Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish today to take the opportunity to express my congratulations to the winners of the 2010-2011 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest.

In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for 8th grade students in my home State. The purpose of this contest is to encourage young Hoosiers to recognize and appreciate the importance of Indiana agriculture in their lives and subsequently craft an essay responding to the assigned theme. The theme chosen for this year was ``Agriculture: Then and Now.''

Along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, I am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years. I applaud each of this year's participants on their thoughtful work and wish, especially, to highlight the submissions of the 2010-2011 contest winners Alexis J. Carmony of Falmouth, Indiana, and Collin Bowlin of Jasper, Indiana. I submit for the Record the complete text of Alexis's and Collin's respective essays. I am pleased, also, to include the names of the many district and county winners of the contest.

The essays and winners follow.

Agriculture: Then and Now

(By Alexis J. Carmony)

Indiana agriculture is important to me because of the basic

values it instills in my life. Agriculture is about hard

work, appreciation for life and living things, the importance

of our soil and water conservation, perseverance, ability to

overcome hardships, and being creative in dealing with

factors beyond man's control.

Indiana agriculture has an amazing responsibility. Years

ago, Indiana farmers were proud to feed their families from

the farm; today Indiana farmers are proud to feed the world

from their farms. The heart of Indiana agriculture has not

changed from decades ago. Past generations had to physically

work hard to produce their product, whereas the present

generations have to work as hard for the skill it takes to

market their product.

From the time I went with my great grandfather to feed his

cattle and sensed his love for those animals, I was hooked on

agriculture. Even when those animals did not cooperate,

grandpa still loved them. He has cared for livestock for

years, and he enjoys it today as he did years ago. My great

grandfather continues to be active in Indiana agriculture

today and models what agriculture is all about: hard work,

appreciation for livestock and plants, and good stewardship

of our earth.

In closing, I will leave you with a quote from William

Jennings Bryan, ``American Politician and Orator''; 1860-

1925, that summarizes my thoughts on Indiana agriculture.

``Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities

will spring up again by magic; but destroy our farms and the

grass will grow in the streets of every city in the

country.'' I believe agriculture was the foundation of our

country then and still is today.

Madam President, from 1987 until 2002, I served as either the chairman or ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. The jurisdiction of the committee is quite broad. One important portion of that jurisdiction is food and nutrition programs.

During my years of service on the Agriculture Committee, the committee has considered several significant changes in the food and nutrition programs. However, one constant presence throughout all those changes was Joe Richardson of the Congressional Research Service. Now, after 40 years at the Congressional Research Service, Joe has decided to retire.

Joe's thorough knowledge of the history and programmatic details of nutrition programs was vitally important in those deliberations. Moreover, his cogent, thoughtful, and nonpartisan analysis was respected on, and sought after by, both sides of the aisle, both chambers of Congress, and within the administrations of both parties. During

deliberations on important legislation, Joe's willingness to be available to committee staff on evenings, weekends and holidays was much appreciated.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in thanking Joe Richardson for his 40 years of service and wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise to support the StartUp Visa Act of 2011, as the leading Republican cosponsor, because I believe this legislation will increase the possibility that companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Proctor & Gamble--which were all started completely or in part by immigrant entrepreneurs--will continue to be founded in America. This legislation will help immigrant entrepreneurs like Paroon Chadha, Purdue University alumnus and cofounder of a company that currently employs more than two dozen American-born Hoosiers and continues to grow--as demonstrated by plans to hire four additional staff members in April 2011. Paroon and I believe America remains the best country in the world to do business and that we should continue attracting immigrant entrepreneurs to help drive innovation and job creation here at home.

At a time when our country struggles to achieve full economic recovery, foreign-born entrepreneurs who wish to establish companies and create jobs in the United States, often with the financial backing of American investors, are instead operating from other countries because they find the process of immigrating to the U.S. too difficult. The logic of our current approach places America at a competitive disadvantage in the global race to attract the very best talent and is counterproductive to our national interest.

