Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand tonight in support of the amendment of

Senator Paul to provide limitations on the amount and scope of foreign aid the United States sends abroad. This is not a decision I have reached quickly, nor is it an issue I take lightly.

I appreciate that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, conditions already exist on some of the foreign aid we send to Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. I respectfully submit, however, that these conditions are not producing the desired result nor are they yet fully enforced.

For example, is Pakistan cooperating with the United States on countering terrorism efforts and preventing terrorists from basing or operating in Pakistan, as is already required in section 7046 of Public Law 112-74? Are the programs and activities we support in Afghanistan sustainable, as is also required by section 7046? If the answer to these and to other questions regarding this aid could possibly be no, then we have an obligation to the American people to at least review this aid and inspect every single dollar we send abroad to ensure that the billions of dollars we send to Pakistan, to Egypt, and to Libya are well spent.

I support this amendment, if for no other reason than to begin the debate on the merit of sending billions of American dollars abroad each and every year. When will we stop sending this kind of money to nations that harbor terrorists and imprison those who, like Dr. Afridi, would defend our interests?

To be clear, I don't think the amendment of Senator Paul is perfect. Many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about this amendment's potential effect on some of our allies outside the Middle East. That is why I and several other Senators have asked our staffs to work with Senator Paul and his office to narrow the scope of this amendment. Senator Paul was responsive to our concerns and was willing to make the requested changes.

Unfortunately, the majority leader refused to allow Senator Paul to modify his own amendment. I don't yet have 2 full years under my belt as a Member of this body, but I have been around just long enough to see that managers' amendments and modifications are routinely applied to their own legislation, and I am very sorry Senator Paul was not given the courtesy that apparently is reserved only for other Members of this distinguished body.

In a Senate where the majority leader has recently announced ``the amendment days are over,'' I guess I should not be surprised.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I rise to respond to my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts.

In the first place, it is significant. Dr. Afridi has been in prison for more than a year. It is significant that this amount of time has elapsed. It is appropriate that we respond in some fashion. I don't know why exactly legislation has not emerged from the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I sit. The fact is it has not.

I respect the junior Senator from Kentucky for having the courage to bring forward this legislation. Regardless, the fact is that this legislation is now before us. We can argue about how it got here and about whether it should have gone through committee, but it is before us. The fact that it is now before us means the Senator from Kentucky who introduced it ought to have certain prerogatives--prerogatives to change it or modify it before it gets to the floor. That is the point I was making, and that is the point I think bears some mention here. I think that is a point which was somehow lost in this discussion today, and that is most unfortunate.

Mr. President, it is bad enough that this Senate's Leadership, led by the Democrats, has not passed a budget in 3\1/2\ years. What is even worse than that is the fact they have not offered a budget in this Congress. They have not voted for or supported a single budget in this Congress. We have had, of course, one budget voted on in the Senate during this Congress, written by a Democrat. That was the President's plan, which received zero votes from his own party, zero votes from the Republican Party last year and this year.

If we are able to come to the table, if we are to come to a compromise, we have to have offers on both sides. We have to have a plan on both sides. So all the calls for civility, all the calls for a compromise fall on deaf ears unless or until we have two willing parties at the table with proposals they are willing to offer.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize and honor my friend Ryan McCoy, a departing member of my staff. Ryan McCoy is, in fact, much more than just a member of my staff; he has been the energy behind many of my legislative goals, and he is also a close friend. While no tribute of words could ever match the debt of gratitude he truly deserves, I would like to pay tribute in the official records of Congress to someone who fought to make a

difference both for the State of Utah and for our country.

C.S. Lewis said:

Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to

another: ``What! You too? I thought I was the only one.''

My friendship with Ryan McCoy, my former legislative director, was born in that very way described by C.S. Lewis. We met back in 2009 when I was speaking to a group of Utahans about a topic near and dear to my heart: article I, section 8 of the Constitution. I spoke of my passion for the Constitution and for the principles of limited government embodied therein, and my message apparently struck something of a chord with Ryan, who had recently taken a greater interest in finding ways to restore those same principles. We spent several hours after the speech talking about what the Constitution meant to both of us. I had not always thought about running for office, but when Ryan suddenly prepared a PowerPoint presentation for me about the problems we face as a country and about the ways in which he and I, working together, could make a difference, I started thinking much more seriously about it.

When Ryan and I discussed later his leadership role in my office, his wife Kara jokingly told him that he had no idea what he was doing. But the truth is that we needed to know only one thing, just one thing: that we could make a difference. In the end, I believe that was our greatest asset. Ryan and I shared a vision for change in Washington. We knew it would not come easily, but it had to come from people who wanted to make a difference. It had to come from people who had lived in difficult economic circumstances and felt the need for change as it tugged at their own pocketbooks and at their own individual freedoms being eroded by an ever-expanding government.

At a meeting a few months after we met, Ryan spoke of the common goals we shared. He said that our movement would be based on a clear, unequivocal message that it was time to change course for our country. Ryan and I shared this vision, and Ryan knew others would catch on to it. In the nearly 2 years he served as my legislative director, he worked hard, he worked tirelessly, he worked constantly to keep us focused on these legislative goals and to keep us true to our principles.

It is safe to say that I would not be here today without the hard work and dedication of Ryan McCoy. Once here, I would never have been able to do many of the things I have done without Ryan McCoy's expert assistance. Ryan will be remembered in my office as a respected leader and as a man who truly loves his country.

Too often in the hustle and bustle of Washington, we tend to take our staff members for granted. It is when they leave that we truly see the impact they have had and the wide breadth of influence they had while they were here.

As much as we will miss Ryan, we will also miss his wife Kara and her shared enthusiasm every bit as much. I thank Kara. She and Ryan have become an important part of my life, an important part of my family, an important part of my office family.

