Floor Statements

I thank Senator Johanns very much. I am honored to be here with the other former Governors. There are a handful of us on each side who have had the honor and privilege of serving their States as the chief executive, so it is a real honor to be here, and I bring that experience with me. I think every one of us brings that experience with us. I not only bring that experience, but I did almost three decades in the Idaho State Senate, balancing the budget and, indeed, I was in the leadership, having to do what the leadership does here, as far as bringing the two ends together, because we have a balanced budget requirement in the State of Idaho, as virtually every other State does. Does that create some angst when one is the chief executive or when one is in the legislative process trying to balance the budget? Of course it does. I am sure the Presiding Officer wound up with the same thing in her great State as she tried to balance the budget because no matter how much money one has, it is never enough. As Senator Johanns pointed out, it is a matter of priority. This is not rocket science.

What the States do and, indeed, what businesses do and, indeed, what families do around the kitchen table, either formally or informally, is anticipate how much money is going to come in over the year, sometimes over the month, sometimes over the week. They anticipate how much money is going to come in and then they say: We have priorities. What is our first priority? Of course, in a home, we have to be able to eat, we have to have the utilities paid and a roof over our head, so those become very important. To a government, obviously, if it is a State government, education is the largest expenditure for virtually everyone. For the Federal Government, obviously, the highest priority is national defense. But we make a list. Then what we do is we allocate the money we have to a list. When we are done, nobody ever stands and says: That went very well. We have enough money. We have everything funded. We are able to do everything we want to do.

No, absolutely not. Indeed, around here, in this city, this government is spending $3.8 trillion. I can tell you, there isn't a day that goes by where we don't get hit up with somebody saying: It is not enough. Our agency doesn't have enough money. Why we can't even--blank. Fill in whatever you want, whatever agency it is. Everybody tells you they don't have enough money.

Yes, that is right. Because a balanced budget requirement acknowledges a plain, simple fact of life; that is, there are not enough resources to do everything we want to do. Indeed, a lot of times there isn't even enough money to do what we need to do, but what we have to do is we have to do the best we can with what we have. Without a balanced budget amendment, it becomes the opposite of that--we keep spending.

People say to me: Well, Jim, you have been in public service all your adult life. Has anything in Washington, DC, surprised you? I said: Yes, but only one thing. The stuff that goes on here doesn't surprise me at all, except the cavalier attitude this city has and, indeed, this institution has for the value of money. It astounds me that in this institution they don't stop spending money when they hit the end of the budget or they don't stop spending money when they hit the end of the resources. They stop spending money when they run out of time. That seems to be the only sideboard on how much money is spent. If we look around--and people will criticize us on this--and say: You foolish Republicans, what are you talking about? A balanced budget amendment, that is dumb. You know what I say to them? Look at the States. Look around at the States. There are two, maybe three States that are having very difficult financial situations, and it is because they either don't have a balanced budget amendment or they have done some skulduggery to get around the balanced budget requirement they have. But every other State has its financial house in order. Has it been painful? Of course, it has been painful. It is painful to everyone when they don't have enough money, including American families, but that is simply the way it is.

One of the problems we are having is the basic foundation of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. People who say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats ought to come and spend the day here. They would find that philosophically we are hardwired very differently. Similar to two brands of computers trying to talk to each other, we are hardwired differently.

Republicans believe this Nation was founded with the idea we would have a limited central government. It was founded by people who, indeed, feared a central government. By the way, their fear, as we now see every day, is very well founded. We believe in a limited government. We believe in individual responsibility. We believe in the responsibility of the States. It is hard to find people in this town who actually believe the States are sovereign, that it was the States that created the Federal Government and kept a leash on it and said you can only have the powers we are specifically putting into this Constitution. Now the courts over the years have expanded that dramatically, but nonetheless, the vision the Founding Fathers had, the American people had when they put together the country that created the most successful, the wealthiest, the culture that enjoyed the best quality of life anyone on the face of this planet has ever enjoyed before, the Founding Fathers said: Look, we are going to create a government for the individual, to give the individual the ability to prosper, to give the individual opportunity.

That is what they said. They didn't sit around the table and say: You know what we need is a nanny State. We need to create a government that is going to take care of every American from the time they are born until the time they die just as in Europe.

In Europe, the government pays for your birth. In Europe, the government pays for your funeral and, indeed, it pays for a whole lot of everything in between including every dime you spend after you retire. That is not what America was founded to do. They did not sit around and say: How can we take care of the whole society? They said: How can we defend this country? How can we make sure no enemies come into this country? How can we make sure people have the opportunity to succeed? Yes, some will fail. Yes, some will succeed. Yes, we are going to have poor people, and, yes, we are going to have rich people because that is what a free society is all about, but everybody is going to have the same opportunity. Everybody who is born into this country or becomes a naturalized citizen in this country is going to have the opportunity to succeed in a greater fashion than anyone on the face of this planet has ever succeeded before, and they are going to do it without government interference.

My goodness. How far we have come from those days and not in a good way. They couldn't conceive they needed a balanced budget amendment because the numbers we are talking about they never heard of. If a guy sitting around the table said: By the way, do you know the country is going to be over $1 trillion in debt someday, they would have said: What is $1 trillion? How many zeros is that? They couldn't even conceive of that, so they didn't put that in the Constitution. But this isn't difficult to do. It is how much comes in and how much comes out and they need to equalize each other.

I will be the first to admit our two parties don't understand each other. As I said, we are hardwired differently, and I have a lot of good friends on the other side of the aisle. We have good conversations. They don't understand how I can possibly think we could have a balanced budget, and I guess I don't understand how they think we can

spend ourselves into prosperity. We are, indeed, hardwired differently than each other.

