Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 145, H.R. 2668. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, without intervening action or debate, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, let me address the first consent I offered, which was objected to. Last month the administration announced it would delay ObamaCare's employer mandate on business. It is not hard to see why they wanted to do that. We keep reading about why businesses large and small will have little option but to cut employee hours and paychecks as ObamaCare comes on line, about how restaurants such as White Castle, for example, are considering hiring only part-time workers moving forward, about how small businesses are citing ObamaCare as a top worry.

I think there are a lot of Members on this side who would question the legality of what the President did. But with midterm elections on the horizon, it is no mystery why the administration would want to delay the law for businesses, considering how many jobs it is likely to kill, how many paychecks it is likely to slash. Here is the thing, though: Don't families and individuals deserve the same kind of relief? I believe they do. I do not believe it is fair to give a break to business and leave Americans out in the cold.

Recently we learned that Ohioans buying health insurance next year can expect about a 40-percent premium increase. Next door, in Indiana, costs could rise by more than 70 percent. Some Georgians could face a nearly 200-percent premium spike. In my home State of Kentucky, actuaries are predicting cost increases that could exceed 30 percent. Remember, the President said costs would go down, that ObamaCare was the Affordable Care Act.

Millions face the prospect of losing the insurance they like and want to keep, which again is not what the President promised. That is why I have asked the Senate to pass H.R. 2668. This legislation passed the House on a strong bipartisan vote with nearly 2 dozen Democrats supporting it and it would delay some of ObamaCare's most burdensome mandates for everyone.

Shortly after its passage in the House my colleagues and I called on the majority leader to bring it to the floor for a vote. Those calls were unheeded. So I am disappointed to hear that some of our friends on the other side have objected to this vote as well. I do not understand, frankly, why they would want to leave Americans out in the cold. I note that Members on this side are united in our belief that at the very least Americans deserve the same relief as businesses do. So we will all be supporting this commonsense bipartisan bill if we have a chance to vote on it.

You would think this is a principle Members of the body would support unanimously. If it is OK for businesses, why not for individuals? Unfortunately, objection has been heard and we will not get an opportunity to have the same break for the average American citizen as the administration is giving through executive action to businesses. It is a shame, but that is where we are going into the August recess.

I yield the floor.

Honoring our Armed Forces PRIVATE FIRST CLASS DUSTIN P. NAPIER

Madam President, it is with sorrow that I rise to pay tribute to a young man from Kentucky who gave his life in service to our country. PFC Dustin P. Napier of London, KY, died on January 8, 2012, in Zabul Province, Afghanistan while in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The cause of death was injuries sustained from small- arms fire. PFC Napier was 20 years old.

For his service in uniform, PFC Napier received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Overseas Service Bar.

Dustin's father Darrell Napier says of his son, ``He was born in an Army hospital, and I'm sure he ended up dying in an Army hospital. He was my hero. Please pray for us.''

Dustin was born in an Army hospital because he followed his father's example of military service. Darrell Napier served in the U.S. Army from 1989 to 1994, and was stationed in Germany and Fort Polk, LA. Dustin, the youngest of Darrell's three sons, knew from an early age he wanted a military career.

``He'd been wanting to do that since he was a little boy, about when he was six years old,'' Darrell recalls. ``I encouraged him to do so. And he was a leader. He'd take the initiative to get things done. I've always raised my boys to do the right thing, no matter if the cause was popular or unpopular.''

By the time he reached high school, Dustin was a top cadet in his Junior ROTC program. ``I remember him as a model student, very quiet and serious. You always knew where he stood,'' says Colonel Mark Jones of the Air Force Junior ROTC program at South Laurel High School, Dustin's alma mater.

Dustin rose to be his Junior ROTC unit's corps commander and the most decorated cadet.

News of PFC Napier's loss shook many who remembered him at South

Laurel High, where Dustin graduated in 2010 and had many friends. ``When I . . . heard he died, my legs almost collapsed. It was unbelievable. He was a good friend, a good mentor, and truly a good person,'' says Devan Burkhart, a South Laurel student.

``I learned from him. He was the one who would tell me, `Stick with it,' when I got frustrated with the program, and I did stick with it.''

Steven Cheek, one of Dustin's best friends and a high-school classmate, recalls the fun he and Dustin had shooting rifles, going to ball games, watching movies, and listening to music. Dustin's favorite group was the Doors. Other friends remember Dustin loved to play the air guitar.

After graduating from South Laurel High in May 2010, Dustin joined the U.S. Army in July and completed basic training at Fort Benning, GA. In April 2011, he was deployed to Afghanistan with C Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, based out of Fort Wainwright, AK.