In addition to thanking Kara, I also want to thank Ryan and Kara's children, Connor, Tate, Gage, and McCall, for loaning their dad to me for these few years. Kara once told me that during a particularly busy time in the Senate, one of their children--I do not remember which one--actually came to her and asked her where their dad had gone and whether or when he might be returning. I appreciate their sacrifice, and I hope they will grow up knowing their father is a true hero of mine--and always will be--one who works tirelessly for his country and for their future. I wish them the best back in Utah, and on behalf of myself, Sharon, and my entire staff, I extend my love and sincere appreciation to each of them.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to take just a few moments to explain why I plan to object.

I have right here a letter that is signed by 36 Members of this body who express the viewpoint that because of the prerogative we have as U.S. Senators to ratify treaties--see, two-thirds of us have to provide our advice and consent to ratify a treaty before it can take effect. This is important, in part because article VI, section 2 tells us that once ratified, the treaty becomes the supreme law of the land.

We have 36 Senators on this letter--a letter addressed to Leader McConnell and Leader Reid--explaining that for various reasons we do not think any treaty should come up for ratification during the lameduck period of the 112th Congress, and we explain that no treaty should be brought up during this time period and conclude that we will oppose efforts to consider any treaty during this time period.

The primary reason cited in the letter is the fact that it is very important to make sure we have a full understanding of what these treaties mean. It is also important that before we undertake any significant changes to the law--law becoming supreme law of the land-- we need to understand the implications of these treaties fully.

If it is true, as 36 Members of this body concur in this letter, that it is too fast to move something like this or another treaty through during the lameduck session of the 112th Congress, it follows a fortiori that it is also too fast to do it now. With regard to this particular treaty, we have had exactly one--and only one--hearing on this, on July 26 of this year.

I appreciate and respect the words of my friend, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, and I am pleased with the fact that he is comfortable with the language of the treaty. I and some of my colleagues are not yet comfortable with it, and I and some of my colleagues are not yet convinced as to the full ramifications of the language of this proposed treaty. I, therefore, object.

Mr. President, with great respect to my distinguished colleagues who are supporting this treaty and supporting a move to move it to the floor for a full vote right now, I understand and appreciate that they may not share some of the concerns expressed in this letter, concerns surrounding the fact that treaties, once ratified, become the law of the land, the supreme law of the land, concerns surrounding the fact that many Americans may have concerns about this, concerns that may be expressed during the upcoming election season.

To the extent this becomes a matter of debate, it may have an impact on the election. I think this might have been part of what motivated 36 Senators to sign this letter saying that neither this treaty nor any other treaty ought to be voted upon during the lameduck session.

With regard to the comment made by my friend from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois moments earlier, I, of course, understand we are not now in a lameduck session. That is my entire point. If it is true that the lameduck session is too soon to consider treaties, it follows a fortiori, it is a much stronger point to make the point now that it is too soon to consider this now.

With regard to the Law of the Sea Treaty, we have held a number of hearings--I cannot remember exactly how many--in the Foreign Relations Committee. I want to say at least three, four, maybe five, this year. We have had exactly one hearing on this one. I understand that some of my colleagues

might be satisfied with the assurances provided by some lawyers within the State Department to the effect that this is entirely compatible with U.S. law to the effect that it would not impose any additional, new, different obligations on U.S. law. I am not satisfied that that is the case. I therefore object.

Madam President, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American from the great State of Utah--the world-renowned author and speaker Stephen R. Covey, who passed away on Monday, July 16, 2012. He was regarded as a legendary thought-leader throughout the global business community yet showed over the course of his 79 years that the true measure of life is not in making a dollar, but in making a difference.

Stephen leaves behind a legacy filled with meaningful words and memorable deeds. His prolific and powerful writing contained the kind of personal insight and inspiration that transformed the hearts, minds and lives of countless individuals. He is best remembered for his 1989 New York Times best seller, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. The book sold more than 20 million copies worldwide and has been translated into 38 different languages. Seven Habits served to prove Stephen's passionate belief that talking about principles changes behavior better than talking about behavior changes behavior.

Ever the teacher and ever the student of strategies for achieving personal and professional excellence, Stephen followed his pursuit of these life-changing principles in subsequent books including First Things First, The 8th Habit, and The Leader in Me. Covey's words, ideas, principles and practices have been used in a variety of educational settings, from college management classes to corporate business seminars. In 2011, Time magazine listed Seven Habits as one of the 25 most influential business management books of all time.

While Covey's words propelled him to become a global titan of bold business strategies and tactics, it was his deeds, often in family settings, which provided the notably personal touch found in his teaching and training. His poignant examples and anecdotes from his personal life illuminated how to actually live the principles he taught. Covey often shared a humorous experience he had with one of his sons when taking a business call at home. His son felt that Stephen had been on the phone for far too long, so he took out a jar of peanut butter and began spreading it on Covey's balding head. Covey pretended to ignore it, so the son added a layer of jam and eventually a piece of bread. Stephen used this experience to teach the principles of proper priorities, life balance, and building relationships. He demonstrated it was possible to complete an important phone call, indulge his son's mischievous antics, and create a meaningful memory.

One of his best known principles, Sharpen the Saw, focused on the need for rest and renewal. Covey stressed the important impact of family dinners, family vacations, family service in the community, and families working together at home. He recalled ``work parties'' in which his whole family would tackle a project. Instead of just laboring for hours, they would laugh and talk and eat snacks while they worked and then go to a movie once they finished. Stephen continually showed that when you put your family first you can create a legacy that will truly last. His deeds as a father, husband, neighbor, and friend are the kind that communities, States, and nations would do well to promote and emulate.

