Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak today in opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

The DC Circuit is arguably the most important Federal appellate court in our Federal judicial system, with primary responsibility to review administrative decisions made by countless Federal departments and agencies. It has also served in many instances as a steppingstone for judges who are later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, the Senate has historically very closely scrutinized nominees to the DC Circuit.

When evaluating particular nominees, we have also carefully considered the need for additional judges on that court.

In July 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified lawyer, Peter Keisler, to fill a seat on the DC Circuit. Mr. Keisler is among the very finest attorneys in the country. Because of his nonideological approach to the law, Mr. Keisler enjoys broad bipartisan support throughout the legal profession. Despite these unassailable legal qualifications, Democratic Senators blocked his nomination. He did

not receive any floor consideration whatsoever, not even a cloture vote, and his nomination languished in the Judiciary Committee. At the time, a number of Democratic Senators sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman arguing that a nominee to the DC Circuit ``should under no circumstances be considered, much less confirmed, before we first address the very need for that judgeship''--the judgeship he would occupy. These Senators specifically argued that a DC Circuit's comparatively moderate caseload in 2006 simply did not justify the confirmation of an additional judge to that court.

Five years have now passed and Ms. Halligan has been nominated to that very same seat on the DC Circuit. But the court's caseload remains as minimal as it did then. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the DC Circuit caseload per judge is approximately one- fourth that of most other Federal courts of appeals. In each of the past 2 years, the DC Circuit has cancelled regularly scheduled argument dates due to lack of pending cases. For several years the court has experienced a decline in workload in terms of total filings, actions per active judge, and pending appeals. Almost every metric indicates the same direction. Indeed, since 2006, when Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination, the total number of appeals filed in the DC Circuit has decreased--decreased--by 12 percent.

According to the Democrats' own standards, and particularly when there are judicial emergencies in other courts across the country, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the DC Circuit. It is most certainly not the time for us to consider confirming a controversial nominee with a record of extreme views of the law and the Constitution. Many of my colleagues have discussed these views, so I will limit myself this morning to one example.

In 2003, while serving as solicitor general of New York, Ms. Halligan approved and signed a legal brief arguing that handgun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers should be held liable for criminal actions that individuals commit with those guns. Three years later, in 2006, Ms. Halligan filed a brief alleging that handgun manufacturers were guilty of creating a public nuisance--that they, themselves, were guilty of creating a public nuisance. Such an activist approach is both bewildering and inconsistent with the original understanding of the second amendment and the rights under the second amendment that American citizens enjoy.

In conclusion, as measured by the Democrats' own standards and their prior actions, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the DC Circuit, and it is certainly not the time to consider such a controversial nominee for that important court.

For these reasons, I cannot support Ms. Halligan's nomination, and urge my colleagues to oppose her confirmation.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be divided equally.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside so I might speak briefly regarding amendment No. 1126.

Wonderful. The second request is withdrawn.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of amendment No. 1126 to the current pending legislation. The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the United States shall not detain for an indefinite period U.S. citizens in military custody.

I understand this has been the subject of a lot of debate. I also understand this would be a break not only with the current pending legislation but also with current practice, based on Supreme Court precedent and lower court precedent that some have interpreted to deem this a constitutionally permissible practice.

It has often been suggested by several of my colleagues that it is the province of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and that statement is absolutely correct as far as it goes. But it is not the beginning of the analysis and the end of the analysis.

We, as Senators, independently have an obligation, consistent with and required by our oath to the Constitution--which I took just a few months ago just a few feet from where I stand now--to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That means doing more than simply the full extent of whatever the courts will tolerate.

In this instance, what we are talking about is the right of the U.S. military to detain indefinitely, without trial, a U.S. citizen, simply on the basis that person has been deemed an enemy combatant.

Now, there is a real slippery slope problem here, and it is the very kind of slippery slope problem for which we have protections such as the fifth amendment and the sixth amendment. You see, under the fifth amendment, a person cannot be held for an infamous crime unless they have been subjected to a process whereby a grand jury indictment has been issued. A person cannot be held and tried for a crime without having counsel made available to them and without the opportunity for a speedy trial in front of a jury of the peers of the accused.

