Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the career of Police Chief Michael D. Lee, who is retiring after 34 years with the Kaysville Police Department.

Chief Lee was the eighth officer hired by Kaysville City in 1977. He started as the first school resource officer for Kaysville and rose through the ranks becoming a detective sergeant in 1988. He was subsequently promoted to lieutenant over the Patrol Services Division, and in 2007 he became the captain of the Investigative Services Division. In 2008, he was named chief of police for Kaysville City and has served the citizens honorably.

During his time at the Kaysville Police Department, Lee has helped to oversee the force's evolution into the 21st century. As new technologies have become available, Lee has pushed the department to continue to modernize, acquiring equipment ranging from advanced speed radar systems to laptops for patrol cars.

Passing the tradition of public service from one generation to another, Lee's son, Jason, has entered into his own law enforcement career. He protects the public as a patrol sergeant for the Morgan County Sheriff's office.

I join Kaysville Mayor Steve Hiatt and the local community in congratulating Michael D. Lee for his many years of dedicated service. I want to personally thank him for protecting and serving so many Utahns and bringing honor to a name that we share. His career is a testament to the accomplishments of hardworking police officers everywhere, and I congratulate him on his many achievements and 34 years of excellence.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the exemplary service of Chief Aleck Shilaos, who has served in law enforcement for 43 years and as the chief of police for the city of Price, UT for 25 years.

Shilaos began his career in 1969 as the first parking officer ever hired by the University of Utah. When the university's security force became an official police department, Aleck joined the police force. The school's biggest need for police stemmed from theft at the University Hospital, where felons from Utah's prison system would receive medical treatment. The crime wave was quickly stopped, saving the hospital untold long-term costs.

In 1972, Shilaos accepted a position with the Lakewood, CO Police Department, where he served for a decade and continued to improve his merits as a nationally ranked pistol shooter. Those skills helped him to gain immediate respect from fellow officers when he joined the police force in his hometown of Price a decade later. Five years later, he was named chief of police in Price, a position he would hold for the next quarter of a century.

Under Shilaos's leadership, the Price Police Department advanced into the information age. With Shilaos at the helm, Price began implementing technologies that increased efficiency and paved the way for the next generation of police officers.

Shilaos graduated from the FBI National Academy in 1995, created his department's first detective division, and a new field training program. Additionally, Shilaos looked beyond his own department and helped to found a regional drug strike force and SWAT team, and implemented the DARE anti-drug program in local schools.

Shilaos also fought a brave personal battle against non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Diagnosed in 2010, the disease is now in remission. Shilaos recently commented that the good days now outnumber the bad ones.

Aleck Shilaos has been an outstanding public servant for the city of Price, UT and will surely be missed. His career is an example of leadership, dedication, and commitment. I wish he and his wife Shirley a long and enjoyable retirement, and thank him for his dedicated service.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I would first note that this year we have already confirmed 25 of President Obama's judicial nominees.

At this point in 2004, the last Presidential election year during a President's first term, the Senate had confirmed only 11 of President Bush's judicial nominees. At precisely the same point in 1996, during President Clinton's first term, the Senate had confirmed only three judicial nominees. So this year we have confirmed more than twice as many of President Obama's judicial nominees as we did during a comparable period for President Bush and more than eight times as many as we did for President Clinton.

Of the nominees we have already confirmed so far this year, two are now serving as appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is an important appellate court in America, with jurisdiction over about 60 million Americans--roughly 20 percent of our country's total population.

Approximately one-third of all reversals handed down by the Supreme Court last term were from the Ninth

Circuit. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has developed something of a reputation for eccentric legal theories and unusual results. As one commentator suggested, ``There should be two Supreme Courts, one to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the other to hear all the other cases.''

We should therefore exercise some caution in confirming yet another liberal nominee to the Ninth Circuit. But Mr. Hurwitz is not simply another liberal nominee. Mr. Hurwitz has sought to claim credit for one of the most controversial and constitutionally indefensible decisions in Supreme Court history--Roe v. Wade.

In 1972, Mr. Hurwitz clerked for Judge Jon Newman on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. That year, as Mr. Hurwitz later put it: ``[t]he abortion issue dominated [Judge Newman's time],'' and Mr. Hurwitz helped Judge Newman write two key abortion decisions known as Abele I and Abele II. These two decisions established the conceptual groundwork for the decision that became known later as Roe v. Wade. They relied on a single discredited, historical account to conclude that Connecticut's abortion laws were not in fact passed to protect the life of the fetus; they relied on flawed science to conclude that there was no objective way of knowing when human life begins; and they relied on a fabricated and arbitrary legal framework of viability to analyze the competing rights of the individual and the State.

Given the woefully misguided reasoning behind these decisions, one would assume that a former law clerk would keep quiet about his personal role in drafting opinions that lack serious constitutional grounding. Indeed, most former law clerks--who have a certain duty not to discuss internal deliberations--would consider themselves ethically bound not to talk about decisionmaking in individual cases, and certainly would not seek to attract public attention to their role in particular decisions. But Mr. Hurwitz did just that.