According to a 2009 survey of American entrepreneurs conducted by the Kauffman Foundation, an overwhelming majority of the participants felt that ``the United States cannot have a sustained economic recovery without another burst of entrepreneurial activity.'' Over the past 15 years, immigrant entrepreneurs have started 25 percent of venture- backed public companies and 40 percent of companies in the high technology sector. A 2007 report commissioned by the National Venture Capital Association noted that the market capitalization of publically traded venture-backed companies founded by immigrant entrepreneurs exceeded $500 billion.

The StartUp visa represents a commonsense solution to this problem and does not require the creation of new visas. The bill proposes to draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category, which is a set-aside of visas for immigrants who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Many more visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category than are used, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs will not require additional visas.

Better utilizing existing visas, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the United States would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa if a qualified American investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000. After 2 years, their business must have created five new jobs and raised not less than $500,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $500,000 in revenue.

Additionally, immigrant entrepreneurs currently residing in the United States on an unexpired H-1B visa or immigrant entrepreneurs currently in the country who have completed a graduate level degree in science, technology, engineering, math, computer science, or other relevant academic discipline from an accredited United States institution of higher education would be eligible for a StartUp visa. Eligibility in each of these cases is contingent upon the immigrant entrepreneur demonstrating that they will be self-sufficient and that a qualified U.S. investor will financially back their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $20,000. After 2 years, their business must have created three new jobs and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue.

Finally, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. who have controlling interest of a company based in a foreign country that has generated, during the most recent 12-month period, not less than $100,000 in revenue from sales in the U.S. would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa. At the conclusion of 2 years, this immigrant entrepreneur must have created three new jobs in the U.S. and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue.

Immigrant entrepreneurs want to come to America, hire Americans, and create jobs right here for Americans--and we should be helping them come. Senator Kerry and I believe that it is in our national interest to encourage those who can help drive the next generation of innovation to do it here, not someplace else. This plan has the support of investors, immigrants, technology organizations, and taxpayers. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to support the StartUp Visa Act of 2011, as the leading Republican cosponsor, because I believe this legislation will increase the possibility that companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Proctor & Gamble--which were all started completely or in part by immigrant entrepreneurs--will continue to be founded in America. This legislation will help immigrant entrepreneurs like Paroon Chadha, Purdue University alumnus and cofounder of a company that currently employs more than two dozen American-born Hoosiers and continues to grow--as demonstrated by plans to hire four additional staff members in April 2011. Paroon and I believe America remains the best country in the world to do business and that we should continue attracting immigrant entrepreneurs to help drive innovation and job creation here at home.

At a time when our country struggles to achieve full economic recovery, foreign-born entrepreneurs who wish to establish companies and create jobs in the United States, often with the financial backing of American investors, are instead operating from other countries because they find the process of immigrating to the U.S. too difficult. The logic of our current approach places America at a competitive disadvantage in the global race to attract the very best talent and is counterproductive to our national interest.

According to a 2009 survey of American entrepreneurs conducted by the Kauffman Foundation, an overwhelming majority of the participants felt that ``the United States cannot have a sustained economic recovery without another burst of entrepreneurial activity.'' Over the past 15 years, immigrant entrepreneurs have started 25 percent of venture- backed public companies and 40 percent of companies in the high technology sector. A 2007 report commissioned by the National Venture Capital Association noted that the market capitalization of publically traded venture-backed companies founded by immigrant entrepreneurs exceeded $500 billion.

The StartUp visa represents a commonsense solution to this problem and does not require the creation of new visas. The bill proposes to draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category, which is a set-aside of visas for immigrants who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Many more visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category than are used, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs will not require additional visas.

Better utilizing existing visas, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the United States would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa if a qualified American investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000. After 2 years, their business must have created five new jobs and raised not less than $500,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $500,000 in revenue.