I watched one of the leaders the other day come out onto the floor. He was carrying on about how bad the balanced budget amendment was. He said it would be an admission of the failure of this institution to be able to do its job. It would be abdicating our ability to do our job. Look around. We are $14.3 trillion in debt. Do you think the American people think we are doing our job, when we are at $14.3 trillion in debt and now debating adding another $2.4 trillion to that? If a person comes and spends a little bit of time here, they will understand this institution cannot budget and do so responsibly. Given the opportunity, it will spend and spend and spend and the only way this can be changed is if we have a balanced budget provision in the Constitution just as virtually every State in America has. We are going upside down at a rate of $4 billion to $5 billion a day. We are borrowing new money, $4 billion to $5 billion a day. That is about 12 hours of the entire annual budget for the State of Idaho. This can't go on. The way to fix it is with a balanced budget requirement that puts a new rule in place, and we need rules, we need sideboards when it comes to spending money.

I wish to thank the Senator for providing us with this opportunity. Those of us who have actually lived in the real world where we could not print money, we could not borrow the kind of money we are talking about here, where we had to make responsible decisions--it is time this government did that, and the only way it is going to do that, regardless of flowery speeches given during campaigns--oh, send me to Washington; I will take care of this; I will see we balance the budget; I won't overspend--they come here and do it. The only way this can be done is to balance the budget. Without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we can't do this.

The American people have to do this. We can vote to ask the American people: Do you think we should have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Let's find out. Let's find out. There can't be anything wrong with giving the American people the ability to do this. It takes three-fourths of the States to ratify this. Let's give them the opportunity. Let's have the debate. Let's pass this and give it to the States and see if they want to do it.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the founding of the city of McCall, ID. On July 19, 2011, the citizens of McCall will gather at Depot Park to commemorate the 100th year of its founding. This is a very historic and special day for this central Idaho community.

From its early days as a settlement in 1818, McCall has embodied the frontier spirit and entrepreneurship that makes the United States a land of opportunity. After a discovery of gold in the Salmon River Mountains, miners

advanced along the west side of Payette Lake, accelerating the construction of Warren Wagon Road. Around 1890, the town's namesake, Tom McCall, plotted a 4-block town site from his homestead on the south end of the lake, taking in the abandoned Lardo U.S. Post Office.

In the years following, there was an extraordinary amount of growth. Tom McCall bought the Warren Gold Dredging Company sawmill, thus initiating his lumber company that provided lumber for the manufacturing of business buildings, hotels, and homes until the 1970s. A school and post office were also established, with McCall naming himself postmaster. A few short years later, the town was officially incorporated on July 19, 1911.

In 1914, the railroad arrived in McCall bringing with it scores of tourists. McCall's picturesque location on the shores of Payette Lake and abundant snowfall and hot, dry summers make it a natural vacation destination. And yes, this glacially-carved lake, nearly 400 feet deep, is rumored to be the home of a sea serpent named ``Sharlie,'' which has been sighted by tourists and locals alike over the past century.

The winter of '24 spawned the annual winter carnival. Its spectacular snow sculptures now draw thousands each year. Even Hollywood took notice of this beauty in 1938, when McCall served as the elaborate backdrop of the Academy Award-nominated movie, ``Northwest Passage.''

Today, McCall is known as an alluring all-season vacation destination anchored by historic Shore Lodge and the ski slopes at nearby Brundage Mountain, which forge the frontier spirit of its people and enhance its natural beauty. McCall has much to celebrate and look forward to in its next century.

Congratulations to the vibrant town of McCall for 100 years of success.

Mr. President, today I want to give recognition to an individual who has done great things for the ski industry and the State of Idaho. On April 2, Earl Holding will be inducted into the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame. His induction is not because of his exploits on the slopes, although he knows how to carve a turn in the snow, but because of his passion and unmatched effort in developing quality skiing facilities in Idaho, the Western United States, and for his work in bringing the 2002 Winter Olympics to Salt Lake City.

Earl Holding purchased Idaho's ski resort of Sun Valley in 1977. His attention to detail and the experience he brought to the property from owning and managing properties in the hospitality industry, truck stops and oil industry was just what the resort needed. He began a beautification project that restored the grandeur of the property by renovating virtually every square foot of the historic buildings, adding moonlight sleigh rides and world-class ice shows, and planting thousands of new trees.

On the ski runs, he put in the world's largest snowmaking system. Five new high-speed detachable quad lifts were built along with new day lodges and restaurants. With interests in architecture and design, Earl Holding showed his talent for uniting culture and charm as well as inspiring excitement to his resorts and hotels. As such, he personally oversaw the design of the new lodges to maximize their breathtaking mountain views.

Sun Valley was once again a preeminent resort that brought skiers and tourists from around the world. In 2009, the Sun Valley Nordic Center hosted the International Special Olympics. It was also the training site for numerous international teams as they prepared for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

Earl Holding, along with his wife Carol, has restored the charm and grandeur that was Sun Valley shortly after its founding by Averell Harriman in 1936. Skiers, winter sports enthusiasts and the entire ski industry have benefitted from the Holding family's passion for developing a first-class and highly acclaimed ski resort at Sun Valley and elsewhere.

His work has also made the State of Idaho a destination location for skiers, golfers and other outdoor enthusiasts as he developed Sun Valley into a five-star, year-round resort. The enormous draw the name ``Sun Valley'' has in the highly competitive international tourism trade is beyond anything the state could do to attract more tourists.

It is indeed a great honor for me to congratulate Earl Holding for his vision, passion and perseverance in making Sun Valley a world-class resort,

and for his induction into the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Hall of Fame.

Madam President, I am proud to come to the floor today to speak on the amendment to which I am a cosponsor.

This is simply a matter of fairness. With all due respect to my colleague from Washington, referencing her comments about the big boys versus the small inventors and what have you, I don't view it as that at all. I view it as a fairness issue: The person who created the invention gets the benefits of that creation, not the person with the fastest tennis shoes. That is what we are doing.