Darrell Napier recalls that Dustin would call home from Afghanistan every now and then. ``He did miss home a lot,'' Darrell says. ``He loved to hang out with his friends very much. He missed his friends at Save-A-Lot, where he worked for almost four years. And if there was one meal Dustin really loved from his mother, it was her chicken and dumplings.''

Dustin also found happiness thousands of feet in the air, while on R&R. It was in an airplane that he met Tabitha Sturgill Napier, who he married in October 2011.

Remembering her husband, Tabitha says, ``You are my very best friend and I love you very, very, very much. You are an amazing husband.''

A few days after his death, friends and classmates held a memorial service for Dustin at South Laurel High School. His friends from his old Junior ROTC unit thought it only fitting to hold the service where Dustin had served as such a fine example to past, present, and future cadets. Outside the school, the American flag stood at half-mast.

``Cadet Napier came here with a purpose from start to finish, from the first fall-in to the last fall-out,'' says CMSgt Randy Creech of Junior ROTC.

We are thinking of PFC Napier's loved ones today, including his wife, Tabitha Sturgill Napier; his parents, Darrell and Marianne Napier; his brother, Darrell Dean Napier; his stepbrother, Christopher Bittner; his stepson, Lane Robison; his grandmother, Monika Paul; his grandfather, James Napier; and many other beloved friends and family members.

I know that no words spoken in this chamber can take away the sadness and loss that Dustin's family must feel. But I do want them to know that this Nation, and this United States Senate, are deeply grateful for Private First Class Dustin P. Napier's service and sacrifice. And we are humbled to pay tribute to his life and legacy.

Burma

Madam President, today I rise to discuss U.S. policy toward the Southeast Asian nation of Burma.

In a little over 2\1/2\ half years, the world has witnessed dramatic change in Burma; change that would have been thought unimaginable not long ago. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest and now sits in parliament. Hundreds of political prisoners have been released from prison. A largely free and fair by-election was held in April 2012. Ceasefires have been signed between the central government and several ethnic minority groups.

Yet, despite these welcome reforms, much work remains to be done. At the heart of Burma's existing problems is the need for constitutional reform. The current flawed constitution is not up to the task of supporting the country's democratic ambitions. Simply put, if Burma is to take the next big step toward economic and political reform and toward fully normalizing its relations with the United States, it needs to revise its constitution.

And there has been some encouraging news on that front. Just last week the Burmese parliament announced it would establish a committee to examine amending the constitution. This provides a great opportunity for the Burmese leadership to follow through on its commitment to full democratization.

As this parliamentary panel begins its efforts, I would highlight four areas of the constitution that are, in my view, in particular need of reform.

The first area of reform is the need to bring the Burmese military, called the Tatmadaw, under civilian control. Civilian control of the military is a fundamental condition of a stable, modern democratic country. Many of the stubborn problems Burma still needs to address stem from the continued outsized role of the military in Burmese political life. For example, Burma continues to maintain military ties with North Korea. Indications are that elements within the Burmese military want to continue enjoying the financial benefits of continued relations with North Korea.

The unfortunate result is that Burma's pro-reform president Thein Sein cannot formally rein in the Tatmadaw since, under the Constitution, the president is not head of the armed forces. A separate military Commander in Chief leads the armed forces and he is independent of the president.

Another example of the problems stemming from the lack of civilian control of the military is the tense state of relations between the armed forces and the Kachin ethnic group. The Kachin in northern Burma share a proud history with the United States stemming from our close cooperation during World War II. Ending the conflict in Kachin state-- and all other ethnic conflicts for that matter--is essential to achieving lasting peace, reconciliation and security in Burma after 60 years of civil war.

In Europe recently, President Thein Sein predicted that a national ceasefire was right around the corner. And a peace process led by one of his close ministers has been ongoing. However, military clashes continue in northern Shan state as well as in Kachin state. The Tatmadaw has every right to protect itself, but, without transparency and civilian oversight, questions remain about the extent to which military operations have conformed with the President's guidance and intentions.

Without ending its relationship with Pyongyang and without building peace with the Kachin and other ethnic nationalities, U.S.-Burmese relations will not become fully normalized. Without the military accepting civilian oversight and demonstrating a commitment to peace, our military relationship will likewise be limited. Such a result would be to the detriment of both countries.

Having U.S. diplomats continue to urge Burma to amend its Constitution to bring the military under civilian control is important. But there are other policy tools that I believe can help reform the Tatmadaw. I believe that beginning a modest military-to-military relationship would serve this purpose. Just to be clear. I am not advocating rushing into lethal training of the Burmese military or arms sales. What I am talking about is the U.S. armed forces engaging with the Tatmadaw on compliance with the law of armed conflict, and other issues related to international standards of military professionalism.

What better way is there to show the virtues of civilian control of the military than to have the most highly regarded armed forces in the world--the U.S. military--engaged with the Tatmadaw about respect for human rights, accountability and rule of law? I believe that a modest, targeted military-to-military relationship would work hand in glove with diplomatic efforts to convince the Burmese military that placing themselves under civilian control is good for the nation.