Additionally, immigrant entrepreneurs currently residing in the United States on an unexpired H-1B visa or immigrant entrepreneurs currently in the country who have completed a graduate level degree in science, technology, engineering, math, computer science, or other relevant academic discipline from an accredited United States institution of higher education would be eligible for a StartUp visa. Eligibility in each of these cases is contingent upon the immigrant entrepreneur demonstrating that they will be self-sufficient and that a qualified U.S. investor will financially back their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $20,000. After 2 years, their business must have created three new jobs and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue.

Finally, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. who have controlling interest of a company based in a foreign country that has generated, during the most recent 12-month period, not less than $100,000 in revenue from sales in the U.S. would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa. At the conclusion of 2 years, this immigrant entrepreneur must have created three new jobs in the U.S. and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue.

Immigrant entrepreneurs want to come to America, hire Americans, and create jobs right here for Americans--and we should be helping them come. Senator Kerry and I believe that it is in our national interest to encourage those who can help drive the next generation of innovation to do it here, not someplace else. This plan has the support of investors, immigrants, technology organizations, and taxpayers. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. President, today I recognize a remarkable Hoosier, Mrs. Lilly Nutter of Warren, IN, who has worked diligently in her own way to provide a measure of comfort to more than 1,000 servicemembers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After a career with the Department of Defense that included service in California and at Grissom Air Force Base in my State of Indiana, Mrs. Nutter retired to her husband's hometown of Warren where she is active with the Welcome Wagon, the Chamber of Commerce, the Cancer Society, and the food pantry.

However, I especially admire Mrs. Nutter's work on behalf of our servicemembers. In 2003, Mrs. Nutter was contacted by her grandson Kent Dolasky, who was serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Her grandson shared his concern that some of his fellow soldiers did not receive packages from their friends and family during their deployment. Always looking for a new opportunity to help others, Mrs. Nutter got to work collecting candy, toiletries, and other items that would bring a smile to the faces of servicemembers during time away from their loved ones and the comforts of home. Her efforts, however, did not conclude when her grandson and his unit returned home. Since 2003, Mrs. Nutter has worked with her family and friends both in her community and across the country to collect goods that have been assembled into more than 1,000 care packages.

I am hopeful that my fellow Senators will join me in thanking Mrs. Nutter for her remarkable work on behalf of our servicemembers and in recognizing her spirit of care and compassion for those who risk their lives defending our Nation abroad.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment, normal trade relations treatment, to the products of Moldova. This legislation would repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Moldovan products. Moldova has been in compliance with Jackson-Vanik-related concerns for some time now, and repeal of this legislation will provide an important impetus for improving trade relations between the United States and Moldova, advancing Moldova's Western ambitions, and laying the foundation for closer U.S.-Moldovan political engagement.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment, normal trade relations treatment, to the products of Moldova. This legislation would repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Moldovan products. Moldova has been in compliance with Jackson-Vanik-related concerns for some time now, and repeal of this legislation will provide an important impetus for improving trade relations between the United States and Moldova, advancing Moldova's Western ambitions, and laying the foundation for closer U.S.-Moldovan political engagement.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nunn-Lugar Global Cooperative Threat Reduction Improvement Act of 2011.

For many years, I have labored to ensure that the global Nunn-Lugar program has the flexibility it needs. Now that the global Nunn-Lugar program has begun to undertake important biological threat reduction campaigns in Africa and other regions, I believe the need has arisen to reexamine the authorities we have provided to the program to ensure that it can effectively implement projects around the globe. These projects protect the American people from nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation.