Covey's contributions to the leadership community extend far beyond his literary works. He revolutionized the field of leadership and management development with the creation of the Covey Leadership Center in Utah. The Covey Leadership Center eventually merged with Franklin Quest to form FranklinCovey, a worldwide management firm specializing in training and consulting services for individuals, teams and businesses. His extensive client list includes a vast majority of the Fortune 500 companies, world leaders, celebrities, national governments, and numerous charitable organizations. In 1996, Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential Americans, and in 2011 Thinkers50 named him one of the top 50 business leaders in the world.

He was an inspiration to millions, a revolutionary problem solver, and an icon for business managers everywhere. It is impossible to calculate the immense amount of good that Stephen Covey did for so many people. His insight helped to shape the future of an untold number of businesses, resulting in better jobs and indeed better lives for people around the world. Stephen Covey's life mission is reflected in the mission of FranklinCovey: ``We Enable greatness in people and organizations everywhere.'' Stephen Covey's words and deeds helped people discover and deploy the principles that would ultimately enable them to achieve greatness in life and in business.

My wife Sharon and I extend our thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of Stephen Covey. His wife Sandra, his 9 children, 52 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren have a tremendous legacy to cherish and follow. Stephen taught his family and indeed the world that ``to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy'' is what life is all about. We honor his memory, celebrate his service and recognize that while his presence will be missed, his principles and practices will live on for generations to come.

No words of tribute to Stephen Covey could be complete without a challenge to do something, to produce personal deeds that match the words and the principles he loved and lived. So I conclude this tribute with a challenge for each of us to remember: We honor best those who have gone before by living our lives with excellence today.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator very much.

Madam President, on Monday we heard from Democrats who insist that Congress must now raise taxes on the American people. In fact, they are so committed to this task that they are willing to take the country off the fiscal cliff in order to get their way. This is unfortunate. It is unnecessary, and it is a course of action we cannot pursue.

Mind you, they are not trying to pursue comprehensive tax reform. No. They are not trying to fix this Byzantine-era Tax Code which occupies tens of thousands of pages. What they are doing instead is just to raise taxes right now so they can get their way right now, so they can cover the shortfall that exists right now because of a chronic failure by Congress over time to set and stick to spending priorities.

Well, the vast majority of Republicans are committed not to raise taxes--not on anyone. There are some very good reasons for it.

First, the Federal Government has proven its inadequacy in this area. Congress has proven time and time again that the money it takes from the American people, from hard-working taxpayers, is not always spent carefully. In fact, it has been spending more than it takes in for so long people almost cannot remember a time when Congress routinely balanced its budget. This is a problem, and it is a problem that should not be fixed by taxing the same people who are already paying this bill even more. This is not the fault of the American people, and the job of fixing it lies right here in Congress--not with the American people.

Second, from the CBO to the IMF to the Federal Reserve to Ernst & Young, experts around the world are warning of the dire economic consequences that await us if we raise taxes. We cannot allow it to happen. We have had over $4 trillion added to the national debt during this President's administration. At the same time, we have had unemployment exceeding 8 percent for the last 41 consecutive months. Nearly 13 million Americans are currently out of work, and millions more are underemployed and looking for more work. We cannot allow this to continue.

I would add here that there is a certain irony in the President's proposal to increase taxes on some Americans while leaving the necessary tax relief in place for others. While purporting to help hard-working Americans, this approach would actually have the opposite effect, hurting most--many of those Americans who can least afford the hit right now.

A new study from Ernst & Young reveals that this tax hike--the tax hike that hits some Americans but not others--would kill 710,000 jobs. These are people who cannot afford to lose their jobs. These are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. These are not CEOs. These are not the top 1 percent. These are hard-working Americans who cannot afford to lose a job. We cannot let a tax hike bring about that kind of terrible consequence.

Democrats will assure you that their tax hikes are all about reducing the deficit. That is curious because their proposal would leave 94 percent of this year's deficit intact, which makes it an inherently unserious proposal insofar as it relates to deficit reduction.

Further, the President's own 10-year budget, which includes massive tax increases, by the way, still adds $11 trillion to the national debt.

I really do appreciate the fact that the President is finally talking about these issues--issues that have long gone unaddressed and need to be addressed--but he cannot look the American people in the eyes and tell them he is doing something about the debt when his own budget, while raising taxes, nearly doubles our already sprawling national debt over the next 10 years.

Republicans have proposals. We have proposals to reform the Tax Code, reduce the deficit, and to do so in ways that will grow the economy, not cause it to contract. I have an amendment I hope will get considered in the next week or two that would permanently keep tax rates at their current levels so American families and businesses can know what to expect. It would also eliminate the death tax, and it would stop the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, which is quickly becoming the middle-income penalty tax.

These measures and others would go a long way--a long way--toward improving our economy and getting the American people back to work again. If my friends on the other side of the aisle disagree, as is their right to do, then let's come together and work to find some common ground. These election-year antics and distractions are not what the American people sent us here to do, and the longer we wait before enacting real reform, the worse the problem is going to get.

I would now like to turn the time over to my friend, the junior Senator from Missouri, who has fought long and hard on these issues, who will wrap this up for us.

That is right. I think that is the point that often goes missing in this debate, which is that when people talk about wanting to raise takes on one group of Americans and not increasing them on another, that causes problems. And we are concerned about job creation. We are not concerned about any one particular group, we are concerned about Americans as a whole--most importantly, about those who are most vulnerable, those who can least afford to lose their jobs.

I see our time has expired.

Mr. President, on June 30, Trooper Aaron Beesley responded to a call to rescue two teenagers stranded on Mount Olympus in the Wasatch Mountains near Salt Lake City. As a part of the search and rescue helicopter unit, he helped load the two teenagers into the helicopter, ensuring their own safety before his own. When the helicopter pilot had secured the hikers, he went back for Trooper Beesley, only to find that he had fallen down the 60-foot cliff face. A hero fell from Mount Olympus. Someone once said, ``A hero is always remembered, but legends never die.'' Aaron Beesley woke up that morning already a hero in every sense of the word, and he fell that night into legend, a legend of service and sacrifice that will live far beyond his mortality.