Beginning a military-to-military relationship is common sense. Since before independence, the Burmese military has been a significant political institution in the country. And no lasting reform in Burma can take place without convincing the Tatmadaw that such a step is a positive development for the country.

A second area of needed constitutional reform involves amending the constitution to permit the Burmese people to choose freely whom they want to serve as their leader. This is a fundamental democratic principle. Current restrictions include a requirement that no one in the President's immediate family can be a citizen born to parents who were not born in Burma.

Just think about that. That's a remarkably narrow requirement. Why does the Burmese government have so little faith in the ability of its citizens to freely and responsibly choose their own leaders?

These provisions, if left unamended, would cast a pall over the upcoming 2015 elections. And, those elections are viewed by many observers as the next high-profile step in Burma's reform efforts. If the 2015 elections are viewed as illegitimate, it will lead many to conclude that reform efforts have stalled in Burma and the country's stated commitment to democracy is hollow.

I think having the 2015 elections turn out to be flawed would cloud the reformist legacy of the current national leadership.

A third area of needed reform in this regard is judicial independence. Currently, the Burmese judiciary is not independent of the executive. As we ourselves have learned from experience in America, having judges who are not under the thumb of the other branches is not only a vital check on the other organs of government, but also a bulwark against violations of individual rights.

Finally, there need to be constitutional assurances for ethnic minorities. Burma faces no greater challenge than peacefully integrating its various ethnic groups. These groups have long harbored misstrust of the central government and the Tatmadaw. Building protections for ethnic minorities into the Constitution would, I suspect, go a long way toward making the ethnic groups more receptive to the new government. Such provisions would also be underscored by an independent judiciary to help enforce these protections.

As we know as Americans, amending a Constitution is not easy, nor should it be. But over the years, we in this country have amended our Constitution to make it more democratic and to provide greater protection of individual liberties.

Reforming the Burmese Constitution in areas such as the four I just raised is a necessary next step in Burma's own journey toward democracy and peaceful, national reconciliation.

There is still time for Burma to act ahead of the 2015 election and correct these problems. I urge the country's leadership to seize the moment, to take this vital step and to cement its reformist legacy.

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the victims of a tragic accident that occurred recently in Clay County, KY. Three heroes were lost when a medical helicopter came down in the parking lot of Paces Creek Elementary School outside the town of Manchester on June 6 of this year. Crewmembers Eddy Sizemore, the pilot, Herman ``Lee'' Dobbs, the flight paramedic, and Jesse Jones, the flight nurse, sadly died in this crash.

The crew of this medical helicopter was returning back to their Manchester base after transporting a patient in urgent need of care to a hospital in London, KY. Medical helicopters help transport patients in remote areas to hospitals where they can receive all necessary medical attention. Sadly, these three crewmembers who worked to save others' lives lost their own.

Pilot Eddy Sizemore was 61 years old and a native of Laurel County, KY. He was a former chief deputy in the Laurel County Sheriff's Office. He worked most of his life in law enforcement, and was a veteran of the U.S. Army; he served his country in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart. He is remembered by his three daughters, Stacey Johnson, Kacey Bolton, and Jessica Sizemore; his son, Justin Sizemore; his father, Frank Sizemore; his brother, Jerry Sizemore; the mother and stepmother of his children, Pam Brock Sizemore; 10 grandchildren; and many other family members and friends.

Flight paramedic Herman ``Lee'' Dobbs, of London, KY, was 40 years old. He had worked for Knox County EMS and had a love of horses that led to his being put in charge of a horseback search unit for the Knox County Special Operations Response Team. He is remembered by his wife, Emilee Dobbs; his parents, Herman Dobbs and Patsy Light Dobbs; his children, Jordan, Hayden, and Walker Dobbs; his sister, Lori Crawford; his brother, Chad Dobbs; his aunt, Sherri Blakely; his uncle, Dale Light; his mother-in-law, Candace Hutton; and many other family members and friends.

Flight nurse Jesse Jones was 28 and from Bell County, KY. He graduated from Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College as a registered nurse in 2007 and then pursued his dream of becoming a flight nurse. He is remembered by his grandparents, Mac and Ruby Jones; his son, Tyson Lee Jones; his father, Eddie Gene Jones; his stepmother, Patricia Maye Jones; his brother, Wiley Gene Jones; and many other family members and friends.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article that was published recently in a southeastern Kentucky publication describing the very moving memorial service held for the three crewmembers of the tragic Air Evac 109 flight be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, you know there is not much to say about the President's speech yesterday other than that he actually retreated from previous commitments to a more bipartisan, revenue-neutral corporate tax reform and then tried to sell that rejection of bipartisanship as some ``grand bargain''--I mean, only in Washington. But let me say this: It really would be nice to see the President work with Congress for a change to get some important work done for the American people. Republicans have been eager to do this all along, but, really, it is almost as if there is a ``Gone Campaignin' '' sign outside the Oval Office--a ``Gone Campaignin''' sign outside the Oval Office. On the rarest of occasions when he does come to the Hill, as he will today, you find out it is basically just for another internal campaign rally with Democrats.