We can scarcely afford as Americans to surrender these fundamental civil liberties for which wars have been fought, for which the founding era, the founding generation fought so nobly against our mother country to establish and thereafter to protect. We have to support these liberties. I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them. These people, as U.S. citizens, are entitled to a grand jury indictment to the extent they are being held for an infamous crime. They are also entitled to a jury trial in front of their peers and to counsel.

We cannot, for the sake of convenience, surrender these important liberties. I am not willing to do that. That is why I support this amendment, amendment No. 1126, to the pending legislation. I encourage each of my colleagues to do so.

I want to point out that yesterday I voted against what became known as the Udall amendment. I did so in part because I do not believe that fixed the problem I am talking about. The Udall amendment did not even purport to address current practice or the policies as they have been established in recent years: that this kind of detention is in some circumstances acceptable. It called for a study and it eliminated certain provisions in the proposed legislation, but it did not fix the underlying problem.

This Feinstein amendment, amendment No. 1126, does fix that. That is why I support it. I encourage each of my colleagues to do the same.

When we take an oath to the U.S. Constitution--to uphold it, to support it, to protect it, to defend it--we are doing more than simply agreeing to do whatever the courts will tolerate. We are taking an oath to the principles embodied in this 224-year-old document that has fostered the greatest civilization the world has ever known.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written by Mallory Factor and published in Forbes magazine.

About 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I stand in support of this resolution. I do so for the following reason. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution makes abundantly clear that the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Legislative power is the power to make rules carrying the force of generally applicable law--in this instance, generally applicable Federal law. It was with wise reason that our Founding Fathers entrusted this power to those people entrusted by the citizens of the respective States for a limited time to make law because they understood that those who have the power to make law have the power to infringe on the individual liberties of the American people, such that whenever they exceed those powers, they can be held accountable to those they represent and on whose behalf they will be legislating.

Every single time we act, we have an effect on the American people. We need to be held accountable at regular intervals for those decisions--every 6 years in the case of Senators, every 2 years in the case of Members of the House of Representatives.

Occasionally, Congress has chosen to delegate that power. For instance, Congress might say we hereby enact the Clean Air Act and give power to the EPA to implement rules and enforce those rules, to make sure we have clean air. To the extent that we do that, particularly where the EPA or some other agency acts in a way that might have a very significant impact on our economy, I think we are selling the American people short of their birthright, which is the guarantee that laws will not be made on their behalf, particularly significant ones such as the one we are addressing today, without those who voted for them being held accountable.

There are great people at the EPA, as there are in every branch and office of our Federal Government. But it is only those people in Congress who are constitutionally authorized to make generally applicable Federal law. It is only these people who stand at regular intervals for reelection, accountable to their people. This is what the Congressional Review Act does. This is why this approach, this resolution under the Congressional Review Act, is so important.

I have heard some of my colleagues suggest this somehow represents an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process. What I am saying is, this is the normal legislative process. When we are looking at a rule that by the EPA's own estimates could cost as many 3,000 energy sector jobs and could cost the American people $2.4 billion in compliance costs annually, we need to look seriously at the fact that we need to hold ourselves accountable.

If this rule is a good idea, if in fact this is necessary to protect the American people, if in fact the benefits of this outweigh the costs, then we should be confident. We should be comfortable discussing it, debating it, and passing it into law. That is what we are doing.

I am supporting this resolution because I support the legislative process envisioned and mandated by the Constitution, and I urge each of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to formally congratulate Dr. Peter Stang of the University of Utah for being awarded the National Medal of Science, the highest honor bestowed by the United States upon scientists.

Dr. Stang has been a pioneer in his field, developing methods of creating molecular nano-devices that construct themselves from combinations of chemical building blocks. These devices hold the promise of eventually being used in many revolutionary ways, from enabling artificial photosynthesis to delivering medicine directly to specific individual cells in the human body.