His mother recalled that from the age of 5 Aaron had aspired to be a firefighter. His greatest ambition was to protect others from harm and danger. He attended the police academy after serving a LDS mission in Oakland, CA, and was then hired by the Utah Highway Patrol. There he committed to ``face danger with confidence, resolution and bravery'' and to ``meet the service needs of everyone encountered.'' These principles were a part of Aaron's nature long before he became a trooper. He may have fallen in the line of duty, but for him, this duty was his life. He saw the world through the lens of a hero, constantly seeking opportunities to help and serve others long after the workday ended. At his funeral service, Aaron's mother Laretta Beesley said, ``Aaron was a hero every day of his life.'' Based on his rescue record, lifesaving awards, medal of excellence, and the tremendous words of praise from his family and coworkers, I believe his mother's description is perfect.

Aaron will be remembered as a man of many hats. He is survived by his wife Christine and sons Austin, 7, and twins Derek and Preston, 4. They will remember him as a loving husband and father. His brother Arik remembers him as a hero, recalling the countless phone calls they shared in which Aaron provided a play-by-play account of his latest rescue. His parents remember him as a clever practical joker. As a child he once tricked a group of neighborhood boys into performing his loathed chore of stacking wood by telling them how much fun it would be. His mother lovingly remembers how he watched them do it for him with a sly smile, periodically expressing how much he would love to be stacking wood too. His coworkers and friends remember him as a genius who could fix anything, from neighbors' broken electronics to highway patrol communications equipment. Aaron was even able to perform the necessary maintenance on the patrol's air fleet, saving the department thousands of dollars. His colleague Steve Winward remembers him as an inventor, designing cell phone applications for helicopter flight navigation and field sobriety tests.

Mr. President I pay tribute today to Aaron Beesley not simply to mourn his loss but to celebrate his life, his willingness to perform his duty and serve others. Sharon and I extend our condolences to Christine, Austin, Derek and Preston and praise them for their courage at this difficult time. Aaron truly remembered service before self, as do all who wake up every morning prepared to give their lives for those they serve. I pray that his family, friends, and loved ones may feel an outpouring of love and support from grateful citizens around the country and that they may forever remember Aaron with the tremendous pride his legacy deserves.

Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to George Washington: ``Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.'' Before their faces were chiseled into monuments and printed on dollar bills, many of the patriots who founded our Nation and who fought and died for the freedoms we cherish were simple farmers. Washington, Jefferson, and others like them were doing much more than just growing food to live off of; they were laying the groundwork for a culture of self-reliance that played a role in America's fight for independence and its sustained growth over the past 200 years. While technology has changed the focus of our economy from agriculture to a variety of other sectors, it is crucial that we remember the principles set forth by our Founders. For the past 100 years, the 4-H Club of Utah has provided youth with the opportunity to cultivate and continue our Nation's rich agricultural heritage while simultaneously training them in the technologies and advancements of the future. Thus, Utah 4-H's centennial theme--``Celebrating the Past, Creating the Future''--is particularly pertinent. I find it appropriate to commemorate Utah 4-H at its centennial in the halls and records of Congress.

The four H's stand for Head, Heart, Hands and Health. The head represents the quest for knowledge, the heart symbolizes love and service to others, hands signify hard work and the development of diligence, and health emphasizes the importance of healthy habits and a healthy lifestyle. While the educational arm of the program was originally centered in farm communities, the program has extended far beyond that with over a third of its members living in metropolitan and suburban areas. Roughly the same percent of members represent minority populations.

The express mission of 4-H is to ``engage youth to reach their fullest potential while advancing the field of youth development,'' and as its motto states, ``to make the best better.'' The 4-H of Utah strives to broaden horizons and connect participating youth with greater opportunities than would otherwise be available to them. Scholarships are offered to high school seniors and college students in need to allow them to take their 4-H education and skills to college and beyond.

The 4-H Club was established in Utah in 1912 but its roots run much deeper--back to the 1888 founding of the ``Agricultural College of Utah,'' which is now known as Utah State University. The purpose of the 4-H Club was to educate youth about new agricultural technology so that they might pass them to their own farm communities and improve the State's agricultural industry. By 1931, Utah's 4-H Club was declared to be the fastest growing in the Nation, and now in 2012, it serves over 75,000 youth. From holding a strict focus on agriculture, cooking, and home economics, 4-H has grown and now offers over a thousand programs ranging from robotics to skateboarding. The program has succeeded in large part due to the dedication of a group of volunteers who are passionate about the work of 4-H. I commend and express gratitude to the 9,500 current 4-H volunteers, and the tens of thousands that came before them. I owe Utah 4-H a personal debt of gratitude, as my own chief of staff, Spencer Stokes, is a program alumnus who has brought skills and principles he learned in 4-H to his leadership role in my office.

The world is no longer a simple place for the youth of our Nation. They face a cloudy economic horizon with an excess of workers competing for a dearth of jobs. 4-H gives participating youth a tremendous advantage and competitive edge from a young age--helping them build healthy relationships, cultivate fruitful habits and hobbies, and learn skills to take into their communities and industries. 4-H has played a tremendous role in making Utah a better

place for our youth and making our youth better contributors to our communities around the Nation.

Mr. President, the United States Air Force has always been on the cutting edge of technology, ensuring the safety of Americans from a wide variety of threats. The advancement and sustainment of this technology has come as a result of the hard work of visionary leaders in research and intelligence sectors of the United States Armed Services. One of these visionary leaders is Jim Sutton, the Director of Plans and Programs for the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base. After an honorable and decorated career, Jim is retiring from public service. I wish to honor him today.

