James Risch

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. I yield back our time.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. Fellow Senators, I am going to speak briefly on this issue, and I thank those who have actually put this on the table for us to talk about. Every single American should watch the debate on this issue. This debate strikes to the heart of the freedoms we as Americans enjoy. Why do we have these freedoms? We have them because in 1776 the people decided they were sick and tired of the King telling them they had to do this and they had to do that and had totally wiped out a number of freedoms they had--not the least of which was speech and religion. We will remember, these people operated under a King who was so powerful--the Monarchy was so powerful, it established a religion and said: You must belong to this religion if you are a citizen of this country. When we fought to be free of that, when we fought to be a free people, the Founding Fathers put together a document that specified very clearly the freedoms we would have. We have come many years since then, but we will lose these freedoms if we do not guard them when even a little chip comes out of it. That is what they are doing here. Think about this for a minute. We have gotten to the point where this government has gotten so big and so powerful that it has said: Look, we do not care about what you believe in your religion because what we are doing is a good thing and, therefore, you must do what we are telling you because the ends justify the means--the means is to chip away at the religious freedoms we as Americans enjoy. It is wrong. It is the way we lose our freedoms. If we turn our back and let a government do this to us, this is how we lose our freedoms. This government is big. It is getting bigger by the day. It is getting more powerful by the day. When they sat around the table in 1776, they had just fought with a government that had been terribly oppressive. They argued amongst themselves: Well, what are we going to do? We are going to create a government. They knew from a historical perspective, and they knew from their recent experience, that any government they create needed to be distrusted, needed to be watched, needed to have shackles on it because if they did not, that government would abuse them--just as every government had throughout history. So that is why they drew the document we live under today, the Constitution we have. They not only gave us one government, they gave us three governments. They gave us a legislative branch, an executive branch, and a judicial branch--each with the duty to watch the other and beat the other over the head if, indeed, they got out of line. They were so afraid of a government that they did everything they possibly could to see that government did not abuse them. Well, we learn frequently that their fears were well founded. Today we see, once again, their fears were well founded. What we have is a government that is saying: We do not care what your religious beliefs are; you must do what we are telling you to do because we think it is the right thing to do regardless of your religious beliefs. It is wrong. It has to be fought. It must be reversed. I thank the Senator for bringing this issue to the attention of everyone. I yield the floor.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. First of all, one of the things people have to accept--and it does not happen around here--is we do not have an income problem. We have a spending problem. All the money in the world would not get us to where you are able to solve every problem that comes down the pike and people want to resolve. The President is urging that somebody is not paying their fair share. I wish he would hang more details on that. I wish some media person would ask him: Identify these groups for us, please. I think he is trying to create a national dialog as to who is or who is not paying their fair share. I think that might be appropriate. I think when the American people started on this, they took the numbers and said: OK, if you take the first half of income earners from the lowest to the median, they are paying zero percent in taxes; the top 10 percent is paying 70 percent of all the money the government takes in, so let's have a dialog as to which of those two groups is paying their fair share. There are some very good sociological reasons why the upper income pays more than the lower income, and I do not think anyone is going to argue with that. But there is only so much we can do. I am not here defending the rich. The rich take care of themselves. They can move their capital wherever they want to move it. Indeed, we all know a good deal of it is moved offshore. There is $2 trillion offshore right now that Americans--American businesses--want to bring back, but they will not bring it back because there is a war on capital in this country with the government trying to take the capital. We need to have a national dialogue about that. We need to land in the middle someplace. Again, no one is going to defend the rich. They do not have to; the rich can take care of themselves. But the fact is, we have to come to the conclusion at some point that the resources of the American people are finite. Be it the rich, be it the poor, be it the middle class, their ability to pay for government is finite. There is a point at which we have to say wait instead of saying we are going to bring in more. We have to say we are going to have to prioritize the money we have and how we are going to spend it. I think that is the way we get out of this situation, having an acceptance that there is a finite amount of money. It is too easy for us to borrow money. We have seen that in our own lives. We have seen friends of ours who have gone down to the bank and borrowed money. If the money is too easy to borrow, they get into trouble, and they get into trouble relatively quickly. Well, we have gotten into trouble because it is so easy for us to borrow. People still want to loan us money. People are still loaning us money every day. They lend us billions and billions. Indeed, if they did not, we would be out of business. So it is time for this national dialogue on where we are going to go. As I said, the only way this is going to be resolved is if we compromise. Instead of talking about how much more we are going to spend, we need to do something we have not done since World War II; that is, compromise on how much we are going to cut.