In 1957, Dr. Stang's family fled to the United States from Hungary to escape the violent clashes between Hungarians and the Soviet Union. The greatness of the American spirit is reflected in the fact that this young immigrant became one of the nation's top scientists and is now being recognized by the leader of the free world.

I thank Dr. Stang for his tremendous efforts to improve our way of life.

Mr. President, on October 24, the Sons of Utah Pioneers celebrated the 150th anniversary of the final connecting of the Transcontinental Overland Telegraph Line in Salt Lake City, establishing the first coast-to-coast electronic communications system in American history.

Much like the Transcontinental Railroad revolutionized transportation in this country, the Transcontinental Telegraph Line revolutionized communication. Sending messages from Washington, DC to California, which had previously taken weeks, took mere seconds after completion of the line.

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Brigham Young sent the first message to President Abraham Lincoln, which confirmed that Utah was still loyal to the United States and not allied with the Confederacy. The line is credited with helping to ensure that most of the West sided with the Union in the Civil War.

Congratulations to the citizens of Utah for marking the anniversary of an accomplishment that helped to hold this country together.

Mr. President, 150 years ago, 309 families founded the city of St. George in southern Utah. It would become the main city in a region known as ``Utah's Dixie'' because of the cotton farms that were established in response to the cotton shortage of the Civil War.

To celebrate this important milestone, several hundred people participated in a reenactment of the 100-mile journey of the original settlers, from the city of Parowan to the eventual location of St. George. The trek featured wagons, livestock, and many other aspects of life in the 19th century.

Today, St. George is a city of over 70,000 people, and is the seat of Washington County. Congratulations to Mayor Dan McArthur and the people of St. George for reaching the 150-year milestone.

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

Mr. President, I filed this motion to recommit H.R. 2112 with instructions to send this ``moneybus'' back to the Committee on Appropriations for one simple reason: it spends more for the same set of expenditures in fiscal year 2012 than it did in 2011 to the tune of about $10 billion.

I understand there are reasons for this excess. I understand when we look at individual components of the 2012 provisions there may be some cuts in there. But the overall picture, the entire pie, is about $10 billion more than what we had in fiscal year 2011.

Unless we can be open and transparent with the American people and acknowledge the fact that we are, in fact, spending more, I think this is a problem. We have to get the fiscal house in order, and this is how it is perpetuated, when we claim we are cutting when we are, in fact, spending more. That is the reason for this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit with instructions with respect to H.R. 2112.

Mr. President, I stand to speak on behalf of this motion to recommit. What we are looking at here with H.R. 2112 is a measure that actually spends more in each of those areas than what we spent in fiscal year 2011. We are in dire economic circumstances in this country. We are currently spending at a rate of roughly $1.5 trillion annually in excess of what we are bringing in.

We have gone to great lengths through a number of accounting mechanisms to demonstrate to the American people that we are doing our best to spend less. In many circumstances, the message that has been sent has been a message of austerity. It becomes increasingly difficult to manage and to maintain that necessary message of austerity, one that is accompanied by hundreds of millions of Americans making sacrifices every day in response to this economic downturn.

It becomes absolutely essential that we actually make cuts. To make actual cuts, I think that means necessarily that we have to spend less in fiscal year 2012 than we spent in fiscal year 2011. We will continue, I fear, to lack credibility if we persist in using whatever techniques we use, accounting-wise or otherwise, to claim we are reducing spending when, in fact, this appropriations package--this minibus spending package, as we sometimes refer to it--actually spends more money than was spent in 2011.

This is why I have submitted this motion. I hope my colleagues will share this concern I have expressed, which has caused me to submit this motion. The idea of the motion is that we bring our spending levels back down in each of these areas to what we spent in fiscal year 2011.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. today we honor WO Jay T. Lane as a hero for an act of incredible bravery and courage. He has earned the Silver Star and I am humbled and honored to submit these words of deep gratitude and appreciation.