In a 2002 law review article, Mr. Hurwitz recounted how he received a Supreme Court clerkship partly on the basis of his role in helping draft Judge Newman's 1972 abortion decisions. Mr. Hurwitz wrote that Justice Potter Stewart, who hired Mr. Hurwitz as a clerk at the Supreme Court, ``jokingly referred to [Hurwitz] as `the clerk who wrote the Newman [abortion] opinion.' '' And Mr. Hurwitz made clear that the opinion had a ``demonstrable effect'' on the Supreme Court's approach to abortion.

My concern with respect to Mr. Hurwitz's asserted role in Roe v. Wade goes beyond his attempt to take credit for that decision. Mr. Hurwitz has been nominated to serve as a Federal appellate judge, and his endorsement of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade raises immense concerns about his constitutional jurisprudence. While Mr. Hurwitz continues to write about Roe with fondness, nostalgia, and even pride, most legal scholars--including many who hold very liberal political views--concede that Roe was an extraordinarily flawed legal decision. For example, Prof. John Hart Ely has written:

[Roe v. Wade] is bad because it is bad constitutional law,

or rather it is not constitutional law [at all] and gives

almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

Prof. Lawrence Tribe has written:

[B]ehind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive

judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found.

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar has written:

Roe's main emphasis is neither textual, nor historical, nor

structural, nor prudential, nor ethical: it is doctrinal. But

here too it is a rather unimpressive effort. As a precedent-

follower, Roe simply string-cites a series of privacy cases .

. . and then abruptly announces with no doctrinal analysis

that this privacy right is broad enough to encompass

abortion.

Prof. Cass Sunstein likewise has written:

In the Court's first confrontation with the abortion issue,

it . . . decided too many issues too quickly. The Court

should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to

adapt and to generate solutions that might not occur to

judges.

Unlike these liberal legal scholars, Mr. Hurwitz fails to appreciate that Roe represents exactly the kind of constitutional activism Federal courts must avoid--inventing new rights without any substantive or significant constitutional analysis.

Given the chance at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to disassociate himself from Roe v. Wade, Mr. Hurwitz did not do so. Instead, his only relevant response--an assertion also unpersuasively made by some of my colleagues--has been that his 2002 law review article was merely descriptive and did not express any personal opinion as to the merits of Roe. But to anyone who has reviewed Mr. Hurwitz's article and the laudatory tone with which it discusses the connection between Judge Newman's opinions and Roe v. Wade itself, this assertion simply is not credible.

Mr. Hurwitz wrote that Judge Newman's opinions on abortion were ``memorable, innovative, careful, and meticulous.'' He described them as exerting a ``profound, critical, immediate, direct, and crucial'' influence on Roe v. Wade, which he described as a landmark opinion of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Hurwitz cannot have it both ways. He cannot seek credit for his role in developing a jurisprudence that is unmoored from the Constitution and that has fundamentally disrespected human life, and then later claim he was only retelling a story. Mr. Hurwitz's attempts to take credit for, and subsequent refusal to distance himself from, constitutional decisions that lack serious constitutional foundation casts an unacceptable degree of doubt on his ability to serve in the role of a Federal appellate judge.

Of the countless qualified individuals who would make excellent appellate judges to serve on the Ninth Circuit, President Obama chose to nominate the one person who, by his own account, was a key intellectual architect of the profoundly flawed legal arguments in Roe v. Wade--someone who fails to appreciate the illegitimacy of constitutional activism and who, even today, looks back on his role in that case with pride.

It is for this reason that I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz.

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

Mr. President, I stand today to respond to what I believe are irresponsible and dangerous attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over a 3-day period, beginning on March 26 of this year, the Supreme Court held more than 6 hours of oral argument to address the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I was privileged to attend each of those sessions, and I can say that as a lifelong student of the Constitution and as one who served as a law clerk at the Supreme Court of the United States, I was very interested to not only watch the arguments but also to read many of the briefs and follow each of the proceedings very closely.

Like so many others who watched or read those proceedings, I was most impressed by the quality of the questions, the quality of the advocacy, and the overall discussion that took place in the Supreme Court. Through their questions, the Justices showed keen interest in the nature of the arguments made in support of ObamaCare. For example, Justice Kennedy asked whether, under the administration's theory of the commerce clause, there could be any meaningful limitation on the Federal Government's power under the commerce clause. He asked specifically, ``Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?'' Such questions and hypotheticals are common and they are a useful way by which lawyers and judges tend to test the basic principled limits enshrined in our Constitution.

If the Federal Government may compel commerce so that it may regulate the resulting commercial activity, there would arguably be little, if any, limit to the scope of Federal power. There would be no aspect of our individual lives that the Federal Government could not dictate and control. Such an all-powerful authority is, of course, flatly inconsistent with the Constitution's doctrine of enumerated powers-- this principle that is perhaps more well-settled than any other principle within our almost 225-year-old founding era document.

Based on the Justices' questions and oral argument, many commentators--myself included--have predicted that the Supreme Court may well choose to invalidate the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Apparently anticipating this possible outcome, some of my colleagues, as well as President Obama, have made statements suggesting that it would somehow be improper for the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act. They have asserted that striking down an act of Congress such as this one would somehow amount to judicial activism and that that would otherwise be wildly inappropriate. They have criticized some of the questions asked by individual Justices, and they have even gone so far as to suggest that those Justices who might vote to invalidate the Affordable Care Act would do so for reasons representing bias or partisan political motivations. This reminds me of the old saying that you can often tell in a particular game which team is losing by which side happens to be yelling at the referee.