The record of the global Nunn-Lugar program has been impressive. The results now total: 7,599 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated; 791 intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, destroyed; 498 ICBM silos eliminated; 180

ICBM mobile launchers destroyed; 669 submarine launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, eliminated; 492 SLBM launchers eliminated; 32 nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles destroyed; 155 bombers eliminated; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles, ASMs, destroyed; 194 nuclear test tunnels eliminated; and 507 nuclear weapons transport train shipments secured. We have also upgraded security at 24 nuclear weapons storage sites; built and equipped 20 biological monitoring stations; and neutralized 1,742 metric tons of Russian and Albanian chemical weapons agent.

In addition to authorities to operate worldwide, the global Nunn- Lugar program has been granted much needed flexibility in carrying out its mission. The global Nunn-Lugar program has been granted notwithstanding authority to spend up to 10 percent of annual program funds notwithstanding any other provision of law. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to accept funds from foreign governments and other entities to contribute to activities carried out under the global Nunn-Lugar program.

This flexibility came after more than a decade of work to eliminate annual certifications on global Nunn-Lugar assistance that hampered the ability of the United States to use the global Nunn-Lugar program quickly and effectively. The certification and waiver processes consumed hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. I argued that this time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Former Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph noted during his confirmation process that, at the time, more than a dozen individual steps were required in the State Department alone to complete these annual certifications and waivers. After a strong vote in the Senate, Congress eliminated these annual certifications.

In 2003, I sought authority to use Nunn-Lugar funds outside states of the former Soviet Union. This was favored by the Bush administration. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, provides that the Secretary of Defense may spend Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for a proliferation threat reduction project or activity outside the states of the former Soviet Union if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines that such projects or activities will assist the United States in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to take advantage of opportunities to achieve long- standing nonproliferation goals. The law specifies that the Secretary of Defense may not obligate funds for projects or activities until the Secretary of State concurs in a determination regarding these projects and activities and in notifying Congress. The Secretary of State is also involved in subsequent steps before the global Nunn-Lugar program can put boots on the ground.

Unfortunately, the State Department has not been efficient in carrying out concurrences required by existing law. It is troubling that, after eliminating the lengthy certification processes of the 1990s, equally burdensome and ultimately un-executable interagency concurrence, determination and notification processes for the global Nunn-Lugar program are limiting accomplishments.

The bill I introduce today remedies this situation by providing that the Secretary of Defense be given sole authority regarding global Nunn- Lugar funds--to include making all relevant determinations and notifications to Congress. Originally, this authority had been given to the President. I worked to delegate it to the Secretary of Defense. When it was given by Congress to the Secretary of Defense, State Department officials insisted they had a role in the process. We have now had time to observe how this works in practice, and the result is clear: it does not function in a manner consistent with the intent of law. Congress clearly intended that efficiency and immediacy accompany this authority.

I do not believe that reserving this authority to the Secretary of Defense means that the State Department does not play a role in other efforts; however, in the reorganized non-proliferation and arms control bureaus who oversee these matters within the State Department, as well as in its regional bureaus, it is the case that simply adding bureaucratic boxes to check has had little positive result. Too often, bureaucratic politics and inertia have intervened to prevent timely success.

We must work to ensure that our implementers have the tools and authorities they need to perform their missions in the Defense Department. It is to this end that I offer this simple bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain on the Armed Services Committee on this legislation.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nunn-Lugar Global Cooperative Threat Reduction Improvement Act of 2011.

For many years, I have labored to ensure that the global Nunn-Lugar program has the flexibility it needs. Now that the global Nunn-Lugar program has begun to undertake important biological threat reduction campaigns in Africa and other regions, I believe the need has arisen to reexamine the authorities we have provided to the program to ensure that it can effectively implement projects around the globe. These projects protect the American people from nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation.

The record of the global Nunn-Lugar program has been impressive. The results now total: 7,599 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated; 791 intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, destroyed; 498 ICBM silos eliminated; 180

ICBM mobile launchers destroyed; 669 submarine launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, eliminated; 492 SLBM launchers eliminated; 32 nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles destroyed; 155 bombers eliminated; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles, ASMs, destroyed; 194 nuclear test tunnels eliminated; and 507 nuclear weapons transport train shipments secured. We have also upgraded security at 24 nuclear weapons storage sites; built and equipped 20 biological monitoring stations; and neutralized 1,742 metric tons of Russian and Albanian chemical weapons agent.