I hope he will finally get serious and make one of his famous pivots--this time in a new direction toward effective policy and away from the never-ending political sideshow. But it is hard to see, especially when you consider that the President's party is now attempting to blow up one of the most genuinely bipartisan accomplishments of the Obama era.

The Budget Control Act that was agreed upon two summers ago represented a commitment from Washington to America, a bipartisan promise to enact $2.1 trillion in spending control. Last year the slightest hint of fiddling with the spending caps led to a furious response from senior Washington Democrats. It even led to a veto threat from the White House. But now Washington Democrats are tired of bipartisanship. The commitments they made have become an inconvenience to their special interest agenda, so now they are threatening to shut the government down if they are not allowed to break their word. That is what this appropriations debate we are having is all about. It is about an attempt to blow up an important bipartisan achievement by busting the spending caps to which both parties already agreed.

Republicans do not believe we should be breaking our commitments to the American people, and breaking commitments in order to overspend, as Democrats propose, seems like an even worse reason for them to shut down the government. So I hope they will not. I hope they will think about the ``third way'' offer we have made to them too--that we would happily discuss exchanging some of the particular cuts they do not like for government reforms, the kinds of innovative ideas that can get our economy back on track and our government back in the black not just in the immediate term but over the long haul. This policy discussion has never been more relevant, especially when we look at what is happening in Detroit and what is happening in Europe, when we realize that the real-world consequences of putting off reform are no longer just abstract or hypothetical, they are here, they are real, and they are now.

The experts tell us that the United States is already on a completely unsustainable fiscal trajectory and that we need to make some big changes today if we want to avoid a similar fate. They also tell us that, unlike Detroit or Greece, America still has some time to chart its own future--but not long. That is why the choices we make today are so important. We can follow the Democratic path to austerity--the path of breaking spending caps wide open and borrowing more money we do not have, of callously rejecting reform and blissfully denying the future. That path inevitably leads to European-style austerity, to the decimation of the middle class, to desperation for the least among us, or we can follow the Republican path to reform and growth, a path of smart choices, innovative reforms, and orienting our economy toward the future. The Republican path not only prevents austerity tomorrow but leads to more jobs and a better economy today. The Democratic path to austerity or a Republican path to reform and growth, these are the choices.

Voting for appropriations legislation that blatantly violates budget reforms already agreed to by both parties moves our country in exactly the wrong direction. It puts us on the Democratic path to austerity. That is one of the many reasons I will be voting against this spending bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. It is time to get serious about the challenges we face. It is time to work together to reposition America for growth and prosperity and sustainability in the 21st century.

If the President is willing to get off the campaign trail and show some leadership with his party--convince them

of the positive reforms and the need to actually stick to them--I am confident we can create a better economy today and leave a better future for our children tomorrow. But it is up to him, and his visit today offers a great chance to convey this message to his fellow Democrats.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about my departing deputy chief of staff Rohit Kumar, who announced a few weeks back he would be leaving the Senate at the end of this week.

Many of the Members of the Senate know Rohit pretty well. He has been trolling the floor out here for a long time, telling us on the Republican side what to do and how to do it. He has been a constant presence at my side at just about every legislative battle we have had here in the Senate for the past 6\1/2\ years; actually, even before that, when he was working for Leader Frist, and I was over in the whip's office.

So many of us could recount Rohit's many talents, but as his boss it falls on me to do it, and I am happy to do it because we have been through a lot. The first thing to say about Rohit is that his mind is like a trap. He has the answer to literally every question the moment you ask him, and he has usually thought through the politics of it too. That might not sound terribly unusual, but I assure you it is rare in this business to come across somebody who combines a brilliant mind for policy and a brilliant mind for politics in one package, but that is Rohit. He is remarkable that way. It is one of the reasons he has been indispensable to me, not only in the day-to-day stuff but especially on the three major deals I helped broker with Vice President Biden, starting with the 2-year extension of the Bush tax cuts in late 2010, the debt limit deal we arrived at in the summer of 2011, and then, of course, the fiscal cliff agreement at the end of last year in which we locked in the Bush tax rates permanently for 99 percent of Americans. That is something we couldn't even do, by the way, when we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President.