In response to these false and, frankly, reckless statements, I would like to make three points.

First, attempts to manipulate or to bully the Supreme Court, especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are irresponsible, and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our constitutional Republic. Each Justice has sworn an oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to discharge his or her duties faithfully and impartially.

From time to time, politicians and others may disagree with the Court as to important constitutional issues or even on the merits of a particular case. I certainly feel that way myself from time to time. But it is simply inappropriate for elected representatives--who themselves have sworn an oath to the Constitution--in a spirit of partisanship, to question the honesty and impartiality of our Nation's highest Court in what could be perceived as part of an effort on the part of those elected politicians to influence a case pending before the Supreme Court.

Second, criticisms of the well-established principle of judicial review grossly misrepresent how our constitutional Republic functions.

President Obama and some Members of this body have suggested that the judiciary--which they sometimes denigrate as a group of unelected people--should simply defer to Congress. But, of course, each branch of government, including the judiciary, has an essential duty under the Constitution to police its own actions, to make sure that its own actions comply with the text, the spirit, and the letter of the Constitution.

Congress and the executive branch should police themselves to make sure they don't transgress those limits. But when the political branches happen to overstep their own boundaries, their own legitimate limits--as I believe happened with the individual mandate--the Supreme Court can and indeed must enforce the Constitution.

In a recent appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Breyer explained, ``We are the boundary patrol.'' The Constitution sets boundaries, of course. That is what is at issue here. This foundational principle applies to popular laws just as much as it applies to unpopular laws.

The vast majority of Americans--about 74 percent, according to one recent poll--oppose the ObamaCare individual mandate. The Supreme Court will not strike it down merely because it is unpopular, but the Court must do so if the mandate exceeds the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution. That is what is at issue.

Third and finally, it simply is not the case that a court can properly be described as activist just because it enforces the Constitution's structural limits on Federal power. In this context, it is not altogether helpful to focus the discussion of whether the Court is acting properly on the contours of the words ``activist'' or ``activism.'' We have to remember that, for the Supreme Court, not acting to invalidate an unconstitutional law is every bit as bad, is every bit as repugnant to the rule of law and to the Constitution as it is for the Court to act to invalidate a law that is entirely justified on a constitutional basis. Both represent, both are the product of a betrayal of the Supreme Court's duty to decide cases according to the laws and to the Constitution of the United States of America.

When the Supreme Court acts to enforce the Constitution's limits on Federal power--as I expect it may do in the Affordable Care Act case-- it does so pursuant to specific textual provisions of the Constitution. Enforcing the law in this undeniably legitimate matter is not activist; rather, it is an essential function of the judiciary in preserving the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Among those liberties, of course, are those protected by perhaps the most important fundamental component of the Constitution, this notion that we are all protected when the power of Congress and the power of the Federal Government as a whole is restricted. This is why James Madison appropriately observed that it was with good reason that the Founding Fathers reserved to the States powers that he described as numerous and indefinite, while describing those powers that were vested in this body as few and defined. We are all safer, we are all more free, we are all more prosperous to the extent that we stand by this most important fundamental precept of the Constitution. That is what is at issue in this case.

I hope and I trust that, moving forward, President Obama and my colleagues in this body will refrain from attempting to bully the Supreme Court or seeking to misrepresent the Court's important work in fulfilling its constitutional duties. Let's stop yelling at the referees and let the Supreme Court do its job while we do ours.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the city of Richfield, UT, for winning the Joining Forces Community Challenge. This honor is of exceptional note as Richfield was the only municipality chosen as a finalist in the competition.

The Joining Forces Community Challenge was launched in July of 2011, seeking to encourage and promote creative ways of showing support for members of the military and their families. Citizens of Richfield have been strongly supportive of military personnel and their loved ones for years, especially the men and women who are stationed in and around Richfield. The 2nd Battalion, 222nd Field Artillery unit of the Utah National Guard is based out of Richfield, and has been deployed four times since September 11, with soldiers going to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nicknamed the ``Triple Deuce,'' the 222nd is beloved in Utah, and the extraordinary community support made for a perfect submission to the challenge.

Local businesses have found numerous ways to throw their weight behind the unit. Many of them offer discounts and special service to members of the 222nd and their families, and include messages of support in their advertising. Richfield's newspaper, the Richfield Reaper, sends free copies to deployed servicemembers and often prints photos sent in by soldiers so that family, friends, and neighbors can stay connected back home. Richfield City covers utility bills in full for the families of deployed soldiers.

In 2005, the Richfield Chamber of Commerce organized a campaign that came to be known as Coins for a Camouflage Christmas. The goal was to throw an extraordinary Christmas party for military families during the holidays while the 222nd was deployed on an 18-month-long mission in Iraq. Participating businesses kept special containers next to their cash registers for donations, and asked customers for their spare change. Tens of thousands of dollars were collected, and in addition to the party, each child of a deployed parent received a special gift from that parent delivered by Santa Claus. In 2011, when it was thought that the unit would again be deployed over Christmas, Coins for a Camouflage Christmas was organized once again. Rather than throwing a party for the families of deployed soldiers, Richfield got to throw a welcome home party for soldiers who had come back earlier than scheduled as American forces withdrew from Iraq.