We are creating what is called a race notice statute, which is similar to what is in place in many States on real estate filings. It has a legitimate place in the real estate market but not here. With so much on the line, with creativity on the line, it should be the person who actually does the invention who reaps the benefits of that invention, and that is all this does.

The other thing I think is so important is it preserves the situation we

have had for many years in place. I have heard people say: Oh, well, this is a poison pill. If you take this out, it kills the bill. That isn't the case at all. It simply preserves the situation we have in place today. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do.

I urge an affirmative vote for this amendment.

I yield the floor to my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Coburn, DeMint, Johnson and Lee, in introducing the Education for All Act. This important piece of legislation would preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans.

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new ``gainful employment'' rules that would deny federal financial aid to students who attend proprietary colleges and vocational certificate programs. These rules would disqualify students from receiving federal education loans if their chosen programs do not meet a complex formula comparing student debt to future earning potential. Why should students be discouraged from attending a school they want or a profession they chose because of Washington bureaucrats?

The bill I am introducing today would prohibit these regulations from going into effect.

The ``gainful employment'' rules could deny hundreds of thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in today's troubled economy. There is high demand in some sectors for highly skilled workers and propriety schools are uniquely qualified to meet the training needs of these employers. It is simply irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should be the administration's number one priority.

Further, the ``gainful employment'' rules will disproportionately harm low-income and minority students. These students often depend more heavily on education loans regardless of the type of institution they attend and take longer to repay.

The rules would also significantly impact health care programs. Nearly half of all health care workers are trained at proprietary schools. With an aging baby boom population, demand for trained health care providers is already critical and will only get worse. President Obama's health care law adds to this burden as well. We ought to be expanding educational capacity for health care workers, not enacting regulations that threaten access.

In short, this legislation will preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Coburn, DeMint, Johnson and Lee, in introducing the Education for All Act. This important piece of legislation would preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans.

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new ``gainful employment'' rules that would deny federal financial aid to students who attend proprietary colleges and vocational certificate programs. These rules would disqualify students from receiving federal education loans if their chosen programs do not meet a complex formula comparing student debt to future earning potential. Why should students be discouraged from attending a school they want or a profession they chose because of Washington bureaucrats?

The bill I am introducing today would prohibit these regulations from going into effect.

The ``gainful employment'' rules could deny hundreds of thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in today's troubled economy. There is high demand in some sectors for highly skilled workers and propriety schools are uniquely qualified to meet the training needs of these employers. It is simply irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should be the administration's number one priority.

Further, the ``gainful employment'' rules will disproportionately harm low-income and minority students. These students often depend more heavily on education loans regardless of the type of institution they attend and take longer to repay.

The rules would also significantly impact health care programs. Nearly half of all health care workers are trained at proprietary schools. With an aging baby boom population, demand for trained health care providers is already critical and will only get worse. President Obama's health care law adds to this burden as well. We ought to be expanding educational capacity for health care workers, not enacting regulations that threaten access.

In short, this legislation will preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, we have come to the floor to mourn the loss of a great statesman in Idaho. Jim McClure was loved uniformly across

the State of Idaho and had dedicated his entire life to public service, first as a prosecuting attorney in Payette County, ID, and then, of course, the State senate and Congress--the House of Representatives and then the Senate of the United States.

From a little historical background, Jim McClure, when he was elected to this body, was elected to the Shoup seat. The Shoup seat was first held by Senator Shoup, who was the last territorial Governor of Idaho, the first State Governor of Idaho, and the first Senator to hold that seat. Jim McClure was the ninth person to hold that seat. In the interim, it was held by Borah. Both Shoup and Borah have statues in Statuary Hall.

Prior to my election as the 11th person to hold this seat, the seat was held by our distinguished colleague, Senator Craig, who has joined Senator Crapo and I on the floor and I am sure joins us in our remarks and condolences to the McClure family.

Jim McClure was a family man. He was truly dedicated to his wife Louise and his children. Back when Jim served here, many of the Members actually moved here as opposed to going home on the weekends, as most of us do today. The McClure family spent a lot of time here. But they did spend their summers--that is when the Senate was out most of the summer--they did spend their summers in Idaho and other times in Idaho.

Jim McClure was very dedicated to a couple important issues, the first one being fiscal. Jim McClure would come back to Idaho and warn about the spending habits this Congress had. In fact, I knew Jim McClure since I was a young prosecutor in the 1960s. I think Jim McClure was the first one I ever heard speak directly about the danger this Congress was leading this country into with its spending habits. Had his advice been followed back then, we would not be, as a country, in the difficulties we are today.

Secondly, Jim's issue was energy. Jim spent time as chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Indeed, I sit on that committee today. Senator Craig sat on it before me, Senator McClure before him, and Senator Jordan before Jim McClure. Indeed, we cannot recall when we did not have anyone from Idaho serving on that committee. Indeed, it was the Shoup seat that has sat on that committee for as long as any of us can remember.

As a testament to the larger-than-life persona that Jim McClure had, the following are named after Jim McClure in Idaho. In 1995, the College of Mines and Earth Resources at the University of Idaho was dedicated as the James A. McClure Hall. In December of 2001, the Federal building and U.S. courthouse in Boise, ID, was renamed for Jim McClure. In 2007, in Moscow, ID, the University of Idaho named their bureau of public affairs research the James A. and Louise McClure Center for Public Policy Research.

All of this recaps in certainly an inadequate way the many things Jim McClure did for the people of Idaho, indeed for the people of America and the people of the world, as he led in the Senate.

I wish to close, briefly, with what I knew about Jim McClure and I think what those of us here knew about Jim McClure and what he is remembered for in the Senate.