Every one of those agreements involved a lot of work, a lot of nights and weekends, and tremendous focus. We couldn't have done any of them without Rohit. Anything that ever came up in those discussions, Rohit can tell us the upsides and the downsides, where the other side was willing to go and where they weren't. He knew where all the tripwires were, and it is because of these same skills as well as his grasp of Senate rules and procedure that he has become sort of an informal adviser to the entire Republican conference over the years.

It is not at all unusual for me to walk back to Rohit's desk and see him talking to another Senator in my office--either in person or on the phone. He knows how things work, and folks who are smart know they can call him or swing by if they want to know what is going on or what is possible or what is not on absolutely anything. A lot of other Senators will miss him every bit as much as I will.

Rohit says he was drawn to public service by the example of his parents, both of whom are doctors, and viewed their work as more of a calling than a source of income. His dad is a widely respected and well-known teacher at the university level, and his mom worked at a VA hospital.

Rohit wasn't drawn to medicine, but like his folks he wanted to make a difference, and that is what drew him to politics. He got his start by answering phones for the mayor of Dallas, and then translated that into an internship for Phil Gramm's State office after his sophomore year at Duke. After graduating in just 3 years, he took a job in Senator Gramm's Washington office as an LA, and did that for a couple of years before heading off to law school.

The plan was to become a Federal prosecutor. So he moved down to Charlottesville, stayed there for a clerkship on the Fourth Circuit, and then saw his plan go up in smoke when he called Senator Gramm for career advice. Rohit told him what he was thinking, and Senator Gramm listened. Senator Gramm then told him he thought it would be a much better idea if he came back to the Senate and worked for him instead. Senator Gramm can be pretty persuasive. Rohit agreed, and he has been here ever since.

It wasn't a straight line. About a month after Rohit got here, Gramm announced he wasn't running for reelection. Over the year that followed, Rohit impressed a lot of folks. It wasn't long before Senator Lott picked up the phone and asked him if he would join him in the leader's office. Rohit accepted, and then spent pretty much his entire time there figuring out how to get the Department of Homeland Security up and running in such a way that it wouldn't be hamstrung by union rules.

Over a holiday weekend in late 2002, he got a taste of things to come. President Bush wanted DHS approved, so Rohit and a few other key staffers had a holiday weekend to do it. They started writing the bill on a Thursday night and wrapped it up by Tuesday morning.

Rohit stuck around during the Frist years, gaining even more experience and impressing even more people--including me. When Leader Frist left at the end of 2006, I brought him onto my leadership team, and it has been one of the best hiring decisions I have ever made. As I said, he has been an extraordinary help to me and a great guy to have around. He is not only whip smart, but he has a fantastic sense of humor and work ethic like I have never seen.

I thank Rohit for his dedication and service to me and to the Senate. Since this is the only opportunity I have ever had to do this, I want to thank Hilary for letting us have him for this long. I think she is here today. I know how supportive she has been of Rohit staying here for so long, and so I want to thank her for that and apologize for all the canceled trips and lost weekends. I know it wasn't always easy to see it in the moment, but he has made an enormous difference not just to me but our country.

I can't promise the transition will be easy. He might want to find a good 10-step BlackBerry recovery program when we finally take it away from him, but I am sure he will figure it out.

With that, I wish Rohit all the best in the future. I know he has a bright one. I understand he will be unemployed after the weekend, but I expect that won't last long.

Rohit, if you ever want to come back, we always have a place for you. Thanks, buddy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an honored Kentuckian who, sadly, has been lost to us after a long and fruitful life. The man I speak of is Dr. John M. Smith Jr. of Beattyville, KY. Born in Hazard, KY, in 1922, he passed away on June 15 of this year. He was 91 years old.

Dr. Smith was revered in his community as a man of medicine. In the 1940s, he was one of the first recipients of the Rural Kentucky Medical Scholarship Fund, and graduated from the University of Louisville School of Medicine in 1949. He has worked in Morehead, Lexington, Woodford County, and most of all in Beattyville, where he served as a general practitioner for 38 years until the age of 90. Generations of Beattyville-area Kentuckians knew and loved Dr. Smith as their primary- care doctor.

Dr. Smith also proudly served his country in both World War II and the Korean War. In 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served in both the Atlantic and Pacific campaigns of World War II. He then volunteered to serve as a medical officer at the Louisville, KY, recruiting station during the Korean War.

Dr. Smith received many accolades and recognitions from his community, and will be missed by a great many beloved family members and friends, including his wife of 54 years, Patty. Elaine and I send our thoughts and prayers to the Smith family for their loss. And I know my colleagues in this U.S. Senate join me in recognizing the long and accomplished life of service led by Dr. John M. Smith Jr.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the obituary for Dr. Smith that appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, the President will continue his campaign road tour in Chattanooga. We hear he plans to make an announcement about corporate taxes. And while I understand he is looking for headlines here, reports indicate that the policy he intends to announce doesn't exactly qualify as news. It is just a further-left version of a widely panned plan he already proposed 2 years ago--this time with extra goodies for tax-and-spend liberals.