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. Like everyone, I have been perusing the numbers to try to figure out whether this gets us somewhere and whether it will actually come to fruition. A quick look at history. As the Senator points out, this will be the fourth year, if we don't adopt a budget, where we haven't had one. There isn't an entity in the world that operates without a budget. We have to have a budget if we are going to do anything responsibly. Budgeting is not that difficult; it is merely a way of taking the money we have coming in and allocating it on a priority basis for what we think money should be spent for. There is never enough money. There isn't an enterprise in the world that has enough money. Everyone has to make decisions as to what are the priorities and do the best they can with the money they have. As I said, over 1,000 days have passed since the Senate has adopted a budget. Last year, a similar budget the President produced was actually put on the floor here of the Senate for a vote. It failed, with zero ``yea'' votes to 97 ``no'' votes. That is not a party-line vote. This budget, one can only conclude, just like the budget produced by the President last year, spends too much, taxes too much, and it borrows too much. The budgeting process is something that is extremely important. The American people demand it. Common sense demands it. Anyone who has ever operated a government or a business enterprise knows we must budget. Every Governor in the United States does it--all 50 States. Every legislature does it. As was pointed out by Senator Johanns, when he was Governor he had to cut 7 percent. Let me tell my colleagues about the state of play in Idaho. When I was Governor, the budget was $3.5 billion when I left. The current Governor is operating with a $2.5 billion budget. He cut $1 billion out of a $3.5 billion budget. If it can be done at the State level, it can be done at the national level, and, indeed, it has to be done at the national level. We are going to have to cut. The proposed budget spends about $10.4 billion every day, and I put it on a daily basis because when we start talking about trillions, people's eyes glaze over. There is no possible way--there is no human being on the face of this planet who can determine what $1 trillion is, let alone the $3.8 trillion this budget spends. But if we put it on a daily basis, it is $10.4 billion every day. Remember, in the State of Idaho, for a year, the State spends $2.5 billion. This government spends $10.4 billion every day. That comes down to about $7.2 million every minute. One wouldn't have a whole lot of argument about that if indeed the government had $10.4 billion to spend every day or $7.2 million to spend every minute. But, indeed, every day, under this budget, the Federal Government will borrow $2.4 billion--every single day. The borrowing comes down to about $1.7 million every minute. When we put it in terms of how much it is a day and how much it is a minute, it becomes staggering. Right now, because we have been dealing with this, every time I see nationally a business engaged in a huge deal at $5 billion or something such as that, we can put it in perspective of how the Federal Government is doing its business. This borrowing that is being done every day by the Federal Government has yielded us now a $15 trillion debt. Again, I don't know what that is; nobody knows what that is. But what I do know is we will never pay it off in our lifetime. It will be our kids and our grandkids who are saddled with that particular amount. That is the real deal. I wish everybody could have the experience I had, and a number of Senators have done this. Every day, the Federal Government has to pay its bills at the end of the day. They are not like businesses; they don't pay every month. They pay at the end of the day. How do they do this? When I first got here, I thought: This is staggering, and what have you. But I went and watched them do it. The Treasury has a checkbook, like everyone else does, and at the end of the day it has a balance, like everybody else. How does it balance it? It balances it by going out and borrowing the money. I watched them borrow. This is indeed borrowing. About a fourth of it comes from China, about a fourth comes from other countries, and about half comes from wealthy institutions including banks and trusts and individuals around the world. But it is real borrowing and it has to be paid back. Indeed, they not only borrow the amount of money they need every day for the daily deficit, but they borrow enough money to pay back the people whose debts are coming due that day. After you walk out of there and watch them actually do that, you can't help but walk away from it feeling sick. Because when we look at these kinds of numbers, the government can't pay its bills at the end of the day. The only way it can pay its bills is if it borrows. We need systemic change. Everything has to be reformed. If I were in charge of everything, the first thing I would reform is this ridiculous idea that we budget on a 10-year basis. That is outrageous. Mr. President, 10-year budgeting allows smoke and mirrors and allows gimmicks and games so you can stand up and say: Why, this budget saves $4 trillion. It does not save a dime next year. All this alleged savings is 10 years out, and, indeed, on this 10-year cycle they use to budget, the second year never comes. We need an annual budget. We need to look in the mirror and talk about how much we are spending next year versus how much is coming in. Forget this 10-year basis. It is absolute nonsense. Senator Blunt talked about Greece. Greece is going through what we are going to have to go through at some time; that is, cutting back. They lived happy for decades. Well, they spent their children's and their grandchildren's money, and all of a sudden what happened to them? Nobody would loan them money anymore. If that happens to us, we are out of business. If nobody will loan us any money on a daily basis, we are out of business. So what do we need? We need compromise. It is compromise that got us into the position we are in. Compromise every year caused us to take each budget item, where the Democrats wanted to spend more, the Republicans wanted to spend less, so they compromised somewhere in the middle. Now we are operating, even under this budget, at a trillion- dollar deficit for the year. It is time to compromise again. But we need to go in the other direction. We need to compromise on: How much are we going to cut this year? The Republicans are going to want to cut more. The Democrats, I hope, will agree that we need to do some cutting and we need to wind up somewhere in the middle. That is the only way we are going to get this back on track. This budget does not cut it. This budget does not even come close to it. We are going to bankrupt America if we do not start doing things differently. I see Senator Isakson has joined us on the floor.