In addition to authorities to operate worldwide, the global Nunn- Lugar program has been granted much needed flexibility in carrying out its mission. The global Nunn-Lugar program has been granted notwithstanding authority to spend up to 10 percent of annual program funds notwithstanding any other provision of law. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to accept funds from foreign governments and other entities to contribute to activities carried out under the global Nunn-Lugar program.

This flexibility came after more than a decade of work to eliminate annual certifications on global Nunn-Lugar assistance that hampered the ability of the United States to use the global Nunn-Lugar program quickly and effectively. The certification and waiver processes consumed hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. I argued that this time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Former Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph noted during his confirmation process that, at the time, more than a dozen individual steps were required in the State Department alone to complete these annual certifications and waivers. After a strong vote in the Senate, Congress eliminated these annual certifications.

In 2003, I sought authority to use Nunn-Lugar funds outside states of the former Soviet Union. This was favored by the Bush administration. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, provides that the Secretary of Defense may spend Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for a proliferation threat reduction project or activity outside the states of the former Soviet Union if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines that such projects or activities will assist the United States in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to take advantage of opportunities to achieve long- standing nonproliferation goals. The law specifies that the Secretary of Defense may not obligate funds for projects or activities until the Secretary of State concurs in a determination regarding these projects and activities and in notifying Congress. The Secretary of State is also involved in subsequent steps before the global Nunn-Lugar program can put boots on the ground.

Unfortunately, the State Department has not been efficient in carrying out concurrences required by existing law. It is troubling that, after eliminating the lengthy certification processes of the 1990s, equally burdensome and ultimately un-executable interagency concurrence, determination and notification processes for the global Nunn-Lugar program are limiting accomplishments.

The bill I introduce today remedies this situation by providing that the Secretary of Defense be given sole authority regarding global Nunn- Lugar funds--to include making all relevant determinations and notifications to Congress. Originally, this authority had been given to the President. I worked to delegate it to the Secretary of Defense. When it was given by Congress to the Secretary of Defense, State Department officials insisted they had a role in the process. We have now had time to observe how this works in practice, and the result is clear: it does not function in a manner consistent with the intent of law. Congress clearly intended that efficiency and immediacy accompany this authority.

I do not believe that reserving this authority to the Secretary of Defense means that the State Department does not play a role in other efforts; however, in the reorganized non-proliferation and arms control bureaus who oversee these matters within the State Department, as well as in its regional bureaus, it is the case that simply adding bureaucratic boxes to check has had little positive result. Too often, bureaucratic politics and inertia have intervened to prevent timely success.

We must work to ensure that our implementers have the tools and authorities they need to perform their missions in the Defense Department. It is to this end that I offer this simple bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain on the Armed Services Committee on this legislation.

Mr. President, I have had numerous opportunities to comment on the amazing life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan. He had bold ideas and the courage to see them through. He was the true embodiment of the American success story. I have often referred to the fact that he was charismatic, determined and consistent, and he enjoyed a remarkable batting average of being right. It has always been a point of great pride to me that my voting record was supportive of President Reagan's positions more than any other Member of the Senate.

As the Senate commemorates the 100th anniversary of President Reagan's birth, I want to share with my colleagues and the public a speech I wrote when President Reagan was given the Hudson Institute James Doolittle Award.

It was November 22, 1991, and it was a tumultuous time for Washington and the world. Yet you could still see the sparkle in the President's eyes and his warmth and good humor. What we did not know was that President Reagan's effort to end the Cold War was quickly coming to fruition. Within days, on December 1, Ukraine would vote to break away from the Soviet Union, and on Christmas Day, Mikhail Gorbachev announced the end of the USSR.