In 1971, Jay was the pilot of a lift helicopter that was struck by two rocket-propelled grenades, the incredibly deadly weapon of choice for our enemies in Vietnam. It is a miracle that wasn't the end of Jay right then and there.

Known as an extraordinarily skillful and talented pilot by his peers, Jay somehow safely landed what was left of the helicopter. Relatively speaking, Jay was OK, but one of the infantrymen on the vehicle was badly wounded.

After removing his fellow soldier from the wreckage, Jay then went back into a burning helicopter under intense fire from the enemy to retrieve the first aid kit and began to care for his wounded friend.

Knowing he needed to get to a safer area, Jay carried the wounded soldier on his back through the jungle and waited until help arrived.

After the episode, Jay's superior officer wrote, ``His gallant actions and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Military.''

I couldn't agree more. Jay's bravery stands as a fine example of the character of our men and women who have fought for and defended this country. Those who wear the uniform today still display that same courage in far away places, just as Jay did that day in Vietnam.

Without their sense of duty to our country, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today. It is of the highest calling to provide for the common defense, as the preamble of our Constitution makes clear. I am awed by their sacrifice.

Today, I am honored to congratulate Jay T. Lane for earning the Silver Star. It is well deserved.

Mr. President, the city of Orem recently lost a great leader and public servant--Mayor Jerry C. Washburn.

Mayor Washburn called Orem his home for over 50 years and acted as the longest-serving mayor in the city's history. He was known as a natural leader who took the time to listen to all opinions, and created an environment that encouraged an open exchange of ideas.

As mayor he focused on enriching the quality of life in Orem, and dedicated his time to projects that will benefit generations to come. Citywide streetlights, the swimming pools at SCERA Park, Lakeside Sports Park, and Nielsen's Grove Park are just a few that residents today and in the future will enjoy.

Mayor Washburn also served as chairman of the Utah County Transportation Planning Organization, chairman of the Utah County Board of Health, and was a founding board member of the Utah Lake Commission. His life was truly devoted to serving his community, his church, and his family. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to offer my sincerest congratulations to an inspirational constituent of mine, Sue Copinga. Sue is the recipient of the 2011 LifePoint Hospitals companywide Mercy Award. LifePoint's Mercy Award recognizes individuals who follow in the footsteps of the company's founding chairman and CEO Scott Mercy, who passed away in 2000. Sue works at Castleview Hospital in Price, UT and is a patient advocate in the emergency room, while working part time as an emergency medical technician. Castleview Hospital serves residents of Carbon and Emery Counties. Like so many rural hospitals around the country, Castleview is the only hospital for miles around, making it a vital resource where citizens of Carbon and Emery Counties can get the medical care they need.

While Sue has a deep history of giving back to others through her job and in her personal life, she demonstrated her extraordinary dedication to caring for others during one of the worst mine disasters in Utah's history. On August 6, 2007, the Crandall Canyon Mine collapsed in the middle of the night, trapping six miners underground. Sue did not hesitate. Immediately after learning of the tragedy, Sue headed straight to the scene to provide whatever assistance was necessary. She spent the following days and nights at the site standing ready, eager and willing to treat the men we all hoped and prayed would be rescued. Then, on August 16, a second collapse brought the walls down around rescuers who were working tirelessly to free the trapped miners. The second collapse claimed the lives of three men and injured numerous others.

Sue provided emergency care to injured rescuers and miners, despite the dangerous conditions. She voluntarily went into the mine that day not only to help those who were injured, but also to spare fellow EMTs from being put in harm's way. Sue was worried about a coworker with six young children and told this fellow EMT to stay behind, noting that her own children are grown and raised.

Sue's commitment to caring for others is also what makes her invaluable as a patient advocate in the emergency room of Castleview Hospital, where she has worked for 14 years. During her days--and often long nights at Castleview--Sue touches countless lives, making a positive impact on each patient she encounters. Sue provides care and compassion to her patients at a time when they need it most, and has come to be known affectionately as ``Grandma Sue'' for the way she soothes children, the most vulnerable of her ER patients--children.