The plan, which I just learned about last night, lacks meaningful bipartisan input, and the tax hike it includes is going to dampen any boost businesses might otherwise get to help our economy. In fact, it could actually hurt small businesses. And it represents an unmistakable signal that the President has literally backed away from his campaign- era promise to corporate America that tax reform would be revenue neutral to them.

Not only is this a rebuke to one of his party's most senior Senators--the Finance Committee Chairman--it also represents a serious blow to one of the best chances for true bipartisan action in Washington. I truly hope the President reconsiders this plan and consults with Congress before moving any further.

Two summers ago, Republicans and Democrats came together to agree on a set of spending caps for the following decade. President Obama agreed to it, as did the leaders of both parties in the Senate and the House.

It was essentially a promise made to the American people that Washington would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion, and I was happy to help lead the effort.

Well, 2 years later Democrats are now trying to find ways to walk away from it.

They are pressing to abandon the 2011 agreement in favor of higher spending, as evidenced by appropriations bills like the one we're considering this week--which hikes up spending by double digits. And the President is now actually threatening to veto bills that live up to that commitment we all made.

Let me repeat that: The President of the United States who, during the campaign, took credit for the very savings Democrats now want to walk away from, is threatening to veto spending bills that would actually follow the law and live up to the commitment he himself signed.

This represents a stunning shift for Democrats, who just recently were warning against breaking the agreement. The Chairwoman of the Budget Committee said last year that we have to be able to count on agreements that have been made, instead of threatening a Government shutdown. Yet that is just what she and her party are now threatening to do--to shut down the Government unless an agreement we all made is torn up and thrown away.

So if Democrats want to shut down the Government because they can't wiggle their way out of a deal they agreed to, I guess there is not much we can do to stop them. But Republicans intend to stick by the commitments made to our constituents.

That said, there is also this to remember: Republicans have always said that there may be more effective ways to achieve comparable spending reductions. If Democrats want to propose smarter spending cuts that achieve the same kind of savings they committed to in 2011, we are ready to listen. Comprehensive Government spending reforms would be a good place to start.

Because Republicans understand that America's largest fiscal challenges stem from the fact that programs our fellow Americans hope to rely on in their most vulnerable years are going bankrupt. And Republicans are saying that the only way to avert the kind of panicked, poorly thought out spending cuts and tax increases we have seen in Europe is to implement forward-looking reforms today. That is why it is always so amusing when the President and his allies try to brand the kind of innovative government spending reforms we favor as ``European- style austerity,'' as he implied again this weekend.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, what the Europeans are doing in response to the threats from their creditors is essentially the opposite of the approach favored by Republicans. The type of long-term spending reforms we envision are often the only antidote against the kind of austerity we see in Europe. Because European austerity is not about protecting future generations from spending cuts, it is about staying afloat today. And the tax increases Europeans enact under duress--and the kind of pain Detroiters experience under bankruptcy--these are exactly the things Republicans aim to avoid. And we aim to avoid those things by acting intelligently today, while we still have time.

Unlike Democrats, Republicans are not looking for some colorless discussion about raising taxes here or snipping there or moving numbers around on a budget chart. We would rather have a more holistic, forward-looking conversation, one about modernizing Government to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

Where we ask questions like:

How do we modernize entitlement programs so they'll actually be accessible to Americans when they need them?

Which government programs should be reformed, updated, or no longer make sense in a 21st Century economy? How can services be delivered in the most efficient and technologically savvy way?

And what structural reforms can we implement to ensure the most robust economic growth and job creation for this generation and those to come?

By addressing the big questions now--by identifying and implementing forward-looking reforms today--we can do a lot more than just reduce the deficit in the short term. We can also create jobs now, grow the economy now, make Government work better now, and eliminate the threat of a debt crisis everyone knows is coming, a debt crisis that would usher in the very kind of European-style austerity Democrats claim not to like, but keep accelerating towards.

But in order for this to happen, Democrats need to work with us.

As a first step, they should step back from the brink with their plan to shut down the Government. And they need to stop threatening to tear up agreements we all previously assented to. The Budget Control Act might not be perfect, but at least we were able to secure important spending control for the American people. And if Democrats want to trade some savings for innovative reforms that can serve our country even better over the long term, then there are policymakers ready to talk.

But Republicans are not going to just give up on the commitments made to our constituents. Not only would that be a betrayal of a promise we all made, but we have already seen where the Democrats' left-leaning policies and European-inspired ideas lead.

More of that is the last thing our country needs right now.

Mr. President, like the President, I appreciate a good literary reference every now and then. Placed in the proper context, a citation from some great writer or thinker can sum up a vision and inspire people.