In the media today, we see a lot of rancor and we see a lot of arguing and a lot of hostility involved in the political process. If I can say one thing about Jim McClure, it is that what he brought to the entire process was civility. No matter how tough sledding got, no matter how disagreements escalated, Jim McClure always kept it level. He always kept it at a very civil tone, and Jim McClure approached everything with a gentle sense of humor, which many times diffused things that could have gotten out of hand.

To his family, again, we express our deep condolences, and the people of the State of Idaho mourn today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have gone through the various attributes for which Jim McClure was known. It is a true loss to Idaho and a true loss to the Nation. He was held in such high regard by all Idahoans. I am proud to be the person holding his seat.

He was a cofounder and a charter member of the steering committee on the Republican side. The steering committee is a group that was brought together to talk about and develop policies from a conservative standpoint for the Nation. It certainly is something that has been very helpful to the Republican Conference over the many years. Senator McClure will be remembered for that, and we certainly thank him for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Idaho Small Business Development Center for its 25 years of supporting small business in Idaho. The Idaho Small Business Development Center has a rich tradition of service to small business all over Idaho.

The mission of the Idaho Small Business Development Center is to enhance the success of small businesses in Idaho by providing high- quality consulting and training. The staff has delivered up-to-date consulting, training, technical assistance and environmental regulatory assistance in all aspects of small business management since 1986. Their primary goal is to help small business owners and entrepreneurs make sound decisions for the successful operation of their business.

Each year, Idaho Small Business Development Center consultants meet with clients to provide guidance in developing and growing a successful business. Statistics show that on average, Idaho Small Business Development Center clients achieve greater than 10 times the sales and employment growth of the typical Idaho small business.

At the Idaho Small Business Development Center, client satisfaction and success are the ultimate measures of the work they do. They strive to deliver high quality, innovative programs and services in a consistent and timely manner and take great pride in the success of those served.

Under the long-time leadership of Jim Hogge, the Idaho Small Business

Development Center has become the go-to shop for the Idaho entrepreneur. Their hands-on approach has meant the difference between closing their doors or turning a profit for hundreds of Idaho businesses.

Through the ups and downs of the economy, the Idaho Small Business Development Center has always been there with an open door and a helping hand. Today, they partner with Idaho's colleges and universities to teach the principles of business and cultivate the next generation of Idaho entrepreneurs.

It is my privilege to recognize the 25th anniversary of what is truly one of Idaho's bedrock institutions, the Idaho Small Business Development Center.

Madam President, I join my colleague from Idaho in underscoring the difficulty we have on this issue. Most people on this floor don't have a full appreciation of what those of us in the West have to deal with. Two out of every three acres in Idaho are owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government came in, in the mid- 1990s, and forced the wolf upon the State. The Governor didn't want it, the legislature didn't want it, and the congressional delegation didn't want it. Nonetheless, the Federal Government brought us 34 wolves. Now they have turned into well over 1,000, and nobody knows exactly how many breeding pairs there are. The result is that there has been tremendous havoc wreaked on our preferred species in Idaho, the elk. We have done an outstanding job of managing elk, the preferred species, but they are also the preferred species for the wolf to eat. They are not vegetarians.

As a result, we have had a tremendous problem with wolves in Idaho, and we have brought a bill to the Senate to turn the management of wolves over to the State. All the other animals are managed by the State. We have done a great job for well over 100 years of managing two other difficult predators, the bear and various cats. We have done it responsibly, on a sustained basis, and we want to do the same thing with wolves.

The Federal Government has to let go of this. We have tried. We have the Federal courts that have stepped in. I don't quite understand how the Federal

court can claim the wolf is still an endangered species, when they can turn 34 wolves into over 1,000 and the population has exploded. Nonetheless, they have. It is time for Congress to act.

I yield back to Senator Crapo.

Madam President, I wish to call up amendment No. 4878.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President and fellow Senators, I bring you what I believe to be the first amendment to the resolution of ratification. We have had a number of amendments that have been to the actual treaty itself. We have listened to objection after objection that: Oh, my gosh, we can't possibly amend the treaty because if we do, we are going to have to sit down and talk to the Russians again.

We don't have to worry about that with this amendment. This is an amendment to the resolution of ratification. It will not require that we sit down with the Russians and negotiate. Frankly, I don't know what is wrong with that. Frankly, I think it is a good idea after all the problems that have been raised with the treaty. But, nonetheless, if that is an overriding concern, you can set that aside and listen to the merits of the amendment.

I have to tell my colleagues that part of this I bring as a matter of frustration. I have been involved with this for months, and I am so tired of hearing about accommodation after accommodation after accommodation to the Russians. It appears, before we even

started with this, the Russians said: Well, we are going to have to have in the preamble language that says missile defense is related to this, and we said no. We have to have the ability to protect our country and build missile defense. The Russians said it has to be in there. It is in there. The next thing we said: You know, for 40 years we have been doing this, and you guys have a 10-to-1 advantage over us on tactical weapons; that is, short-range weapons. We ought to talk about that because you want to talk about parity on strategic weapons. No, it can't be in there. We accommodated the Russians again. Every time we turn around and put out a problem here--just as we heard on this rail thing--every time we turn around and put out a problem that ought to be addressed, the people who are promoting this stand and apologize, they accommodate, they say it is OK, they overlook it, and we go on and on and on.

I am sitting here listening to this on the rails, and the one side says: Well, don't worry about it; they are never going to build this anyway. We pull up an article that says they are in the process of doing this. Well, yes, but don't worry about it because it is going to be counted anyway.

So I have something here that, hopefully, we are not going to apologize to the Russians for. We are not going to accommodate them. We are going to tell them that if you want a relationship with us, you have to be honest with us.