The Richfield library has joined in the effort to support the 222nd. After discovering that one daughter of a deployed soldier was trying to learn about Iraq because her father was there, the library put in a special order for books describing the places where parents in the unit were deployed. When the books were received, the library held a special gathering to introduce the new material.

City and community leaders were also instrumental in creating and signing onto the military's Community Covenant Outreach Program in Richfield. Participants promise soldiers and their families support and services from Richfield. As part of the program, two large Community Covenant signs were built at each end of town to show visitors how much Richfield cares about military families.

Perhaps most importantly, the Richfield community has contributed more than a quarter of a million dollars to build a veterans memorial. The memorial is currently under construction and slated to be completed later this year.

Richfield has demonstrated over and over again that it is a community that cares deeply about the men and women who fight to keep us safe and free. The special love for the Triple Deuce is a shining example of how a unit should be supported by local communities around the country. I sincerely thank my fellow Utahns in Richfield who continue to set a high standard of excellence in showing love and respect for our brave heroes. Finally, I add my grateful appreciation to all of our men and women in uniform.

Ten or twelve minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, the true greatness of our Nation lies in the power and promise of the American dream. Unfortunately, for many individuals and families, this dream has become a national nightmare. Without the clear priorities and accountability of a budget, we continue to careen toward the economic cliff, with our massive debt and trillion-dollar deficits threatening the prosperity of Americans from every walk of life. To put it simply, we must change course.

Restoring the American dream will require more than clever bumper sticker slogans. While optimism is an important part of the American dream, hope simply is not a strategy for the kind of course correction our country desperately needs.

Doing nothing is no longer an option, although this President and this Congress have attempted, by not having a budget, to convince the American people that doing nothing is somehow the only option. Ignoring our broken entitlement programs, maintaining our complex Tax Code, and pretending we don't have a spending problem ensures that our economy will never truly recover and that the American dream will not be restored.

The good news for Americans is that many of us do have solutions to confront and correct the country's most pressing challenges. In today's debate and discussion, the Nation has seen that changing course and balancing our budget doesn't have to take 30 years, nor does it have to require the kinds of drastic cuts that could devastate America's most vulnerable citizens.

As we conclude this debate, I remind my colleagues of the old adage that ``you can make excuses or you can make progress, but you cannot make both.'' Given the gravity of our current situation, we should also recognize that our present path is unsustainable. A course correction is coming; the question we will be held accountable for answering is whether that correction comes by choice or as a consequence of making excuses and doing nothing.

The Saving the American Dream Plan, which I have proposed, puts us on a sustainable and affordable path toward economic growth. It reforms our Tax Code to make paying taxes a simple, transparent, and equitable process that regular people can perform on their own. It empowers families to save by making savings tax free, which in turn lowers their tax burden in a way that helps them and our economy. It establishes a single tax rate. It eliminates the payroll tax, helping all Americans-- especially those at the lowest income level--and it abolishes the death tax permanently. Under this plan, Americans will no longer be forced to navigate the complex web of countless loopholes--for people who don't need them--contained within a tax code that is longer than the works of Shakespeare.

In addition to placing an enormous burden and imposing immense uncertainty on our people, such a tax system hides the true size and cost of government. This plan is simple, and it provides certainty for individuals and for businesses.

Opponents of reform will play petty politics and prey on false fears about the government's ability to help the helpless. They claim that any course correction in entitlement or social service spending will damage the social safety net. The truth is that doing nothing will absolutely and completely destroy the safety net. If we do not change course, the collapse of safety net services for our most vulnerable Americans is certain, and it is certain to hurt most those who have the least.

This plan saves Social Security by transitioning to a real insurance plan that provides income security for seniors and prevents sudden poverty as a result of unforeseen events. The affluent elderly, such as Warren Buffett, will see a decrease in benefits. This plan will allow people like Mr. Buffett to help in a way that is actually good for our economy and job creators.

The Saving the American Dream Plan also ends the government takeover of health care and puts dollars and decisions back into the hands of families and individuals and their doctors. Just like school choice allows parents to make sure their kids don't get stuck in a failing school system, this plan ensures families don't get stuck in a failing health care system.

Finally, this plan acknowledges that we have a spending problem and works to reduce the size of government, eliminate waste, lower the future burden on taxpayers, encourage productive economic activity, and enhance individual liberty and choice. It reins in spending by a total of $9.6 trillion over 10 years when compared to President Obama's budget and by $7.1 trillion as against the CBO baseline.

Supporters of the status quo will have every excuse as to why this budget or that budget won't work, but now is the time to stop making excuses and start making progress. Today we will vote on five budget proposals, but this is only the beginning of the discussion. I can say confidently that Republicans have done a tremendous amount of work to craft proposals to begin to change our course and move our country in the right direction, in a sustainable direction.