When Douglas MacArthur bade farewell to West Point, he echoed an ancient thinker's ominous warning that ``only the dead have seen the end of war.'' And the biblical references in JFK's famous inaugural address represent another classic use of the well-placed quote.

But I think a lot of people are still scratching their heads about President Obama's promise yesterday to bring Americans an ``ocean of tomorrows.'' Frankly, I don't even think that Carl Sandburg fans out there would get it. I wonder: Does he? Because the President himself said his speech probably wouldn't change any minds.

Even the advisers who endlessly hyped this thing more or less conceded there wouldn't be any there there--no groundbreaking proposals, no tack to the center, no promise to finally start working collaboratively with Congress. Well, they were right. So you have to ask, what was the point?

Look, this President is a terrific campaigner. We all recognize that. He has a way with words too. But at some point campaign season has to end and the working with others season has to begin. At some point you have to stop promising an ocean of tomorrows and start actually working with the representatives of the people. Because, let's be perfectly clear, Americans aren't worried about how many tomorrows there are to come. They are worried about what those tomorrows will actually bring: the bills in tomorrow's mail, the cuts in tomorrow's paycheck, the affordability of tomorrow's health costs. These are the things that can't be addressed with reheated speeches or clever quotes. They require actually working with people, including those you might not always agree with.

For instance, going around telling people ObamaCare is working the way it is supposed to or that it is fabulous or wonderful, as several of our Democratic friends have done, doesn't change reality. It is just words. It doesn't change the fact that recent surveys show only 13 percent of Americans now believe the law will help them or that about half believe it will make things worse for the middle class or that actuaries are now predicting cost increases of 30 percent or more in my home State of Kentucky.

I know the President likes to point to the few places, as he did yesterday, where premiums might actually drop under ObamaCare, but he is basically silent on the places where it has been announced that premiums will go up under ObamaCare, and he will not say a word about all the people who have lost their jobs or seen their pay cut.

For instance, the Washington Post recently profiled a part-time college professor from Virginia who, like many in his situation, will see his hours slashed as a result of this law. As the Post put it:

For [this man], the President's health care law could have

meant better health insurance. Instead, it produced a pay

cut.

And, many would agree, not for the better, especially for the growing number of Americans forced into part-time work with fewer hours and smaller paychecks as a result.

One part-time waitress interviewed in another paper said:

I can't believe I voted for this. This is not the change I

wanted, and it feels like there's no hope.

So if the President is ready to pivot from campaign mode to governing mode, he can start by dropping the misleading claims and admitting what pretty much everybody knows: that a lot of Americans are going to feel the pain once this ocean-full of tomorrows finally crashes ashore. Americans are worried, and I don't blame them.

Just last week, as I often do, I met with employers from around Kentucky who expressed continued concerns about the impact this law will have on their operations. They want the Democrats who run the Senate to follow the lead of the House in delaying ObamaCare for everyone, both businesses and individuals, and they know it makes sense to do so. I know they want the President to sign the bill when it passes, and I agree he should. It would be a great first step toward

implementing the permanent delay our country needs--a delay that would give Republicans and Democrats the chance to start over and work together, this time on a bipartisan step-by-step set of health reforms that would actually lower costs.

But we cannot get there until the President changes his mindset, until he puts the poetry down for a moment, flips the campaign switch off and the governing switch on. When he does, I think he will be surprised to find just how many Republicans want to do exactly what we have said all along--to work with him on solutions to get our economy moving, our jobs growing, and our health care more affordable. We are waiting. Americans are waiting. I hope he will finally be ready soon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this morning I would like to start by remembering the sacrifice of two 18-year veterans of the Capitol Police, Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut. On this date in 1998, Gibson and Chestnut paid the ultimate price while standing in defense of the U.S. Capitol. We know these men fell defending more than just the structure, though. We know they fell defending more than just the Members sent here or even the staffs who help each of us better serve constituents and our country. No, these men died while protecting everything this building represents--our democratic way of life, the freedom granted to each of us by a creator we often thank but never see.

We honor these men for their lives, and we honor them for the final act of heroism that ended those lives. That is why a plaque inside the Capitol commemorates their sacrifice. That is why the Capitol Police headquarters bears both of their names. That, I know, is of little solace to the wives, children, and friends left behind, but it is a small way of saying ``we remember'' when the scale of the debt owed can never truly be repaid in full.

So today the Senate honors John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut for their sacrifice, and the Senate sends its condolences and its gratitude to those who loved them most.

Mr. President, I am glad to see that Senate Democrats have finally ended their obstruction of the bipartisan student loan bill. It has been weeks since the Democrats blew past the July 1 deadline they kept warning about, and it has been even longer since the House passed a bill similar to the one they are actually now agreeing to. But at least Democrats have finally stopped obstructing and arguing. At least now they are ready to put their partisan political fix aside and join President Obama and congressional Republicans in enacting real permanent reform for all students--the only real reform on the table that is designed to help every middle-class family.