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, today I join with Idaho's senior Senator Mike Crapo to recognize and pay tribute to the exceptional dedication of Marty Peterson, who is retiring after 51 years of public service in our great State. For nearly 20 years, Marty has served as the special assistant to the president of the University of Idaho. He has served seven U of I presidents during that time, giving them valuable insight into the politics of the State as he oversaw the government affairs work of the university. Marty has an in-depth understanding of Idaho's government, having served as the budget director under Governors John Evans and Cecil Andrus. He also served on the staff of U.S. Senator Frank Church and was executive director of the Association of Idaho Cities. His counsel was always valuable and insightful. It is no wonder, when Idaho was going to celebrate its 100th birthday in 1990, he was asked to oversee the planning and implementation of the State's centennial celebration. Twenty years later, he was the cochair of the committee that planned the rededication of Idaho's newly restored capitol building. Marty could always be counted on to deliver quality results. His education and military service may have had something to do with his success. At the age of 17, as a junior in high school, he joined the Army National Guard. Marty served 8 years and was a staff sergeant when he was discharged. Marty is a graduate of Columbia Basin College, the University of Idaho, and Harvard University's Senior Managers in Government Program. But through the years, Marty never stopped learning. He adapted, he studied and continued to provide good counsel to those who sought out his advice. He consistently shares his time and expertise with community groups. Currently, he serves on the board of directors of the Foundation for Idaho History, North Idaho Chamber of Commerce, Idaho Humanities Council, and the James A. and Louise McClure Center for Public Policy, as well as on the advisory board for the School of Journalism and Mass Media at the University of Idaho. In addition, he is the current president of the Historic Silver City Foundation and a past president of the City Club of Boise and the Idaho Hemingway House Foundation. As a well-known Hemingway scholar, Marty has lectured on Hemingway throughout the United States, Spain, and Cuba. He has also been very involved in the preservation of Ernest Hemingway's home in Ketchum, ID and in Cuba. Although Marty will be retiring from the working world at the end of 2011, we know he will continue serving these and other groups throughout the State. His retirement will give him more time to spend with his wife Barb and their family and especially the grandchildren. When people ask us what makes Idaho such a great place, we could talk about the beautiful mountains, skiing, whitewater rafting, hunting and fishing, or a myriad of other things. But in reality, it is people such as Marty Peterson who work to make Idaho even better--that is why Idaho is so great. It is with our sincere thanks and well wishes that Senator Crapo and I recognize Marty Peterson for his many contributions to the State of Idaho and its people. We wish him a happy and productive retirement.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Ed Strickfaden. Today, the Idaho State Police will be naming a building after Ed, who served as the director of the Idaho State Police and was a 35-year veteran of the department. He is very deserving of this honor, and I congratulate him on this special day. Ed Strickfaden graduated from Council High School, located in a small rural town in southwestern Idaho. He honorably served in the U.S. Air Force before beginning his career with the Idaho State Police. In 1967, he was hired as a port of entry officer, and from there he worked his way up the ranks, serving in almost every region of the State. In 1980, he was promoted from a patrolman in the Lewiston area to a sergeant in Twin Falls. By 1984, he was district commander in Idaho Falls, then moving to the district commander position in Coeur d'Alene the following year. He served in the headquarters office beginning in 1991, first as a major in charge of field operations, then as a deputy superintendent of the Idaho State Police. He was appointed ISP superintendent by Gov. Phil Batt and served 4 years in that position prior to his appointment as director of the Department of Law Enforcement by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne in January 1999. Colonel Strickfaden undertook a major reorganization of the Idaho State Police, streamlining its functions and enhancing training throughout the department. He even initiated the name change to Idaho State Police, effective July 1, 2000. With his years of service, rising through the ranks and serving in all parts of Idaho, Colonel Strickfaden understood more than most what was needed and how to do it. He was a man of uncompromising integrity and had the utmost respect of those he led and the respect of the state's elected officials. Today, the Idaho State Police and the people of Idaho honor this humble man by putting his name on the building at ISP headquarters. It is a fitting tribute to a great leader and a wonderful human being. We are all very grateful for the many years of exemplary service Colonel Ed Strickfaden has provided to our great State. I would be remiss if I did not also mention Colonel Strickfaden's wonderful family and especially his wife Barbara for her strong support throughout Ed's career. Together, they have served the people of Idaho with great distinction.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. We have no objection.