The President's budget reflects the status quo: Do nothing, keep our complex Tax Code and broken entitlement programs, and ignore spending. As for Senate Democrats, for 3 straight years they have refused to participate in this discussion except to criticize ideas they don't like. Leadership is what leadership does. For the past 1,113 days, our country has suffered from a lack of leadership.

I ask my colleagues, if you cannot vote for these budget plans today, will you at least do the right thing for the country and put aside election-year politics, show true leadership, and work with us to explore and implement real solutions? We cannot stand by the status quo. We cannot decide by default to do nothing. The American people expect more, and they deserve better.

We need every American to join us in finding the solutions that will enable us as a nation to change course. The Saving the American Dream Plan is about empowering individuals to define their own dream and ensuring they have every opportunity to make that dream reality.

This is the greatest civilization the world has ever known--not because government made it great but because Americans continually reject the status quo, choose to change course when needed, and demand economic freedom, while ensuring individual liberty and the right to pursue happiness.

This budget preserves the clear priorities and accountability we must have to jump-start the economy, create real jobs, strengthen the safety net, and restore the American dream.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I remind my colleagues of the old adage that you can make excuses or you can make progress but you cannot make both.

I remind my colleagues of the old adage that you can make excuses or you can make progress but you cannot make both--at least not simultaneously.

Our current course is unsustainable. Maintaining the status quo will inevitably impair our ability to fund everything from defense to entitlements. So sticking to this course isn't the solution. It can't be the solution. And if followed as a solution, it will have an impact that will prove devastating to America's most vulnerable populations. It is for exactly that reason I have proposed this budget--a budget that balances within 5 years, a budget that simplifies the Tax Code, a budget that puts health care decisions back into the hands of individual families, individuals themselves, and their doctors, where those decisions properly belong.

We don't have much time. We have to get this done. I urge my colleagues to support this budget.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move to amendment No. 2100 to H.R. 2072.

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

Mr. President, it is time that we wind down the Export- Import Bank. My amendment, No. 2100, would do precisely that. The American people cannot be the world's financial backstop. The government should not be picking winners and losers. Businesses in Utah and across the country are not receiving government help and are shutting their doors after decades of serving their communities. We should not, through this government, be adding insult to injury by using the tax money they contributed to prop up companies overseas.

We need to end the corporate welfare that distorts the market and feeds crony capitalism. The corporations that largely benefit from the Ex-Im Bank should have no trouble marshaling their resources to compete in today's economy. If they are struggling, then they are most likely not deserving of taxpayer help; and if they are turning billions in profit, then they clearly do not need taxpayer-subsidized loans.

Further, government subsidies breed undue favoritism from government bureaucrats who control where the money goes. Unless we want more Solyndras, we should end the practice immediately.

Some have suggested that the Ex-Im Bank is good for businesses. What is best for American businesses is getting the Federal Government out of their way, letting them operate without burdensome government regulations and without a complex tax system.

Having the government pick winners and losers does not make industries stronger, it makes them more dependent on subsidies. When government is picking who wins, the loser is always the taxpayer.

We have an opportunity today to reverse the status quo and defend the American taxpayer. My amendment winds down the Ex-Im Bank. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2100.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize 10 exemplary Utahns and future officers in the U.S. military. Each of them will begin their education at a military academy this fall.

James Cardinal, graduating from Layton High School, will be attending the Air Force Academy. As an Eagle Scout, he earned his Order of the Arrow, and is an honor student at his school. He was also a captain of his track and field team.

Connor Crandall, graduating from South Summit High school, will be attending the Air Force Academy. He is a class officer and president of the student government. He is also an honor student and a General Sterling Scholar, and a captain of his wrestling team.

Taylor Lanier, graduating from Viewmont High School, will be attending the Air Force Academy. She is an honor student, a member of the Youth City Council, and a Tae Kwon Do black belt. She is also a captain of her swimming team, and was a captain of her lacrosse team.

Brandon Lloyd, a graduate of Highland High School and graduating from the Air Force Academy Prep School, will be attending the Air Force Academy. He is an Eagle Scout, and while attending Highland was honored with its Warner Award. He also was a captain of his wrestling team, of which he was named Wrestler of the Year.

Bryce Magera, graduating from Hillcrest High School, will be attending West Point. He is an Eagle Scout and an honor student. He is also vice president of his Future Soldiers of America Club, and is trained in several types of mixed martial arts.

Mormon Redd, graduating from Viewmont High School, will be attending the Air Force Academy. He is an honor student and a patrol leader in his scout troop. He was also a captain of his wrestling team last year, and he volunteers for the Youthlinc humanitarian program.

Blair Roberts, graduating from Bingham High School, will be attending the Merchant Marine Academy. He is a captain of his swim team and a certified lifeguard. He has been named the KJZZ Prep Student Athlete of the Week, and helps children with cancer as a summer camp volunteer.

Zachary Santella, graduating from Davis High School, will be attending the Naval Academy. He is an honor student, captain of his swimming team, and was named Most Valuable Swimmer and hardest worker by the team.

Collin Shurtleff, a graduate of Parowan High School and graduate of Marion Military Institute, will be attending West Point. He is an Eagle Scout, an honor student, and president in his school's student government. He is also a captain of both his football team and his wrestling team.