We all know, and it has been widely reported, that they cheat. They are serial cheaters. They cheated in virtually every agreement we have had with them. If we are going to have a relationship with them and press the restart button--and I think we should. We should press the reset button. We should have a decent relationship with them. But let's wipe the slate clean and let's start with the military equipment they have stolen from us. That is all this is about.

On August 8 of 2008, as we all know, the Russians invaded Georgia, and when they invaded Georgia, it was pretty much of a mismatch. They ran over the top of them, did a lot of bad things, and eventually there was a peace accord that was brokered by President Sarkozy, and the next amendment I have deals more in-depth with that.

But when they ran over the Georgians, the American military had just been there doing exercises with the Georgians because the Georgians were kind enough to engage with us and help us in Afghanistan. They were preparing to send troops to Afghanistan to help us. So we Americans went over there and we said: OK. We need to do some military exercises, engage in some joint training, so we can get you ready to go into Afghanistan. We are now preparing to leave. We have completed the exercises. We are preparing to leave. We obviously took a lot of our equipment over there, not the least of which were four American humvees. The four American humvees were shipped to a port in Georgia and were in the process of being shipped back to the United States. There is no argument that the title to these four humvees is with the people of the United States of America. They belong to me. They belong to you. They belong to the U.S. military. They belong to all of us.

The Russians, when they overran the Georgians and got to the seaport, found our humvees, and what did they do? Did they say: Well, yes, they belong to the Americans; we will put them on the boat that is supposed to go back to the United States? No. They said: We are going to take them, and they stole them. Today, they still have them.

The United States has asked for the four humvees back. But let me tell my colleagues where the four humvees are. If you want to see a picture of them, you can go to msn.com and search Georgia and humvees and you can see a picture of our humvees. Where are they? They are in the Russian Central Armed Forces Museum in Moscow, Russia. That is where our four humvees are. What are they doing there? They are on display as a war trophy, taken by the Russians as a war trophy. Well, we weren't engaged in that war.

So if we are going to have a good relationship with them, is it too much to ask to give us back the property they stole from us a little over 24 months ago?

So this is an easy one to vote for. I have had discussions with my good friend from Massachusetts. He said this isn't related. This is absolutely related. We are entering into a marriage on a very important issue.

Shouldn't we ask that they give us our stolen property back? And shouldn't they say: Yes, we want to set the reset button too. We want to hold hands and sing ``Kumbaya.'' We want to be friends.

Well, that is fine, but give us back our stolen military equipment.

That is all this asks for. It doesn't jeopardize the treaty; it just says it goes into force as soon as they give us our four humvees back.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first of all, to my good friend from Maryland, I agree with much of what he said about our relationship and the relationship between Georgia and Russia. I will speak about that in the next amendment I am going to offer, which is No. 4879, right after this one. I know the Senator didn't talk about our stolen military equipment by the Russians.

To my friend from Massachusetts, who responded to what I said, I say: Here we go again. This is exactly why I brought this amendment. We are again accommodating the Russians. Why can't we just once ask them to behave themselves and say: Look, this is not a big matter, but you are acting like a thief.

Do you want to see what they did? I made reference for you to go on the Internet to see the pictures, but here they are. If you are a good American, you can go there and you can watch your property right here being towed away by the Russians, back to Moscow, to put on display as a trophy. Here is another picture of it right here. This is even better. This is one of our humvees being towed by the Russians. This humvee is headed back to Moscow, where it is now displayed as a trophy.

Is it too much to ask, where we are going to enter into this agreement and supposedly befriend and supposedly reset the button on our relationship, is it too much to say: Look, you stole from us. You are acting like a thief. Give us back the property we own.

Is that asking too much of the Russians? Can we not just once, instead of accommodating them, instead of apologizing for them, instead of saying we should not tie this to that or we will not get it, can we not just once say: Give us our stolen property back.

That is all we are asking here. It is not a big thing, but it does give us a clear indication of what they are thinking, of what their relationship is with us, of what they want their relationship to be with us.

This is not asking too much. This does not blow up the treaty. It simply says they pack up the four humvees and, and as soon as they do, the treaty goes into effect. That is not too much to ask.

I yield to my good friend from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I call up Risch amendment No. 4879.

Madam President, may I respond.

Madam President, somehow the debate about the relationship between Russia and Georgia and our relationship as far as Georgia is concerned has crept into this debate. This amendment has nothing to do with Georgia, other than the fact that is where the theft took place. The international criminal offense of theft of our military property took place in Georgia. That is the only thing Georgia has to do with this. This has nothing to do with the relationship. Amendment No. 4879 has a lot to do with it. When we get there, we will talk about that.

I regret my good friend from New Hampshire cannot support this amendment, because although I suspect I will

support the resolution, we do a lot of these resolutions. We do the resolution and send it off to the Russians. They are going to be laughing up their sleeve at us, whilst they are fondling our equipment that they have possession of.

There are no teeth in these resolutions. We actually have the opportunity to do something to get our military equipment back. If they are acting in good faith, if they are people of good will, if they want a relationship with us, then they are going to have to make a choice: Do we keep four humvees or do we give them back so this treaty can go into effect? That is the choice they are going to have to make.

That is not too tough a choice to put on them. Do you want to continue to be thieves or do you want to be honest about this and deliver the goods you have stolen? There is nothing wrong about that. This gives us the opportunity, I say to the good Senator, to do what you exactly do on the resolution, but it is going to give it some teeth.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, may I claim my 19 seconds.

Madam President, with all due respect to my good friend from Maryland, this is exactly the right vehicle to bring this up. This is a vehicle of trust, and it is a vehicle that puts some teeth in an otherwise toothless thing.

As far as human rights versus this stolen property, this is very objective, it is hard, you can see it. The human rights violations I think are entirely different. They certainly are important. They certainly rise to as high a level, but this is objective.