Mr. RISCH. First of all, let me say I think there has been an adequate compromise that has been reached, and we are to have a side- by-side to vote on which will give everybody the opportunity to express themselves. Let me say that every single one of us on this floor has a goal to protect the rights of U.S. citizens. This country was founded by people who had just gone through some very difficult times with a government that was very oppressive on them, and they wrote the Constitution specifically to protect themselves and to protect individuals from the government. Those constitutional provisions today are as good as they were then. Every single one of us wants to see that American citizens are protected; that is, protections that take place in the case of criminal cases. In the case of a war, in the case where a U.S. citizen joins enemy combatants and fights against the United States, there is a different standard--although a delicate division--that exists. If we look at the provisions of section 1031, where covered persons are defined, it is very clear it applies only to people who participated in the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, and it applies to people who are part of it or who have substantially supported al-Qaida and the Taliban or its associated forces and have actually committed a belligerent act or have directly participated in the hostilities. This is drawn very carefully and very narrowly so a U.S. citizen can--as my good friend from Kentucky always says--be able to file a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. district court and have the U.S. district judge determine whether a person is actually an enemy combatant. If that U.S. district judge turns it down, that person does not necessarily go free. The U.S. Government can then charge them with treason or any one of a number of crimes, but they will be tried in the U.S. district court. On the other hand, if they are found to be an enemy combatant by a U.S. district judge whose decision is reviewable by the circuit court and if the Supreme Court chooses--by the Supreme Court, if they are found to be the enemy combatant, then they will, indeed, be subject to this. So this has been very narrow. People who are watching this and who are concerned about the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, as I am, as people in Idaho are, as people in every State in America are, under those circumstances, those people will be well protected. We will have the amendment here that everybody will have the opportunity to express themselves on. I will yield the floor.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a great loss suffered by the people of Idaho and the Takasugi family in particular. Last week, Idaho State Representative Pat Takasugi passed away after a 3- year battle with cancer. During that fight he was fortunate to have the loving support of his wife Suzanne, his three children, and his parents. When I was Governor, I had the great fortune to appoint Pat to my cabinet to serve as my director of the department of agriculture. Pat was an unwearying advocate for agriculture. He understood what farmers faced, since he was one of them. He started farming in 1977 and successfully grew his business from 32 acres to a 1,500-acre operation. Pat served as the director of the department of agriculture for 10 years, and during that time he worked tirelessly in promoting the products grown in Idaho. In 2003, before the local food movement became popular, he instituted the Idaho Preferred brand to help consumers identify locally grown products. He had numerous accomplishments as director that moved Idaho's agricultural industry forward. He created the Idaho Food Quality Assurance Lab, established the Seed Indemnity Fund, pushed cooperative weed management, and streamlined regulations, among others. Pat encouraged the next generation of farmers to be involved in various agricultural boards and commissions and to become leaders in their community. Pat walked his talk, as he was a member of numerous local and national organizations, including a term as president of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. His service continued when he decided to step down as the agriculture director and run for the Idaho House of Representatives. He was handily elected in 2008 and again in 2010, and he was a strong advocate for lower taxes and less government regulations. For those of us who knew Pat, it was not hard to see why he was so popular. He had an infectious sense of humor, great optimism about life, and truly cared about the well-being of others. It can be said that his smalltown roots had something to do with that. Pat grew up in the Wilder, ID, area and attended schools there before graduating from Vallivue High School. He attended the local college, the College of Idaho in Caldwell, which is an outstanding educational institution. He volunteered for the U.S. Army after graduating and served a total of 10 years in Active and Reserve Duty. Pat was promoted to the rank of captain and qualified for Airborne wings, the Ranger tab, and Special Forces Green Beret. Pat loved his country and was grateful for the opportunities he had to succeed through his own efforts and hard work. Mr. President, while it is difficult to sum up all that Pat Takasugi did for agriculture in Idaho and the many lives he touched through his service, let me conclude by saying that he was a great American. Vicki and I extend our condolences on behalf of all Idahoans to Suzanne and all of the family for their loss.