Amy Slaughter, a graduate of Weber High School and the Marion Military Institute, will be attending West Point. In high school, she was president in her student government. She was also a captain of her volleyball team and a captain of her track team, and was named an Academic All-State Athlete in track.

One of my greatest honors as a U.S. Senator has been to get to know and nominate each of these young men and women. I know that our Nation's future is bright in the hands of these exemplary individuals who have distinguished themselves amongst their peers.

Madam President, I rise to speak about our Constitution's Federalist structure and the real danger of the Federal Government unduly interfering with the ability of States and localities to address activities and concerns in their communities.

Everyone agrees that violence against women is reprehensible. The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization had the honorable goal of assisting victims of domestic violence, but it oversteps the Constitution's rightful limits on Federal power. It interferes with the flexibility of States and localities that they should have in tailoring programs to meet particular needs of individual communities, and it fails to address problems of duplication and inefficiency.

First, violent crimes are regulated and enforced almost exclusively by State governments. In fact, domestic violence is one of the few activities that the Supreme Court of the United States has specifically said Congress may not regulate under the commerce clause. As a matter of constitutional policy, Congress should not seek to impose rules and standards as conditions for Federal funding in areas where the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to regulate directly.

Second, the strings Congress attaches to Federal funding in the VAWA reauthorization restrict each State's ability to govern itself. Rather than interfering with State and local programs under the guise of spending Federal tax dollars, Congress should allow States and localities to exercise their rightful responsibility over domestic violence. State and local leaders should have flexibility in enforcing State law and tailoring victim services to the individualized needs of their communities, rather than having to comply with one-size-fits-all Federal requirements.

Third, even if the Federal Government had a legitimate role in administering VAWA grant programs, the current reauthorization fails to address many instances of duplication and overlap among VAWA and other programs operated by the Department of Justice and by the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does it address the grant management failings by the Government Accountability Office.

My opposition to the current VAWA reauthorization is a vote against big government and inefficient spending and a vote in favor of State autonomy and local control. We must not allow a desire by some to score political points and an appetite for Federal spending to prevent States and localities from efficiently and effectively serving women and other victims of domestic violence.

Madam President, today I wish to congratulate the marching band of Davis High School in Kaysville, UT. The band was recently selected to represent Utah and the Mountain West region in the 124th Tournament of Roses Parade, an exceptional honor bestowed upon only 15 of the finest marching bands in the country.

Director Steven Hendricks has been a music educator for 24 years and the director at Davis High School for 22 years. During his time there, the band has tripled in size and has been a five-time Bands of America regional finalist. Mr. President, 2013 will mark the second time that the band will march in the Tournament of Roses Parade under Hendricks's leadership, having already received the honor once in 2003. Earlier this year, Hendricks was recognized as Utah's Outstanding High School Music Educator by the Utah Music Educators Association.

It should also be noted and is of equal importance that Davis High School regularly sets a high standard of academic excellence. The school is consistently ranked as one of the top 1,000 high schools in the country. In addition, the Davis High School advanced placement examination scores are among the highest in Utah.

The members of the Davis High School Marching Band have worked diligently for this day, and the reward is undoubtedly well deserved. They will be able to demonstrate their talent and skill in front of nearly 1 million live spectators and tens of millions more watching on television. I know that the band will represent Utah and the Mountain West with excellence and professionalism.

Mr. President, I rise to express serious concerns that I have with the nomination of Miranda Du to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

In 2007, the very same court to which Ms. Du has been nominated imposed sanctions on Ms. Du for ``multiplying the proceedings . . . unreasonably and vexatiously.'' (28 U.S.C. section 1927.) The basis of this sanctions order was Ms. Du's prior refusal to dismiss a complaint she had filed on behalf of her client, even after the party her client was suing informed her--and she did not dispute--that the Federal District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In imposing these sanctions on Ms. Du, the district court stated that she ``acted recklessly in failing to consider seriously the basic issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the [opposing party] brought it to [her] attention.''

Ms. Du's errors were egregious, particularly because they involved Federal subject matter jurisdiction--the very basis of the limited jurisdictional reach of the Federal court system for which she has been nominated to be a judge. Ms. Du has not provided a satisfactory explanation for her conduct, but instead has repeatedly attempted to minimize the significance of her errors.

When asked at her Judiciary Committee hearing why, in addition to dismissing her complaint against the third-party defendant, she did not have the case against her client dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Ms. Du responded that she did ``not realize this was a matter [she] could raise,'' and that she in fact did raise subject matter jurisdiction but on other grounds ``that the district court disagreed with.'' However, as pointed out in a letter members of the Judiciary Committee sent to Ms. Du following her hearing, court filings show that she did not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

In response to that letter, Ms. Du stated that she ``misspoke'' at her Judiciary Committee hearing and that she in fact had not raised the basic issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Troublingly, Ms. Du's belated candor was marred by an additional misleading attempt to minimize these same errors.