During his Presidency, when President Reagan decided to renew arms control negotiations with the Soviets, he had the wisdom and political strength to ask the Senate to form an official observer group so that there would be understanding and support for any treaty coming out of the negotiations. As cochair of the Arms Control Observer Group, I worked closely with Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and began a partnership with him that continued for many years.

Subsequently, after the failed coup against Gorbachev in the summer of 1991, we heard from Soviet officials we had met that they were worried about the control of the Soviet nuclear arsenal as political events unfolded. By that November when President Reagan was being honored, Senator Nunn and I succeeded in passage of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act.

Thanks to his leadership and vision, President Reagan helped build the foundation for the Nunn-Lugar Program. Now thousands of missiles and warheads, any one of which could have destroyed my city of Indianapolis, have been eliminated. The success of the Nunn-Lugar Program is a clear derivative of President Reagan's legacy. Thank you, President Reagan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the speech I wrote in honor of President Reagan when he received the Hudson Institute James Doolittle Award.

Mr. President, I wish to seize the moment, along with my distinguished chairman, because we are indebted to all the great people he has enumerated, to embellish his congratulations by mentioning that we are grateful, first of all, that the President invited Senator Kerry and me to be part of conversations on two occasions during the negotiation of the treaty. That, we thought, was very valuable and gave us some insight as to where the negotiators were headed and to offer what counsel we could about those issues we felt were important and those issues we were certain all Senators would feel were important as we sought ratification of the New START treaty.

Likewise, those conversations were carried on rigorously by the Vice President, our former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, who has worked with Senator Kerry and with me over the course of three decades or so of active participation and several arms control treaties. Vice President Biden has a very good idea of how the ratification process works and what counsel he can give, not only to us but to all Members and colleagues with whom he has worked so well in the past.

I am especially pleased, likewise, that Rose Gottemoeller, who headed the negotiation team, has been very available to Senators throughout the time of the negotiation abroad and during her trips to Washington and certainly throughout the hearings the Foreign Relations Committee held.

We are indebted, in fact, to all the witnesses who came before our committee in the 16 hearings that have often been enumerated in conversation on the floor. The witnesses were generous with their time, very forthcoming with their testimony and followup questions the Senators had. Because of that testimony, there is a very solid block of support for the treaty based upon these distinguished Americans who have had enormous experience, not only with arms control treaties but the actual implementation of these with the former Soviet Union--and now with Russia--in the past.

I am indebted, as John Kerry is, to Ken Myers, Tom Moore and Mike Mattler of our staff and to Marik String and Corey Gill. I cite these five members of a very devoted staff who have devoted extraordinary talents and time and devotion to the treaty formulation and to the counsel they have given me, for which I am very much indebted.

Finally, I thank all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their diligence and attendance at hearings and their questioning of each other, as well as the witnesses and the discussions we have had both in informal and formal sessions. We have had a difference of opinions. Our views were not unanimous in the 14-to-4 vote by which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent this New START treaty to the floor. But I respect deeply each of those views, and I respect the ways in which members of the committee have participated during this very important debate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join with the sentiments just expressed by the chairman. I very much appreciate the statements made by Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, who has worked diligently throughout the hearings, the markup, and this debate.

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment that they have offered, 4904, as modified.

Mr. President, as the Senate approaches a point of decision on the New START treaty, I would like to offer a few concluding thoughts.

My attitudes towards the enterprise of arms control have been affected by the time I have spent during the last two decades visiting remote areas of Russia in an effort to bolster Nunn-Lugar dismantlement operations. When one sees Russian SS-18 ballistic missiles being cut up at Surovatikha, or when one witnesses the dismantlement of a Typhoon ballistic missile submarine at the SevMash facility on the approaches to the Barents Sea, one gets a clear picture of the enormity of the problem that confronted us during the Cold War.

