and a sense of duty to defend a cause larger than one's self. For their efforts, we and future generations are forever indebted and eternally grateful.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the centennial anniversary of the founding of the city of Ucon, ID. On August 13, 2011, the citizens of Ucon will gather at Simmons Park to commemorate its 100th year and unveil a monument to its founders. This is a very historic and special day for this community.

Once a barren wilderness, the city of Ucon is an example of the Western spirit and determination in making the desert bloom. First colonized in 1884 by George Simmons, early settlers were confronted with challenging terrain. Despite the harsh conditions, the settlement quickly grew. Within 13 years, a church, school, amusement hall, and several dozen homes were built. In 1898, the power of steam and iron transformed the town with the introduction

of the Oregon Short Line Railroad. In order to take greater advantage of commercial opportunities provided by the railroad, the main town site was moved a mile west. Within a decade several businesses sprang up around the railroad tracks and the community began to take shape. On April 16, 1911, it was officially incorporated as the city of Ucon.

In the ensuing decades, changes in the railroad and the effects of the Great Depression transitioned Ucon from a commercial hub to a residential community. Today, many in southeastern Idaho can trace their roots to the pioneers and patriots who settled Ucon. Congratulations to the people of Ucon for 100 years of success.