In her letter, Ms. Du stated that the ``motion for sanctions was later dismissed as moot and no sanctions were ultimately imposed.'' By going out of her way to make this misrepresentation, Ms. Du attempted to suggest that her sanctions were somehow not upheld or not imposed. To the contrary, after the court was burdened with a number of additional filings and motions regarding how much Ms. Du should pay in sanctions for her reckless conduct, the parties settled the issue out of court. The only matter that was mooted was the dispute over how much Ms. Du should pay, not whether she should pay. It is misleading for Ms. Du to affirmatively assert to members of the Judiciary Committee that ``no sanctions were imposed'' when the district court found that her behavior was reckless and plainly required and imposed such sanctions.

In light of the gravity of Ms. Du's errors and the importance to our Federal judiciary of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as Ms. Du's repeated attempts to minimize her errors, I must express serious concerns with her nomination and encourage my colleagues to vote against her nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my colleague. And he is correct, Utah does indeed have a health care system that functions well, and functions well notwithstanding the fact it is not managed, it is not governed by the Federal Government.

This is one of the great wonders of our Federal system. When we became a country about 200-plus years ago, we did so against a backdrop that is informative for us still today. We became a country, in part, because we discovered through trial and error, through our experience as British colonies, that local self-rule works best. People govern themselves much better than a large distant government can govern them. That is exactly why we became a country, because we learned that local self-rule works.

We learned also that there is great danger to our individual liberty with any government, because whenever any government acts, whenever it does anything to regulate our lives, it does so at the expense of our individual liberty. We become less free by degrees whenever government does just about anything.

But the risk to our liberty is especially great--it is at its highest--when the acting government is a large one, when it is a national government. National governments, as we learned in our experience with our national government before we became a country--our national government that was then based in London--national governments tend to tax us too much, they tend to regulate us too heavily, they tend to be inefficient, they tend to be slow to respond to our needs in part because they are operating so distantly from where many of the people reside.

So when we became a country, we left most of the powers at the State and the local level. We eventually came up with this document, this almost 225-year-old document that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. And in that document we came up with a list of powers that a national government must have in order to survive, and we kept that list fairly limited. We said the national government needs to have the power to provide for our national defense, to regulate commerce or trade between the States and with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes, to protect trademarks, copyrights, and patents, to establish a uniform system of weights and measures, to come up with a system of bankruptcy laws, laws governing immigration and naturalization, and a few other powers. But that is basically it.

There is no power in this document that gives our national government, that gives us--Congress, as a national legislature--the power to regulate anything and everything. There is nothing in this document that gives Congress what jurists and political scientists refer to as general police powers; that is, the power to come up with any law that Congress might deem just and good and appropriate and advisable at any moment. That, again, was because of the calculated assessment made by the founding generation that we needed a government possessing only limited enumerated powers: to protect individual liberty, and to assure that we in America would continue to live as free individuals.

Over time we have drifted somewhat in our understanding of what those powers mean. Over the last 75 years, the Supreme Court has been applying a deferential standard toward Congress in reviewing laws enacted under the commerce clause, clause 3 of article 1, section 8. The Supreme Court has, since about 1937--at least since 1942--said that Congress may regulate without interference from the courts under the commerce clause activities that, when measured in the aggregate, when replicated across every State, can be said substantially to affect interstate commerce. That is more or less the guideline the Court has given us. They are not necessarily saying that everything and anything that fits within that is necessarily within the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, but that, at least so far as the courts are concerned, so far as the courts have been willing to step in and validate or invalidate, that will be what guides the courts in making that assessment. Beyond that, the debate has to be hammered out within the Halls of Congress.

The affordable care act--also known as Obamacare--contains an individual health insurance mandate that takes Congress's powers to a whole new level. For the first time in American history, our national legislature has required every American in every part of this country to purchase a particular product; not just any product but health insurance; not just any health insurance but that specific kind of health insurance that Congress, in its wisdom, deemed appropriate and necessary for every American to buy. This is absolutely without precedent. It is also, I believe, not defensible even under the broad deferential standard that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court since the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Among other things, the limits that have been maintained by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding its deference to Congress under the commerce clause, have been limited by a few principles.

First, the Supreme Court has continued to insist that although some intrastate activities will be regulated by Congress under the commerce clause, some activities occurring entirely within one State--activities that historically would have been regarded as the exclusive domain of States, activities such as labor, manufacturing, agriculture and mining--although some activities might be covered by Congress, those activities at a minimum have to be activities that impose a substantial burden or obstruction on interstate commerce or on Congress's regulation of interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court has also continued to insist that the activity in question that is being regulated needs to be activity, first of all, and not inactivity. But it also needs to involve economic activity in most circumstances, unless, of course, it is the kind of activity that, while ostensibly noneconomic, by its very nature undercuts a larger comprehensive regulation of activity that is itself economic.

Finally, the Supreme Court has continued to insist time and time again that Congress cannot, in the name of regulating interstate commerce, effectively obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local.

The affordable care act through its individual mandate effectively blows past each and every one of these restrictions, restrictions that even under the broad deferential approach the Supreme Court has taken toward the regulation of commerce by Congress over the last 75 years or so--even the Supreme Court, even under these broad standards, isn't willing to go this far. There are very good reasons for that, and those reasons have to do with our individual liberty. They have to do with the fact that Americans were always intended to live free, and they understood that they are more likely to be free when decisions of great importance need to be hammered out at the State and local level; that is, unless those decisions have been specifically delegated to Congress, specifically designated as national responsibilities. This one is not.