Mr. President, the proponents of the amendment have how much time remaining?

Does that include my 10 minutes of closing?

So we have 15 minutes left to yield time.

Mr. President, Senator Sessions was next, so I yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I understand we have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, plus my 10 minutes at the very end.

Mr. President, Senator Corker has indicated he would like to take those 4\1/2\ minutes, so I yield the floor to Senator Corker.

No.

Mr. President, under the UC, I believe I have the last 10 minutes. Am I correct on that? I think that was the UC.

So when I finish, at the conclusion of the 10 minutes, we will vote? Is that my understanding?

My understanding is he can use that at any time and I get the last 10.

I thank the Senator. I will try not to disappoint in that regard.

Mr. President, fellow Senators, distinguished chairman and ranking member, I think certainly we have had a civil and a good airing of an issue that is of considerable concern to, I think, every Member of this body. I am a little disappointed in that we started out acknowledging it was a very deep and serious concern to every Member of this body, as it was to the commission, in their Report on America's Strategic Posture.

I felt that along the line a little bit the concern was denigrated. I want to back up on that one more time and say that, in my judgment, and in the judgment of members of this commission, the issue of tactical weapons exceeds, in severity, in concern, the issue of strategic weapons.

I understand one might argue that you are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as opposed to which is of the most concern. But I come back to the reasons I gave as to why I think the tactical issue is important more than the strategic issue. That is, on the strategic issue, we are in about the same position we were 40 years ago, with the exception, and admittedly an important exception, that the raw numbers are down. When we started this 40 years ago, each party had about 6,000 warheads. As I said, if either party pulled the trigger and launched 6,000 or some significant part of that, obviously that is the deterrence that each party was counting on that neither would do that.

Today we are down to--and with all due respect to my good friend from Massachusetts, the numbers reported in the press are 1,100 and 2,100. I understand there is intelligence information that we cannot go into here. But, in any event, I think most people would agree that we have the advantage in numbers from a strategic standpoint.

Indeed, if the numbers are even close to that, the--whether it is 6,000 warheads or 1,000 warheads, when someone pulls the trigger, the party is over for this world. So focusing on the raw numbers, when we have got a 40-year history that we are not going to do that and they are not going to do that, and most people agree that neither side is inclined to pull the trigger, what are the real concerns?

The real concerns are an accidental launch from them, although remote, possible, but, more importantly, an intentional launch by a rogue nation. Obviously one would look at North Korea or one would look at Iran in that regard.

In my judgment, the two issues that need to be focused on are the defensive missile issue and the tactical nuclear weapons issue.

Let me say I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts and Senator Levin, that geography is such that the issue of tactical weapons is substantially more important on a direct basis to the Russians than it is to us. After all, we are insulated by oceans on each side of us to the east and the west, which the Russians do not enjoy, and they have a several hundred-year history of seeing invasions come by land and intermediately, which we do not have.

So in that regard I will concede certainly that the tactical issue is important for them. And the good Senator from Massachusetts makes a good point in that I think they would like to relocate, if they could, their tactical weapons to be focused more on the Chinese threat and perhaps more on the threat from the south, from other countries. We ought to help them out in that regard by entering into negotiations in that regard on the tactical weapons.

But I come back to the tactical weapons are an important issue. Senator Levin says they are a concern. Senator Levin says, we should not kill this treaty simply because of a concern, and I agree with Senator Levin. I have not, from day one, said we ought to kill this treaty. I have said from day one, everyone has convinced me, and I think virtually everyone else, that we are much better off with a treaty than we are without a treaty.

I think everyone has worked in good faith in that regard. But, on the other hand, having said that, I do not think we should then throw in the towel and say: Well, okay, we will agree to any treaty. That brings me to the point of where we are. We are exercising our constitutional right that every one of us--not only our right but our duty as a Senator, to advise and consent on this treaty and any other treaty that is put in front of us, and that is where I have problems.

The position we have been put in is these negotiations have gone on, the treaty has been negotiated, it has been signed by the President, and it has been put in front of us, and what we are told is, it is a take it or leave it. If you do not vote for this, you are voting to kill the treaty.

I disagree with that. I think simply because we amend the preamble to this treaty is not a killer. Indeed, my good friend from Massachusetts keeps telling us, the preamble does not mean anything, it is a throw- away, the language is a throw-away, it does not mean anything.

Well, it does mean something, particularly when it comes to the context in which you interpret and you react to the treaty. So to everyone here, I say, you have the opportunity to set the restart button with Russia, and we can do it by focusing on what is an extremely important issue, which most everyone here agrees is an extremely important issue, but nobody ever does anything about it.

So let's tell the negotiators: Go back to the table and at least agree that the interrelationship between the strategic and tactical weapons is an important issue, and we are not going to go on as we have over the last 40 years. The times have changed. We trust you are not going to pull the trigger on us, and you trust that we are not going to pull the trigger on you. But this issue of tactical weapons where we enjoy, if you would, a 10-to-1 disadvantage to the Russians, we have tactical weapons that are out there that can be much more easily gotten ahold of by terrorists than strategic weapons. We have tactical weapons that continue to be designed, continue to be manufactured, and continue to be deployed by the other side, in violation of their admittedly individual Presidential initiatives, which needs to be addressed.

It is so important that people on this commission said that it should be addressed before strategic weapons. You have the opportunity to put that in here. There is no intent to kill this. It is an intent to make it better. We have the right. We have the duty. We must advise and consent. I urge that my colleagues vote in favor of this very good amendment.

Mr. President, is the next vote going to be on this amendment or are the judges going to be voted on first?