The Ogden Air Logistics Center is one of the United States foremost warfighter sustainment organizations, with management and maintenance responsibilities for some of the world's most advanced weapons systems. Their motto is ``Innovative leaders for the defense technologies of the future; combining action and quality to ensure the systems you depend on are done right!'' Jim Sutton has served as the director of Plans and Programs at the Ogden Air Logistics Center. During his tenure, he has turned the center into a model of fiscal responsibility and efficiency. Jim also oversaw the Enhanced Use Lease Program Management Office, which manages real estate transactions authorized by the Department of Defense Leasing Authority. I should note that Hill's Enhanced Use Lease Program Management office is the largest in the country. During his tenure as director he simultaneously served as a crucial advisor to the Utah Defense Alliance, where his colleagues note his instrumental leadership role during the Base Realignment and Closure act of 2005. One of Jim's crowning achievements at Hill is Falcon Hill, a state of the art National Aerospace Research Park located within the base itself.

Jim's career began long before he joined the directorate at the Ogden Air Logistics Center. His active duty began over 30 years ago in 1980. During that time he served in important judicial advocacy positions at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, the United States Air Forces European Headquarters in Germany, the Pentagon, San Antonio Contracting Center, Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, Air Force Materiel Command at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and Scott Air Force base in Illinois. He has received several awards and commendations, including the Air Force Commendation Medal in 1983, five Meritorious Service Medals, the Albert M. Kuhlfeld Award for Outstanding Young Judge Advocate in both 1986 and 1990, the Outstanding Career Judge Advocate in 1996, the Stuart Reichart Award for Outstanding Senior Attorney in 1999, and the Outstanding Achievement Award for work from 2001-2003.

On a more personal level, coworkers describe Jim as a man of integrity, who fought for causes important to Utah and to the advancement and sustainment of Air Force technology. He has been a tremendous ally between the armed services and the state of Utah, working closely with Utah's congressional delegation in the advancement and progress of Hill Air Force Base. He has made it his personal mission to both sustain the viability of Hill Air Force Base and fight for its continued advancement. The base is now one of the top employers in Utah, providing jobs for over 23,000 Utahns. He has brought tremendous military credibility and knowledge to the state of Utah and will remain a respected and beloved authority to Utah's armed services community. Jim's personal efforts have contributed to the advancement and sustainment of our nation's military technology, namely our highly technical weapons systems. The people of the United States owe Jim a tremendous debt of gratitude for his dedication and service. Sharon and I extend our best wishes to Jim and his family as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. President, I stand to raise a concern I have regarding the conference committee report to accompany H.R. 4348.

Pursuant to paragraph 9 of rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, we are supposed to have adequate notice of a report like this before we have the opportunity to vote on it. The rule states:

It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a

report of a committee of conference unless such report has

been available to Members and to the general public for at

least 48 hours before such vote.

The current version of the committee report was filed, as I understand it, at 8:07 p.m. last night. It is not even close to the 48 hours required notice.

What we have, ultimately, when we look at this, is the fact that we have a highway bill that was sent to conference, but it came back from closed-door negotiations with a student loan bill and also with a flood insurance bill attached to it. We were neither given the chance to debate nor to amend these provisions before they came to the floor. Now we are approaching a vote on that.

We did not provide our fellow Senators or the American people with an adequate opportunity to read the 596-page conference report, which is required by our very own rule. This is somewhat reminiscent of a statement made a few years ago by then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when, speaking to Members of her body regarding the passage of the Affordable Care Act, she said:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in

it.

This is one of the problems we have in Washington of which the American people are becoming increasingly aware. It is a problem that I think we need to address. Time and again, we have a problem in which the Senate waits until the day before a holiday or the day before a scheduled instate work period before bringing something to the floor for a vote--without following the Senate's own rules, which are designed to promote and protect the openness and transparency of the legislative process. This is a troubling trend and one we should seek to avoid whenever and wherever possible.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Supreme Court's ruling this morning in the case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. In that case, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that may be spun by many, perceived by many, as a victory for the proponents of the controversial individual mandate contained within the Affordable Care Act.

I would submit today, however, that this victory, if it is being called that, will prove to be not only hollow but also short lived. I say that because, significantly, the Supreme Court was able to uphold the constitutionality of the mandate only by a series of gymnastics that allowed the Court to find this was a tax.

First, the Court addressed the issue and concluded, for only the third time in the last 75 years--only the third time since 1937--that Congress had, in fact, exceeded its power as asserted under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Having concluded that Congress lacks the authority to compel commerce, the creation of commerce so that it could then regulate commerce, the Supreme Court went on to shoehorn this individual mandate provision into the Supreme Court's conception of Congress's taxing power. This awkward construction is one that exposes many of the true flaws of the individual mandate.

The mandate itself, we must remember, was not wildly popular among the American people at the time it was enacted. It has become even less popular as the American people have come to understand it. A recent poll revealed that roughly 74 percent of Americans do not like the individual mandate. This is easy for us to understand when we think about the fact that we as Americans--we are born as a free people. We were intended to live as a free people. It offends our most basic sense of freedom to have one of the most personal decisions made for us by government--particularly by the impersonal, distant government that is based in Washington, DC.

These kinds of decisions should be made by the individuals and families in consultation with their doctors, not by government bureaucrats in Washington, DC. So the fact that it is unpopular does not surprise us, and given the fact that the Supreme Court was able to uphold the individual mandate only by calling it a tax is very significant. It is especially significant given the fact that it was pitched to the American people as something other than a tax.

The President promised us he would not raise our taxes. He promised us the individual mandate did not amount to a tax increase. He promised us all along that he would never raise the taxes of any American earning less than $250,000 a year. Well, those who participated in Congress who voted for this provision also promised us this would not amount to a tax increase. They did so for one simple reason: They knew it could not pass. They knew it would not be able to get the number of votes necessary to make it become law if they called it a tax. So they did not. They went to great lengths to make sure it was not described or characterized or structured as a tax within the text of the statute itself.