Decisions about where you go to the doctor and how you are going to pay for it are not decisions that are national in nature, according to the text and spirit and letter and history and understanding of the Constitution. They are not, and they cannot be.

If in this instance we say, well, this is important so we need to allow Congress to act--if we do that, we do so at our own peril. We stand to lose a great deal if all of a sudden we allow Congress to regulate something that is not economic activity; in fact, it is not activity at all. It is inaction. It is a decision by an individual person whether to purchase anything, whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, what kind of health insurance to purchase. Our very liberties are at stake, and that is why I find this concerning.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Mr. Glade Sanders, a fine Utah resident who was recently honored with the prestigious Outstanding Eagle Scout Award. Only 150 such awards have been bestowed upon individual scouts in the entire country.

Sanders also deserves congratulations for reaching the age of 100. He has spent many of those years working tirelessly in his community, including the period during the Great Depression when he led his local Boy Scouts in Troop 133 as scoutmaster. Troop 133 recently celebrated Sanders and his accomplishments during a Court of Honor.

Sanders joined the scouting program at 17 years of age. Once there, however, he spent 29 years as an active scouter. In those days, scoutmasters could become Eagles, and Sanders became the first Eagle Scout in Nephi, UT, in 1934. He also received Scouting's Silver Beaver Award. Sanders would serve as scoutmaster for 9 years, toughing out the hard times of the Great Depression and helping his scouts do the same in whatever way he could.

Today, Sanders' name is engraved at the top of a plaque recognizing all of the Eagle Scouts of Troop 133. He has dedicated his life to helping others and has earned his reward many times over by seeing young men attain the rank of Eagle. As a fellow scout, I deeply thank him for his service.

Madam President, the American people need help because they are suffering at the gas pump. With the national average price for gasoline up at around $3.75 per gallon, representing an increase of about 40 cents from a year ago and about 20 cents from just 1 month ago, citizens are suffering and they need relief.

It is important to point out in this context that when President Obama took office, gas prices were at about $1.85 per gallon. Now that they are up to about $3.75 per gallon we can see a steady increase. Over this 38-month period of time of his Presidency so far, gasoline prices have risen an average of about 5 cents per gallon per month. This is staggering when we think about the fact that if he is reelected--if he serves out the rest of this term and if he is reelected--that is a total of an additional 58 months. With that increase, gas prices will be up at around $6.60 per gallon.

This is a lot of money. It is staggering. It affects everything we do--from the miles we drive to the products we buy at the grocery store. Everything gets more expensive when the fuel we use to transport ourselves and our products becomes more expensive.

Now, to some extent, one could suggest this was not only foreseeable, but it was actually foreseen. To some, it was considered a desired outcome. Let's consider, for example, that in 2008, Dr. Steven Chu, who now serves as President Obama's Energy Secretary, said:

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of

gasoline to the levels in Europe.

Well, Mr. Chu, it looks as though we are headed in that direction, and if we

continue to follow this administration's energy policies, we may get there.

As a member of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I was somewhat surprised when a suggestion was made just a few days ago that there are some who believe there is no relationship between U.S. production of petroleum and the price of gasoline in the United States. That simply is not true, and it cannot be true. With oil being the input ingredient into gasoline, it is the precursor for gasoline. Anytime we do anything that cuts off or restricts or limits the supply, that is necessarily going to have an impact on the price, and it does.

The fact that it is indisputable that there are other factors which also influence the price of gasoline makes it no less true that we have to produce petroleum at home in addition to buying it from other places. In order to keep gasoline prices at reasonable levels, we have to produce more.

There are some things we can do in order to help improve that trend. For example, we could open ANWR for drilling. We could open our country's vast Federal public lands to development of oil shale. It is a little known fact that in three Rocky Mountain States, a small segment of Rocky Mountain States--Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming--we have an estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of proven recoverable oil reserves locked up in oil shale. Now, 1.2 trillion barrels is a lot of oil. That is comparable to the combined petroleum reserves of the top 10 petroleum-producing countries of the world combined--just in one segment of three Rocky Mountain States.

Yet we are not producing it commercially, in part to a very significant degree because that oil shale--especially in my State, the State of Utah--is overwhelmingly on Federal public land, and it is almost impossible to get to it, to produce it commercially on federally owned public land. We need to change that.

We need to create a sensible environmental review process for oil and gas production generally. We need to improve the permitting process for offshore development in the Gulf of Mexico and in other areas. We need to allow the States to regulate hydraulic fracturing without the fear of suffocating and duplicative Federal regulations. We need to keep all the Federal lands in the West open to all kinds of energy development. And, of course, we need the President to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This will contribute substantially to America's energy security and will provide an estimated 20,000 shovel-ready jobs right off the bat.

There are things we can do to help Americans with this difficult problem--one that will affect almost every aspect of the day-to-day lives of Americans. We need government to get out of the way. We need the government to become part of what the President laudably outlined as an all-of-the-above strategy in his State of the Union Address just recently. We need to get there. We cannot afford gas at $6.60 per gallon, which is exactly where we are headed if we continue to do things as this administration has done, which has lead to an increase in the price of gasoline at a staggering rate of 5 cents per gallon every single month.