Mr. President, I say to Senator Kerry, I respect that. I would remind everyone that I filed a letter dated December 17 to Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar from six members of the commission, including James Schlesinger, which says that:

Dealing with this imbalance is urgent--

Referring to the tactical weapons--

Dealing with this imbalance is urgent, and, indeed, some

Commissioners would give priority to this over taking further

steps to reduce the number of operationally deployed

strategic nuclear weapons.

I agree. I thank the good chairman and ranking member for a very good dialogue on this particular issue.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, is amendment No. 4839 at the desk?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President and fellow Senators, what we are going to do is, tomorrow, at noon, we are going to start with amendment No. 4839. Amendment No. 4839 deals with the relationship between strategic weapons, which this treaty deals with, and tactical weapons, which this treaty does not deal with but should. That is essentially the purpose of this amendment.

I think virtually everyone who is involved in this debate has an opinion on this, No. 1. But almost everyone agrees that the issue of tactical weapons, namely, short-range weapons, is a very serious issue and rises to at least the level of the discussion on strategic weapons, and perhaps even more so.

So tomorrow we are going to have a spirited discussion about those issues. There has actually been quite a bit of debate already on this, and for those of you who are like me, and you take the Congressional Record home and read it in the evening, if you go back and look at the debates on the various treaties that dealt with nuclear weapons treaties, you will see that some very bright people, some of whom are still Members of this body, have already spoken on this issue.

I am looking forward to having this discussion tomorrow.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to my good friend from Montana.

First of all, let me say that I, of course, was at the hearings the Senator referred to in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Ordinarily, I wouldn't involve myself at all in the internal matters in Montana. Natural resource issues are best decided by the people who live in the particular counties and in the particular States where that resource is located. On this particular issue, however, one of the areas of land included in the landmass my good friend from Montana described in his bill is an area that is referred to as Mount Jefferson. Mount Jefferson and the area included admittedly are entirely within the State of Montana. However, the only way the southern part can be accessed is through the State of Idaho.

I couldn't agree more with my good friend from Montana in saying that we need to keep our eye on the ball, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs.

The particular area in question is not a large area. I think the total amount is 4,400 acres. The amount I am talking about is about 2,200 acres, but it is used intensively by Idaho people engaging in recreation in the wintertime. Under my good friend's bill, that would have been closed out, and the snowmobiling particularly would have been prohibited in this area, which is the south side of Mount Jefferson.

I sincerely appreciate my friend's willingness to talk about this and to work on this particular issue. As we go forward with this--and I have no doubt that his commitment to his State will cause him to continue to work with us on this issue and to deal with this particular bill and the areas of land he is talking about in this bill as we go into the next Congress. I commit to work with him, and I hope we can resolve this issue. As I say, the issue of winter snowmobiling only as far as motorized use of this particular area is of great importance to the people of the State of Idaho.

I thank the Senator for his courtesies thus far, and I look forward to working with Senator Tester in the next Congress on this issue.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to make some general comments about the matter under consideration, and that being the possible ratification of the New START treaty.

First, let me say I come with what I think is a unique perspective, in that I sit on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee. In addition to that, I am rather new here so I have a fresh set of eyes, if you will, on these kinds of issues.

The ability to be able to talk about these issues and to debate them and then cast a vote is somewhat frustrating, and that is a view I share with my friend and the distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Just like her, my views of this matter are colored to some degree and are affected to some degree by matters that we can't talk about here and that we can't disclose. Nonetheless, that obviously cannot stop us from having hopefully as productive a discussion as possible about this subject matter, and it has been a productive discussion.

There are good things that have come out of this so far, and I am going to talk about those in a minute. But let me say one thing I have been impressed with throughout. I have sat through I can't tell you how many hours of meetings, of briefings, of actual field trips out to facilities, and all those kinds of things, but I have been impressed with the good faith of everyone who is working on this matter.

This is a unique situation that we as Senators have a constitutional responsibility to focus on. Our responsibility in this is equal to the President of the United States. A foreign treaty such as this, the Founding Fathers said, can only come into play if, on the one hand, the President of the United States signs off on it; and if, on the other hand, two-thirds of the Senators sign off on it. So our responsibilities are equal in that regard. As a result of that, all of us need to, in my judgment, approach this on a good-faith basis and on a what-is-best-for-America basis.

All of us have seen the people on TV who are very sarcastic about who is going to win and who is going to lose. The only ones we need to be concerned about who will win and lose are the American people.

I have come to some conclusions throughout this that are new to me. One, of course, is the fact--and these are some observations I want to make about the whole process--that everyone is approaching this in good faith. The second conclusion that I have reached--and I think is widely held--is that we are much better off if we have a treaty than if we don't have a treaty. I would, however, modify that by saying but not just any treaty.

Those are just observations, along with one other that I have, which is that there are some good things in this particular treaty, not the least of which are the things people have talked about here, and that is, first of all, having a relationship with the Russians; and secondly, having actual inspections, even though they are very attenuated, but nonetheless having inspections; and thirdly, having a table around which people can get around and discuss possible violations or accusations one might have against the other.

That brings me to the next subject I want to talk about, and that is the historical basis we find ourselves in.

The people who did this 40 years ago and actually started the dialog and took us to the first treaty with the Russians are real heroes. They are people who were patriots and people to whom we owe a great deal of gratitude. They have set this stage, if you would, for where we are today.

Probably the most important thing they have given us is a 40-year history of dealing with this. When they sat down at the table, they did the things they did to come to the agreements they did, but the overriding philosophy on the defense of the United States against Russia and the defense of Russia against the United States was that if either one launched against the other, the other would launch, which would ensure the mutual destruction of both parties. That has been the philosophy under which we have operated for the 40 years.