Sue's devotion to helping others is not confined to the hospital's walls. She also serves part time as an EMT where she provides patients emergency care and transport in critical situations. When Sue isn't caring for patients in the emergency room or ambulance, she is educating future generations of EMTs. For fifteen years, Sue has given back to her community by teaching countless people how to save others' lives in times of crisis.

Sue lives in Elmo, one of Utah's smallest towns. She is the proud mother of 5 children, including a Navajo foster daughter, and has 19 grandchildren. Sue also plays a role in supporting the children of her larger community by leading church youth groups and chairing an annual ``community day'' in her town.

It gives me great pleasure to know that Sue's caring, selflessness, and devotion to her community is being recognized through the LifePoint Hospitals Mercy Award.

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

Mr. President, I stand today to explain my reasons for voting against the debt limit increase we will be voting on in just about half an hour from now.

This is a crisis that America faces. It is an ongoing crisis that will neither be created nor eliminated with today's vote. It is a crisis that has been building gradually over the course of years-- decades, in fact. It is a crisis that we certainly have known about ever since this Congress was sworn in in January of this year.

This is a crisis that threatens potentially every Federal program, from defense to entitlements, because as we continue to borrow more money as a nation, adding to the already almost $15 trillion we have accumulated in national debt--roughly $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America; roughly $150,000 for every taxpayer in America--as we continue to add to that enormous debt, we get closer and closer to the unknown but nonetheless existing point at which we will no longer be able to borrow, at least not at interest rates that will make this kind of borrowing sustainable.

If interest rates were to go up even to their historically average levels, within just a few years we could be spending something closer to $1 trillion every single year. Just to pay the interest on our national debt, we could be paying more than we pay on Social Security in an entire year, more than Medicare and Medicaid combined, and more than national defense in an entire year. What happens when we get to that point? Where does that money come from? The reality is that every Federal program, from defense to entitlements, could see its coffers raided in an unfortunate Draconian display of fiscal irresponsibility if we continue to punt this problem and not to address it.

The legislation at issue today addresses this problem by perpetuating it. I am pleased, of course, that this legislation does certain things and has invigorated a new conversation on the sorts of strategies that need to be in place if we are ever going to address this problem on a long-term basis.

Some 7 or 8 months ago, there were still people in this town of Washington, DC, who were saying things along the lines of ``we need another stimulus package'' or ``we need more Federal spending of one sort or another.'' They are no longer saying that. Now the discussion focuses not on whether to cut but how much.

There is, of course, renewed discussion about the need for a balanced budget amendment. But talk is different from outcomes. What we need are outcomes. What we need is a fundamental change to the way we spend money in Washington. What we need is to restrict Congress's authority, granted by clause 2 of article I, section 8, of the Constitution, to incur debt in the name of the United States. That power needs to be restricted. The only way we can restrict that on a permanent basis, one that will bind not only this Congress but future Congresses that come after us, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

This legislation raises the debt limit by about $2.5 trillion. This is a recordbreaking sum. Not too many years ago,

when I was in high school, this was roughly equivalent to our entire national debt. Now, through one piece of legislation, we are increasing, expanding our already huge national debt by roughly that same sum, and it does not contain any permanent, binding structural spending reform mechanisms of the sort that would be necessary to make sure we get out of this problem, to make sure we end the problem we have created through Congress's reckless pattern of perpetual deficit spending.

That is why I have insisted since before I was even sworn into office that before we raise the debt limit, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment and submit it to States for ratification. Nearly every State balances its budget each and every year. It is not news when a State does this. I look forward to the time when it will no longer be news when Congress does the same.