With all the destructive power that was created during that era amidst intense suspicion and enmity between the United States and the former Soviet Union, we were extraordinarily fortunate to have avoided a mishap that could have destroyed American civilization. During the last two decades, we have circumscribed the nuclear problem, but we have not eliminated it. Our cities remain vulnerable to accident, miscalculation, and proliferation stemming from the Russian nuclear arsenal. And we still must pay very close attention to the disposition of Russian nuclear forces.

Visiting dismantlement operations in Russia also underscores that arms control is a technically challenging endeavor. In these debates we generally focus on the balance of nuclear forces, deterrence theories, diplomatic maneuvers, and other aspects of high statecraft. But arms control is also a ``nuts and bolts'' enterprise involving thousands of American and Russian technicians, officials, and military personnel. Verification and dismantlement activities require tremendous cooperation on mundane engineering challenges, equipment and supply logistics, and legal frameworks that allow these activities to proceed.

Ironically the exacting nature of arms verification and elimination may be a blessing. The challenges of this work and the amount of information that both sides are required to exchange have improved transparency and forced our countries to build productive partnerships over time.

The Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on June 24 in which Defense Department officials in charge of verification and dismantlement activities in the former Soviet Union testified. These officials oversee dismantlement work in Russia that occurs every day. Their agencies oversaw verification under START I before the treaty expired on December 5, 2009. They would oversee the verification work required under the New START treaty.

They described in detail how verification operations are conducted and gave Senators a picture of how the United States and Russia cooperate on technically challenging nonproliferation goals. Only five members of the committee attended that hearing. I wish that every Senator could have attended, because the presentation underscored how much the START process links our two defense establishments and how critical the START framework is to nonproliferation activities.

Mr. President, there is a maxim that has been popularized in American cinema, variants of which have sometimes been attributed to early political philosophers such as Sun Tsu or Machiavelli. It is ``Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.'' I am not suggesting that Russia is an enemy. Our relationship with that country is far more complex. It is a relationship that is both wary and hopeful. We admire the Russian people and their cultural and scientific achievements, while lamenting continuing restrictions on their civil and political liberties. We recognize the potential for U.S.-Russian cooperation based on deep commonalities in our history and geography, even as we are frustrated that Cold War sensibilities are difficult to dislodge.

Although we can and must make situational judgments to engage Russia, such engagement is no guarantee that we will experience a convergence of perceived interests or the elimination of friction.

But one does not have to abandon one's skepticism of the Russian Government or dismiss contentious foreign policy disagreements with Moscow to invest in the practical enterprise of nuclear verification and transparency. In fact, it is precisely the friction in our broader relationship that makes this treaty so important.

It would be an incredible strategic blunder to sever our START relationship with Russia when that country still possesses thousands of nuclear weapons. We would be distancing ourselves from a historic rival in the area where our national security is most affected and where cooperation already has delivered successes. When it comes to our nuclear arsenals we want to keep Russia close. There are enough centripetal forces at work without abandoning a START process that has prevented surprises and miscalculations for 15 years.

The New START agreement came about because the United States and Russia, despite differences on many geopolitical issues, do have coincident interests on specific matters of nuclear security. We share an interest in limiting competition on expensive weapons systems that do little to enhance the productivity of our respective societies. We share an interest in achieving predictability with regard to each other's nuclear forces so we are not left guessing about equal potential vulnerabilities. We share an interest in cooperating broadly on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. And we share an interest in maintaining lines of communication between our political and military establishments that are based on the original START agreement.

Over the last 7 months the Senate has performed due diligence on the New START treaty. Most importantly, we have gathered and probed military opinion about what the treaty would mean for our national defense. We have heard from the top military leadership, as well as the commanders who oversee our nuclear weapons and our missile defense. We have heard from former Secretaries of Defense and STRATCOM commanders who have confirmed the judgment of current military leaders. Their answers have demonstrated a carefully-reasoned military consensus in favor of ratifying the treaty. Rejection of such a consensus on a treaty that affects fundamental questions of nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary action for the Senate to take.