Now, after the fact, the Supreme Court has taken the step of shoehorning this regulation into Congress's taxing authority, and it is calling it a tax, effectively insulating those Members of Congress who voted for it from the political liability attached to having voted for a tax increase--not just any tax increase but a tax increase that the Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded will be borne overwhelmingly by hard-working, middle-income earners.

In fact, they have concluded that over 75 percent of the burden associated with this mandate that has now been deemed a tax will be paid by those earning less than $250,000 a year. It was unpopular before we were told it would be deemed a tax. Now that it is a tax, we cannot expect that its status as a tax will enhance its popularity. If anything, we can expect that it will become even less popular with the American people.

For that reason, I am absolutely convinced that for those who call this a victory for the individual mandate, it will prove to be anything but a victory. It will prove to be something that will result in a groundswell of people contacting their Members of Congress, telling them they do not want their taxes raised, telling them that Members of Congress who voted for this promised them it would not be a tax increase, asking them, for instance, to vote on it, to decide once and for all whether they are willing now to call it a tax, given that was the only way in which it could be affirmed, upheld, as a valid constitutional exercise of Congress's power.

As we move forward to the November elections, we are going to hear a lot about what people do not want out of their national government. We will

continue to hear a lot from those people who are offended by this notion that the government can tell them where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it, who are offended by the notion that government would step in and tell Americans: You have to buy health insurance, not just any health insurance but that health insurance which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has deemed necessary for every American to purchase. And if you do not, you are going to be penalized. If you do not, you are going to be taxed.

People are going to be upset about this. They are going to complain to Congress and to candidates for Congress. They are going to complain to the President and to other candidates for the Presidency that this is not the kind of government they want. After they do that, they will proceed, and they will start talking about what kind of government they do want. That is where we have to move, away from the kind of government we do not want toward the kind of government we do want.

The kind of government we do want today is, in so many respects, the same kind of government we as Americans have always wanted ever since our founding; that is, a government that at the national level recognizes limits to its power, recognizes that whenever government acts it does so at the expense of our individual liberty.

When the Federal Government acts, to a significant degree it does so at the expense of our State governments, governments which are closer to the people and often more responsive to the needs and to the evolving demands of the people. This is not simply a technicality upon which we are involved in a discussion. This is a very important part of the political process. It is essential that any time we raise taxes, we do so in a way that is clear to the people and that we stand accountable to the people for raising taxes. The courts do not have the expertise to do that, and yet they exercised that power today.

As the majority opinion today reminded:

The Supreme Court of the United States possesses neither

the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.

Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders

who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with

them.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from our country's greatest Founding Father, George Washington, who said something very similar way back in 1789, when he explained:

The power under the Constitution will always be in the

people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for

a limited period to the representatives of their own

choosing. And whenever it is executed contrary to their

interests or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants

can and undoubtedly will be recalled.

This reminds us of the fact that we as Americans are in control of our own destiny as a nation. We as Americans are here and have the prerogative to explain what we want and what we do not want out of our government. The government exists to serve the people and not the other way around. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court today, while I disagree with it in many respects, is one that I predict will usher in a new era of robust debate and discussion over issues of federalism and individual freedom. That debate, I am convinced, will lead inexorably to the result that we as Americans will become more free, less captive to a government that tells us where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it, and that we as a people will again prosper as we regain our God-given right to constitutionally limited government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Rick Craig, president of America First Federal Credit Union. Rick was appointed president of the credit union in 1997, and previously served as the executive vice president for two decades. He recently announced his retirement and I wish to honor his exemplary career.

Rick is an alumnus of Weber State University, where he earned a bachelor of science degree in the field of mathematics with a minor in physics. He went on to earn a master's degree in the field of engineering from the University of Utah, and graduated in 1981 from the Western Credit Union National Association, CUNA, Management School. While in school, Rick earned the Charlie Clark Award and later was honored with the James D. Likens Alumni Recognition Award. He has also completed the Credit Union Executives Society's Directors Leadership Institute program at the London Business School. Over the years, Rick has been willing to share his knowledge with others, teaching courses at Weber State University and the Western CUNA Management School.

Rick is a past board member of the Utah League of Credit Unions, and was vice chairman of the league's Executive Committee. From 1997 to 2003, he also served on the Governor's Board of Credit Union Advisors in Utah. He served on the Filene Research Council from 1999 to 2005, and he has been a member of the CO-OP Board of Directors since 2005. He has been a director of the Credit Union Executives Society, CUES, for 9 years, serving as chairman of the board. Rick was inducted into the Credit Union Society's Hall of Fame in 1996.

Mr. Craig has received numerous honors for his work. Utah Business Magazine recognized him as one of the one hundred most influential people in the State of Utah in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2011. He was recognized as one of the Ten Trail Blazing Companies in Utah in 2003 and in 2004, the national CUES named him Executive of the Year. Under his leadership, America First Credit Union was recognized as one of the best places to work in Utah in 2007. Craig has written numerous articles, including articles for CUNA and CUES magazines, as well as computer world.

After 12 years as president, Rick Craig is leaving America First Credit Union on solid financial foundation. He has been successful at navigating the credit union through very turbulent financial times.

Although Rick Craig has achieved great success in business, his greatest success has been being the father of 10 wonderful children. It is my wish that he and Karen enjoy this new chapter in their lives.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the minority leader's decision to invoke the longstanding Senate tradition, known as the Leahy-Thurmond rule. Pursuant to this tradition and precedent, the Senate will cease confirming nominees to the Federal courts of appeals until after the Presidential election in November. Many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have previously affirmed the propriety of this rule and enforced its standard. For example, in the last year of the Bush administration, the majority leader noted that ``in a Presidential election year, it is always very tough for judges. That is the way it has been for a long time, and that is why we have the Thurmond rule.''