There are significant cuts discussed in this legislation and proposed, but I want to be clear on one thing: Although these cuts are large on a long-term basis, on a short-term basis they are less so. On a short-term basis, within the next year, this proposes to cut about $7 billion out of the fiscal year 2012 discretionary spending budget. Some dispute this number and suggest, as some of my colleague have already, that, in fact, the fiscal year 2012 budget will spend $23 billion more. Others concede the point and say: OK, let's assume for purposes of this discussion that it does, in fact, cut $7 billion from what otherwise would be new deficit spending. Now, $7 billion is roughly equivalent to the amount of debt we have added to our total debt portfolio just in the last 30 hours or so, roughly the period of time that has elapsed since this legislation was announced late Sunday night until this very moment, because we are borrowing about $4 billion of new debt every single day. Stated differently, this amounts to less than two-tenths of 1 percent of a cut.

I do believe we have made progress. I commend our leadership for working so hard to focus the discussion on the need for cuts.

We have, unfortunately, had Democratic leadership in this body that has been bent on delaying the announcement of any deal as long as possible and preventing legislation such as the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act from coming to the floor, where it could have been subjected to an open debate, discussion, and amendment process, as well it should be. I regret the fact that it didn't come to that, the fact that that legislation, which could have solved this problem and would have put us on a path toward fiscal responsibility, toward ending this problem once and for all, was not even allowed its day in the Senate to be debated and discussed on the merits.

At the end of the day, we have to come to terms with the fact that the course we are on, from a fiscal standpoint, is utterly unsustainable, and adding more debt to our now-bursting portfolio of debt will only contribute to this problem--unless we adopt a balanced budget amendment. The time to do that is right now.

The American people overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment, to the tune of about 75 percent. To my great astonishment, some of my colleagues and even the President have suggested that a balanced budget amendment is somehow a radical idea--so radical as to be absurd and not worth considering--even though three out of four Americans believe we need a balanced budget amendment.

I will close by referring to a quote by a man named William Morris, who said this in the late 1800s:

One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being

considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may

be foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea

begin to act, a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a

thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand

and there is war abroad, and the cause has victories tangible

and real; and why only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred

million and peace upon the earth? You and I who agree

together, it is we who have to answer that question.

It is not just one or two of us who have this idea in our head that we need to restrict Congress's borrowing power because it has been so severely abused over such a prolonged period of time; it is three out of four Americans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and our counterparts in the House of Representatives to join the American people in at least the same proportion in supporting the idea that never again should we raise the debt limit without a balanced budget amendment in place.

This is a permanent, long-term problem. It requires a permanent solution. The only permanent solution is that which involves an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. President, I stand to address this body to honor the life of one of Utah's great citizens.

A good friend of mine is former Utah Governor Norman Bangerter, who announced on Saturday that his beloved wife of 58 years had passed away after a long-time battle with Alzheimer's disease.

Colleen Monson Bangerter, having been born in 1935, was the mother of six children, the mother also of one foster son, and in many respects was a friend to all of Utah's 3 million residents.

She served faithfully in many capacities, including as PTA president and other offices within the PTA. She also served faithfully in a variety of positions as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Just a few years ago, she and her husband, former Governor Bangerter, served as they presided over the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in South Africa. They worked hand in hand throughout their entire lives--in raising their children, in running Governor Bangerter's campaigns, and in running the State throughout his time as Governor, which wasn't an easy time for our State.

During Governor Bangerter's two terms in office, our State faced significant financial difficulties, faced significant flooding challenges, and the Bangerters weathered these adverse conditions well, serving as standing examples to all the citizens of Utah for what it means to rise to the challenge of adversity.

Colleen Bangerter was someone who had friends in many corners, and she also had many talents, some of which are not known by everyone, including the fact that she was the State hopscotch champion in the State of Utah in 1947. There are not many First Ladies in the United States who can claim that distinction, and she definitely did. She was also pleased to have been the recipient of the highest award that can be granted by the Boy Scouts of America, which she received just a few years ago. But of all the honors, including the honors that went along with being the First Lady of the State of Utah and serving with someone who, in my opinion, was one of the great Governors ever to serve our State, her greatest honor, her greatest prize was that of her family.

She loved being a mother, loved each of her 6 children, their 30 grandchildren and 18 great grandchildren. We as Utahns mourn the loss of this great citizen of our State. We mourn the loss of this friend. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to former Governor Bangerter and his family.