Moreover, the treaty review process has produced a much stronger American political consensus in favor of modernization of our nuclear forces and implementation of our miile defense plans. This includes explicit commitments by the President and congressional appropriators. In the absence of the New START treaty, I believe this consensus would be more difficult to maintain. We have the chance today not only to approve the New START treaty, but also to solidify our domestic determination to achieve these national security goals.

I began the Senate debate on this treaty last week by citing a long list of the national security threats that currently occupy our nation and our military. Our troops are heavily engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are fighting a global terrorist threat. And we are seeking to resolve the dangerous circumstances surrounding nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea. We are attempting to address these and many other national security questions at a time of growing resource constraints reflected in a $14 trillion debt.

In this context the U.S. Senate has a chance today to constrain expensive arms competition with Russia. We have chance to guarantee transparency and confidence-building procedures that contribute to our fundamental national security. We have a chance to frustrate rogue nations who would prefer as much distance as possible between the United States and Russia on nuclear questions. And we have a chance to strike a blow against nuclear proliferation that deeply threatens American citizens and our interests in the world.

I am hopeful that the Senate will embrace this opportunity to bolster U.S. national security by voting to approve the New START treaty.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the amendment speaks to concerns about rail mobile missiles. First, I would emphasize it is important to note that neither side currently deploys rail mobile systems.

The Nunn-Lugar program destroyed the last SS-24 rail mobile system in 2008. They are all gone. Destroyed. The New START treaty is specifically drafted so that if Russia were to revive its rail mobile program, it would count under New START's central limits. This is underscored in our resolution of ratification through an understanding that if such systems are ever deployed by Russia, they will count as deployed ICBMs under New START, and that such railcars on BMs.

I submit that the amendment is unneeded. But more seriously, if in fact it were to be adopted, it would require renegotiation of the treaty. For that reason, as well as others I have stated as succinctly as possible, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to add parenthetically a footnote to the chairman's presentation.

As has been mentioned frequently during this debate, for a variety of reasons, the Russians reduced the number of ICBMs below the totals that were required by the former treaty. Some Senators, in fact, have said the New START treaty, by imposing these limits of 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers, inhibits only the United States because, according to those who have argued this, Russia has already fallen below these limits.

Let me add, as a point of personal recollection, one of the reasons the Russians are below some of the standards that have been suggested is, as they thought more and more about the rail mobile situation, they decided this was either useless, expensive, or so vulnerable to potential attack that it was not worth maintaining.

As a result, as has been suggested, as it turned out, using the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the United States and Russia, quite outside of the last treaty, decided we would proceed under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to simply destroy all the rest of the rail, which we did.

Just for the sake of exhibit, I have a piece of one of the last rails to be destroyed. It was presented to us by the Russians with a proper inscription on the back of it, recognizing their appreciation to the United States for this destruction. Therefore, logically, to argue that we are back into a predicament of the Russians wanting to build rails again and launch missiles and what have you from them negates the history of cooperation, conversations that may have occurred well beyond the treaty but that have come from the fact that there were Americans working with Russians who were not involved necessarily in specifics of the treaty but, in fact, were able to effect results that were well beyond what the treaty mandated.

I mention this, again, to indicate that I believe the amendment is unnecessary. But worse still, adoption of it would, in fact, eliminate our consideration today. We would go home. It is finished.

I certainly encourage Senators, recognizing that the Russians don't want the rails, have actually worked in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program with Americans to get rid of all of it, plus everything associated with them, that as a commonsense situation that seems to be fairly well under control. Even then, the statements we have adopted as a part of the treaty take care at least of the counting situation if, for any reason, such an emergence should occur again on the rails.

If the Senator will yield, let me respond. The President sent a copy of the letter to Senator McConnell, our leader. Both leaders got the letter.