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has cited the Thurmond rule more frequently than any other Senator, has likewise stated that ``in a Presidential election year, after Spring, no judges go through except by the consent of the Republican and Democratic leaders.''

Statements from several of my Democratic colleagues likewise confirm that it is proper to invoke the Leahy-Thurmond rule at this point in a Presidential election year. In 2008, for example, one of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee argued that for Federal appeals court nominees, once ``it comes to June . . . generally everything stops in an election year.'' Indeed, on June 12 of that same year, another Judiciary Committee colleague stated that the Senate was already ``way past the time of the Thurmond rule.''

History further confirms the propriety of invoking the Leahy-Thurmond rule at this time. It is extremely rare for the Senate to confirm an appeals court nominee after June of a Presidential election year. In fact, it has happened only once in almost two decades, when in 2000 the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed one of President Clinton's nominees. It is simply not true, as comments from some of my colleagues have implied, that in recent Presidential election years we have confirmed appellate court nominees in July, August, or September.

Moreover, this year we have already confirmed five of President Obama's Federal appeals court nominees. This, incidentally, is the same number of appeals court nominees the Senate confirmed in 2008, the most recent Presidential election year on record. In 2004 the Senate confirmed only four such nominees. Indeed, dating back over 100 years, from President William Howard Taft to President Obama, the Senate has confirmed an average of just four appeals court nominees during Presidential election years. This year we have already exceeded the historical average and confirmed five of President Obama's appeals court nominees.

There is no reason to depart further from the historical norm and confirm additional nominees.

The suggestion by some that application of the Leahy-Thurmond rule somehow affects court vacancies deemed ``judicial emergencies'' is false, and recklessly so. Of the four judicial emergencies on the Federal court of appeals, President Obama has nominated only one individual, and because that nomination was so recent, even absent the Leahy-Thurmond rule, that nominee would not be scheduled for a vote anytime soon.

I also remind my colleagues that Democrats enforced the Leahy- Thurmond rule in June 2008, during a time when there were twice as many judicial emergencies in the circuit courts as there are right now. Likewise, the overall vacancy rate on our circuit courts was much higher in June 2004 when President Bush was in the final year of his term. Yet Democrats did not hesitate to block several qualified appellate court nominees in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election.

Enforcement of the Leahy-Thurmond rule does not currently apply to district court nominees. This year the Senate has already confirmed 23 of President Obama's district court nominees--many more than were confirmed during comparable years during the President Bush and Clinton Presidencies. And we will continue to confirm more qualified nominees. Application of the Leahy-Thurmond rule, beginning now, will thus not implicate any district court judicial emergencies.

The urgency for such vacancies lies not in the Senate, which to this day has acted responsibly on nominees, but with President Obama, who to this day has failed to nominate individuals for many of these seats.

There are, I add, other good reasons in addition to tradition and historical precedent to enforce the Leahy-Thurmond rule now rather than waiting longer to do so. Doing so now prevents a particular President from packing the courts at the end of his term by appointing influential, life-tenured appellate court judges whose service will span numerous other Presidential administrations.

The Leahy-Thurmond rule also ensures that Presidential politics during an election season will not overshadow or interfere with the Senate's advice and consent role on such judicial nominees.

The last point bears special emphasis. The Constitution assigns to the Senate the right and the duty to advise and consent to the President's judicial and executive branch nominees. It is essential for the Constitution's separation of powers that the Senate protect its necessary and legitimate role in the nominations process against encroachment by the executive branch of government.

Earlier this year, we witnessed a troubling demonstration of what can happen when the President violates the Constitution's separation of powers and tramples on the Senate's rightful prerogatives in the advise and consent process. On January 4, 2012, at a time when the Senate was conducting brief sessions approximately every 72 hours, President Obama nonetheless bypassed the Senate and unilaterally appointed four significant executive branch nominees. By asserting the power to make recess appointments, even when the Senate--according to its own rules-- was not in recess, the President simply ignored the Senate's legitimate constitutional right to advise and consent to nominees made by the President.

President Obama's unconstitutional appointments cut to the very heart of our Constitution's separation of powers and the institutional prerogatives that rightfully belong right here, in this body. Accordingly, since the time of those appointments, I have sought to protect the Senate's interests by opposing President Obama's judicial nominees. I have made clear I would do the same were a Republican President to make similarly unconstitutional appointments under the recess appointments clause.

As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee noted at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, I have stated my concern with President Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments very clearly, but I have also been, in his words, extremely responsible in my opposition and have not hindered the work of the Senate. In light of President Obama's unconstitutional appointments, it is all the more proper we invoke the Leahy-Thurmond rule now.

I agree with the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that we should have invoked that rule back in January, at the time of the unconstitutional appointments. By enforcing the Leahy-Thurmond rule now, we will demonstrate for the historical record the Senate did not acquiesce in President Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments and, instead, took action to protect the Senate's institutional prerogatives. When we have done so, I will again be in a position to vote in favor of qualified consensus District Court nominees.

But I will always remain vigilant in seeking to protect the Senate against unconstitutional encroachment by the executive branch. As Members of this body, we have an institutional responsibility to safeguard the Senate's essential advise and consent role and to confirm only those nominees who are properly qualified to serve in the positions for which they have been rightfully nominated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2313.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment to repeal the Forest Legacy Program. This is a program designed to protect lands in the United States. It is important to remember that the Federal Government is already a massive landowner. It has abundant programs already in place to conserve that land, to protect it. The Federal Government owns about two-thirds of the land in my own State. It owns nearly 30 percent of the land mass within the territorial boundaries of the United States. We do a lot to conserve that land. But when we use this money-- money estimated to amount to about $200 million a year in authorization, about $1 billion over a 5-year period--we are using that money to take land out of use. We are using that money to pay people not to use their land for anything. Whenever we look for areas in which we can save money, one area is to not pay people not to use their land.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2314 at the desk.