Mr. President, a number of us, myself included, have been arguing since January--ever since we arrived here and were sworn in this very room--that the national debt is a permanent problem. The almost $15 trillion that we now owe as a nation is permanent. It is going to take a long time to pay off. There are people who are not yet old enough to vote. There are people who will be born in a few years who are not even here who will one day have to assist in paying off that debt.

The fact that this is a long-term problem means it requires a long- term solution. That is why we have been saying all along that we ought not raise the debt limit yet again--extending our national debt by another $2.5 trillion, more or less, without a permanent solution in place.

Herein lies the problem. It is difficult or impossible for one Congress to come up with a set of budget numbers that would necessarily bind future Congresses. We can come up with a plan to cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion over a 10-year or 15-year period, but if future Congresses don't want to go along with that, they can find their way out of it. This has happened again and again as we have seen with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, as we have seen with the pay-go rules. Congress becomes a walking, breathing waiver unto itself. We need a permanent solution. This is why we have settled on the need for a balanced budget amendment.

As my distinguished colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--has just pointed out, there is no intransigence in our position. Those of us who identify with the Republican Party, those of us who identify with the tea party are people who want a solution. We were sent here with a mandate by voters, a mandate that says the Federal Government is too big and too expensive.

Now, resistance to this message from the other side of the aisle, as vehement as that resistance may be, is not genuine if what it says is, in this instance the insistence for a balanced budget amendment is itself reflective of an unwillingness to compromise. There are myriad opportunities to compromise within that general framework. We have offered that. We have extended that.

Republicans have now submitted no fewer than two bills that have passed the House of Representatives to address the debt limit issue, both of which have been stopped dead in their tracks over here without further opportunity, most importantly, without a response by the Democratic Party in the Senate or otherwise.

If there is either party in this discussion that is refusing to compromise, it is not ours. If there is any group that has failed to offer solutions, it cannot be described as the tea party movement.

I ask my colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--do you see any element within the tea party movement, any element within the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise or that is wanting to block just for the sake of blocking?

That certainly appears to be the case. It is a reminder to us of the fact that no matter how much we might be tempted at times to demagogue this issue, no matter how tempting it might be for certain Members of this body to cast blame elsewhere, they cannot escape one simple fact, which is the American people are demanding more. They are demanding that we spend less. They are demanding that we stop this barbaric practice of perpetual massive-scale deficit spending. Why? Because it erodes individual liberty. It takes money people have not yet made and spends it and obligates them to repay it--in some cases before they are old enough to vote, in other cases before they are even born. We need a permanent solution.

When we put something in the Constitution, it serves as a permanent reminder of the fact that we, as a people,

have made a decision, and we are going to move forward. Not everybody will necessarily agree as to how best we should move forward having made that decision. The American people overwhelmingly, to the tune of 75 percent, support the idea that we should amend the Constitution to restrict Congress's deficit spending power.

Mr. President, I have a friend by the name of Ron McMillan, who lives in my hometown of Alpine, UT. He is the author of a number of books dealing with business negotiations, dealing with trying to figure out how compromise can be reached.

In that series of books, the crucial conversation line of the books, one of the things he encourages people to do is to find whatever common ground they can reach.

I think there is common ground among the American people generally that we should balance our budget. Not everyone agrees about how we balance the budget, what should be cut, but they do agree we should balance it. That being the case, that is where we ought to focus our efforts. We should focus our efforts on amending that law of laws, that 224-year-old document that fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. We should change it, again, to improve it, to restrict Congress's borrowing power.

The plan proposed by the Democrats that is now about to come before us puts our budgeting process on autopilot. It doesn't require another budget for 2 years, preserving the ability of ObamaCare to fund itself without a single additional debate in Congress. This is wrong. This is not the right approach. I object to it. For that reason, I, along with some of my other Republican colleagues, am prepared to vote on this and vote no on it right now. We are not the ones delaying this vote.