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the valor and accomplishments of the 389th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron. The 389th--better known as the T-Bolts--is part of the 366th Fighter Wing based at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. At Mountain Home, the squadron is composed of 80 airmen from across the United States, including aviators and essential ground personnel. While deployed, the squadron grew to over 400, including maintainers, intelligence personnel, and support staff from the 366th. In May 2011, the T-Bolts deployed to Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, with 18 F-15E Strike Eagles to support Operation Enduring Freedom. In the process, they demonstrated resolve and what can be accomplished through fierce loyalty to each other and to our country. The T-Bolts prosecuted 3,100 combat missions and dropped 800 tons of ordnance. They supported 3,700 ground missions by American and allied forces and responded to 820 ``troops in contact'' emergency combat support calls. In addition, they worked directly with special operations forces to destroy 170 enemy weapons caches and capture 620 detainees, including 90 high-value individuals. The diligence of the maintainers and ground personnel ensured that the 389th met 100 percent of their taskings without missing a single sortie. And the pilots and weapons system officers broke the F-15E deployment record, flying more than 14,000 hours in just over 6 months. Through their excellence and determination, the 389th kept relentless pressure on the al-Qaida network, killing key members of their senior leadership. Additionally, they directly supported numerous large-scale coalition ground operations with kinetic and non-kinetic effects as they provided lethal close air support across Afghanistan. The men and women of the 389th made a real and substantial contribution to the safety of America, the success of the global war on terror, and the destruction of al-Qaida and those who would do us harm. By successfully taking the fight to the enemy, the T-Bolts helped write the history of the early 21st century through their tenacity and courage. No one summed it up better or more eloquently than the commander of the 366th Fighter Wing, COL Ron Buckley, who said of his airmen: I am incredibly proud of the professionalism and dedication our gunfighters displayed while flawlessly executing their mission to deliver precise combat air power for joint operations on the ground. From aircrews to maintainers to support, the T-Bolts carried on the incredible legacy of the gunfighters and answered our Nation's call. I also want to take this important opportunity to honor America's unsung heroes by recognizing and commending the families and loved ones of those who serve in the 389th. We are also proud of their service, their commitment, and the immense sacrifices they made and continue to make on behalf of our country. The T-Bolts served honorably in defense of a grateful nation, and I am pleased today to recognize the heroic members of the 389th for their valorous service while deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I am reminded of the core values of the Air Force: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all you do. There is no better example than the airmen of the 389th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron. With consummate bravery and boldness, the T-Bolts honor every American through a spirit of dedication and a sense of duty to defend a cause larger than one's self. For their efforts, we and future generations are forever indebted and eternally grateful. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RISCH

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

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge the centennial anniversary of the founding of the city of Ucon, ID. On August 13, 2011, the citizens of Ucon will gather at Simmons Park to commemorate its 100th year and unveil a monument to its founders. This is a very historic and special day for this community. Once a barren wilderness, the city of Ucon is an example of the Western spirit and determination in making the desert bloom. First colonized in 1884 by George Simmons, early settlers were confronted with challenging terrain. Despite the harsh conditions, the settlement quickly grew. Within 13 years, a church, school, amusement hall, and several dozen homes were built. In 1898, the power of steam and iron transformed the town with the introduction of the Oregon Short Line Railroad. In order to take greater advantage of commercial opportunities provided by the railroad, the main town site was moved a mile west. Within a decade several businesses sprang up around the railroad tracks and the community began to take shape. On April 16, 1911, it was officially incorporated as the city of Ucon. In the ensuing decades, changes in the railroad and the effects of the Great Depression transitioned Ucon from a commercial hub to a residential community. Today, many in southeastern Idaho can trace their roots to the pioneers and patriots who settled Ucon. Congratulations to the people of Ucon for 100 years of success.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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. RISCH. 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. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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.

Mr. RISCH

Mr. RISCH. 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.

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

Mr. RISCH. 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.

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