Mr. President, I propose amendment No. 2314 to repeal the Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program. Here we have another instance of the Federal Government paying people not to use their land. In this circumstance, they are being paid not to grow crops on their land, not to use agricultural land.

We have an almost $16 trillion debt. CBO says this amendment would save over $15 billion in mandatory spending over 10 years. Not doing something is something that should be free. Only the Federal Government would try to defend the practice of spending billions and billions of dollars--

Only the Federal Government would try to defend the barbaric, outmoded practice of paying people billions of dollars not to use their land. That is what these programs do. We need to get rid of them. That is why I propose this amendment. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. President, I introduce this motion to recommit to move us back to 2008 levels. We cannot continue to kick this can down the road in perpetuity. Our spending levels threaten to impair our ability to fund everything from defense to entitlements and everything that falls in between. This is a good start, and this is something that would cut the 10-year cost of this bill by $254 billion. We need to do it. We need to send it back to the committee, where the committee will have discretion on exactly how to accomplish that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, in my approximately 20 seconds remaining, let me say that if we want to continue the same budgeting process that has put us nearly $16 trillion in debt, then we should proceed to vote against this. If, on the other hand, we want to turn this around and maintain our ability to fund essential government programs, we need to pass this.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S.J. Res. 37, and to express my deep and profound disapproval of the Obama administration's handling of the utility MACT rule.

Let me first address what this debate is not about. This is not about a debate between one side that supports clean air and another side that does not. We all support and understand the importance of maintaining our pristine environment, maintaining the quality of human health in the ecosystem. My State, the great State of Utah, holds some of the greatest land resources in the country, some of the most beautiful landscapes. They are a source of pride for all Americans, and especially for all Utahns. They provide a significant economic benefit for my State in the form of tourism dollars.

I would not support any legislation ever that would damage our environmental brand in Utah or that would harm our environment. What this debate does expose is this administration's vigorous, unfettered attempts to severely limit the use of coal technology and a complete and utter disregard for the economic benefits of this industry, and the economic effects of this kind of overly aggressive regulation.

If implemented fully, the utility MACT rule would give utilities nationwide 3 short years to fully complete very costly upgrades to their plants. Many industry experts believe that these standards are nearly impossible to meet in that timeframe. Utilities will need closer to 5 or 6 years to make the necessary upgrades required by this regulatory scheme.

Those who are unable to comply will have no choice but to shut down unless or until they can meet those standards. This inevitably, with absolute certainty, will result in sharp spikes to energy costs, increased power bills for all Americans, affecting the most vulnerable among us the most severely.

Higher energy costs will, in turn, have a direct impact on the family budget. The more we as Americans spend on higher energy costs, the less we have available for savings, for education, and for other priorities. Although the President campaigns around the country by trying to convince Americans that he knows how to create jobs, this rule alone has been estimated by some industry experts as likely to kill 180,000 to 215,000 jobs by 2015.

So one has to wonder why it is this administration is nonetheless imposing rules it knows cannot be met, and that if they must be met, will kill this many jobs and hurt this many Americans. Why are they ignoring the obvious economic consequences of shutting down an industry that produces about half of all of the electricity we use in the United States of America today?

It does not make any sense. We can have sensible regulations that keep our air and our water and other aspects of our environment clean. We need that. We want that as Americans. We can also have a balanced approach that considers the economic costs of new rules and restrictions on small businesses and on consumers. That is what we need.

Utility MACT is an example of a regulation that does neither. It accomplishes none of these interests. I strongly urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 37. I stand with a growing bipartisan group of Senators, private sector unions, business interests that believe we can do better as Americans than imposing those kinds of regulations on the American people, and who also believe it is vitally important that when we do put these kinds of regulations on the American people we first have the kind of robust debate and discussion Americans have came to expect from their political institutions.

Two separate provisions of the Constitution, article I, section 1, and article I, section 7, clearly place the legislative process, the power to make rules that carry the force of generally applicable binding Federal law, in the hands of Congress, not in an executive branch agency.

The American people know this. They understand it. They expect it. They rely on it. Because they know if we pass laws the people do not like, that the people cannot accept, that kill jobs, that hurt those most vulnerable among us, that we can be held politically accountable come election time, every 2 years in the case of Members of the House, every 6 years in the case of Members of this body.

When we circumvent that process, when we allow the lawmaking process to be carried out entirely within an executive branch agency consisting of people who, while perfectly well intentioned and well educated, do not stand accountable to the people, we insulate the lawmakers from those governed by those same laws.

This is exactly why we need to exercise our authority under the Congressional Review Act by passing these resolutions of disapproval from time to time. But it is all the more reason why we need more lasting, significant reform, reform that can be had through the REINS Act proposal. This is a proposal that has already passed through the House favorably and needs to be passed in this body. It is a bill that would require for any new regulation promulgated that at the administrative level, any new regulation which qualifies as a major rule because it costs American consumers and small business interests, individuals, families, and all others in America more than $100 million in a year, it would take effect if and only if it were first passed into law in the House and in the Senate and signed into law by the President.

This is how our lawmaking process is supposed to operate. This is a system that our Founding Fathers carefully put in place, assuring that those who make the laws and thereby have the capacity to affect the rights of individual Americans can and will be held accountable to the people for the very laws they pass.

I tried to get the REINS Act up for consideration in connection with the Ag bill. We were not successful in doing that. Apparently some in this body, some in control of this body, were unwilling to have a vote on the REINS Act proposal as an amendment to the Ag bill. Sooner or later we need to have a vote on the REINS Act. We need to have this debate and discussion, to assure that the laws that are passed in this country are passed by men and women chosen by the people, accountable to the people, that we may yet still have that guarantee in our country, a guarantee of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.