Over the 40 years--sometimes things take a long time to sink in, but I think the Russians have come to the conclusion, as Americans have come to the conclusion, that is not a good thing. The likelihood of either party pulling the trigger on the other, in my judgment, and I think probably in the judgment of most people, is not very likely. Is it possible? Of course, it is possible. Anything is possible. An accidental launch is possible--I do not believe from our side. Without going into the details of this, but through my intelligence work I have looked at the failsafe things we have in place, and I do not believe we are going to have an accidental launch. I do not have the same level of confidence with the other side.

Nonetheless, I believe the likelihood of either party doing this is highly unlikely. Where does that take us to today? The world has changed in 40 years. Forty years ago, when we sat down with the Russians, we were the two superpowers in the world. We were essentially the two that had these kinds of arms. We were worried about each other--for good reason.

Today that is a very different situation. I am much more concerned, and I think most people are much more concerned, about North Korea, about Iran, and for that matter some other countries that have nuclear weapons, as far as being a threat to us in the United States. One of the overriding concerns I have had and criticisms, if you would, is that we are focusing in this exercise, again on this 40-year history and relationship we have with Russia without bringing into the mix the other real issues--and there are real issues.

The first one I will talk about is modernization. That is one of the good things that has come out of this. There has been tremendous movement since the beginning of this on people's realization that our need to modernize our nuclear stockpile is very real. I commend the administration. I commend the chairman and the cochairman of the committee for pursuing that issue. Great strides have been made in that regard.

The other issue we are going to talk about a lot--in fact, my distinguished colleagues from Wyoming and Arizona are going to lay down an amendment in a moment about an issue that is of top priority to me, and that is the missile defense issue. I am going to talk more about the details of that when we actually get into debating this amendment. Suffice it to say, the concerns I have had and the criticism I have had of this process is we are still talking about this in terms that existed 40 years ago, instead of the terms of the real world we live in today, where we have an overhead threat from nations that we, in my judgment, have not adequately addressed.

I think one of the criticisms I have is we have missed an opportunity on missile defense. We did not miss that opportunity on modernization, but we have missed it on missile defense.

I am going to close with this. It brings me to my last two points. Time is important as you go through these things. I do not like us being up against the deadline we are up against when we have a matter of this magnitude we should be debating. That colors my judgment, what I think is the lack of time for consideration for the most deliberative body of the world to actually deliberate on this issue.

The last one that I have real difficulty with is a matter of what we call the transcripts. You heard me talk earlier about the fact that we have the same responsibilities as the President of the United States in making the decision on this. Yet he has access to the transcripts of the negotiators, and we have been denied access to the transcript of the negotiators, which gives me pause. Most reasonable people would not accept something, sign on to a contract--which is what we are doing with ratifying this--without knowing all the facts. I can tell you we do not know all the facts. That particularly becomes important. I am troubled by the missile defense issues we have. I would like to know what assurances were given to the Russians regarding missile defense, particularly when I read their independent statements, their third- party statements about this.

I would like to know what is in those transcripts. So that is a very difficult bridge I am going to have to cross.

Nonetheless, my vote on this depends upon the amendments--and there are real amendments addressing real issues in this discussion. My final vote is going to depend upon what actually happens in the amendment process.

I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have correctly identified the serious concerns that I and a number of others have. I am delighted to hear your invitation to attempt to clarify these matters where we can protect the American people, which is the highest objective that both he and I share.

Regarding the transcripts, I am not satisfied with a summary. I would like to see the transcripts. That is a point we can discuss at another time.

I thank the Senator for his consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak very briefly about this issue. This easily could be the most serious issue we have dealt with in recent years and in future years. We have an enemy today that is at the door. This is not an enemy that is out there somewhere and we can talk about philosophically. It is an enemy that is at the door.

Last year the Federal Government spent around $3.8 trillion. That doesn't mean anything to me or probably much to anybody because nobody knows what $3.8 trillion is. If we say it is a little over $7 million a minute, it starts to sound a little bit more like we could understand it.

But none of that is important. It is how much do we have. The Federal Government was short 41 percent of that money; 41 cents out of every dollar that the U.S. Government spent it borrowed.

I hope everyone listened closely to the Senator from Nebraska when he said if we funded only Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the interest on the national debt, we would be short of money coming in to pay for that. If we shut down all other aspects of the Federal Government, we still could not put it in the black if we paid for just those.

This moment in history is an absolutely critical moment for the American people. We have gotten jaded because all of our lives we have heard about the national debt, and we have heard about annual deficits. We get jaded about it. But these numbers today are real, they are serious, and they could bring down this government. There is absolutely no question about that.

This Congress has to do something about that, and it is not going to be done by Republicans, it is not going to be done by Democrats, it is going to take a bipartisan effort to do that. I am here today to support that.

I yield the floor for my good friend, Senator Udall from Colorado.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education for All Act in order to preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans.

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing new ``gainful employment'' rules that would deny federal financial aid to students who attend proprietary colleges and vocational certificate programs. These rules would disqualify students from receiving federal education loans if their chosen programs do not meet a complex formula comparing student debt to future earning potential. Why should students be discouraged from attending a school they want or a profession they chose because of Washington bureaucrats?

The bill I am introducing today would prohibit these regulations from going into effect.

The ``gainful employment'' rules could deny hundreds of thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in today's troubled economy. There is high demand in some sectors for highly skilled workers and propriety schools are uniquely qualified to meet the training needs of these employers. It is simply irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should be the administration's number one priority.

Further, the ``gainful employment'' rules will disproportionately harm low-income and minority students. These students often depend more heavily on education loans regardless of the type of institution they attend and take longer to repay.

The rules would also significantly impact health care programs. Nearly half of all healthcare workers are trained at proprietary schools. With an aging baby boom population, demand for trained health care providers is already critical and will only get worse. President Obama's healthcare law adds to this burden as well. We ought to be expanding educational capacity for health care workers, not enacting regulations that threaten access.

In short, this legislation will preserve educational and economic opportunities for all Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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