I would like to thank the sponsors of this bill for their hard work: Senators Manchin, King, Alexander, Burr, and Coburn. They may come from different political parties, but they all really care about students, and this bill certainly proves it.

There is something else this bill proves too: that Democrats can work with Republicans when they actually want to--when they check their partisan take-it-or-leave-it approaches at the door and actually talk with rather than at us.

That is why it is really disheartening to hear about the partisan speech President Obama plans to give today, the one the White House can't stop talking about. With all the buildup, you would think the President was unveiling the next Bond film or something, but in all likelihood it will be more like a midday rerun of some 1970s B movie because we have heard it all before. It is really quite old.

These speeches are just so formulaic, and they are usually more notable for what they leave out than what they contain. Here is what I mean. We all know the President will bemoan the state of the economy in his speech, but he won't take responsibility for it. He will criticize Republicans for not rubberstamping his policies but will leave out the fact that for 2 years Democrats did just that, and yet the economic recovery is still stagnant.

He won't talk about the fact that since he lost control of the House and his ability to have things exactly the way he wanted, he has refused to engage with seemingly anyone in Congress on ways to get the economy moving. A perfect illustration of that is the fact that instead of working with us on solutions, he is out giving speeches. And here is the kicker: Instead of taking responsibility for his failure to lead, he will probably try to cast this as some titanic struggle between those who believe in ``investing'' in the country and those who supposedly want to eliminate paved roads or stop signs or whatever ridiculous straw man he invents this time.

Give me a break. There is a real philosophical debate going on in our country, but it is not anything like how he imagines it. I would say it is more of a debate between those who believe in a government that is smarter and more efficient and some who seem to believe in government against all the evidence; between those who draw the obvious lessons from human tragedies in places such as Greece and Detroit, and some who cannot face up to the logical endpoints of their own ideology, who cannot accept the terrible pain their own ideas inevitably inflict on the weakest in our society.

It is between those who understand the necessity of empowering of private enterprise if we are ever going to drive a sustained recovery for middle-class families and some who can't seem to let go of ivory tower economic theories, even after 4\1/2\ years of an economy literally treading water.

Speaking of ivory tower theories, here is another difference. Some of us believe it is actually possible to act as good stewards of the environment without declaring war on vulnerable groups of Americans. I know a lot of people here in Washington who think of Appalachia as fly- over country, but many in my State have another word for it. They call it home. When these struggling families hear one of the White House climate advisers say a war on coal is exactly what is needed, can you imagine how that makes them feel? It makes them feel as though they are expendable, as though Washington does not understand them or, frankly, simply doesn't care. ``[It is] like going to some of these big cities and shutting Wall Street down,'' is how a coal worker from eastern Kentucky recently put it.''See how it affects everything,'' he said. ``Coal is our Wall Street.''

This is just one of the many reasons Republicans have long called for an ``all of the above'' strategy. We understand that traditional sources can be developed in tandem with new alternative energies and technologies and that there is no other sane strategy anyway, since it is basically physically impossible, even putting the catastrophic economic consequences aside here for a moment, to even come close to meeting our energy needs with renewables today. We cannot even come close.

What are we going to do in the meantime, power our country with foreign energy or American energy? This should be a no-brainer, but then again we are talking about Washington here. That is why it is so frustrating when the administration drags its feet on projects such as the Keystone Pipeline. The North American oil that Keystone would bring is basically going to come out of the ground whether we take it or not. So will the administration take it and the jobs that would come along with it or surrender it to places such as China? The White House will not say. The President's spokesman was asked for a decision again yesterday. You know what his answer was? Don't look to us.

Look, this pipeline has been under review for years and years. It is basically

being held up for one reason and one reason only: because the President is afraid to stand up to some of the most radical elements of his base, the kind of people you will find at one of those meetings of the Flat Earth Society he likes to talk about.

It is time for him to choose between his political friends and the middle-class families who stand to benefit from the jobs, growth, and energy that Keystone would bring. Keystone is just one example of a project the President could work with both parties to implement right now, that would help our economy. There is a lot more we can get done if he would actually pick up a telephone and try to work with us every once in a while. I know Democrats would love to hear from him every now and then as well, because every time he goes out and gives one of these speeches, it generates little more than a collective bipartisan eye roll.

It is such a colossal waste of time and energy, resources that would actually be better spent working with both parties in Congress to grow the economy and to create jobs. I know that is what my constituents in Kentucky expect and, frankly, they should expect that.

I yield the floor.

The senior Senator from Utah will not be known for the quantity of his votes but for the quality of his work. He is a man of extraordinary character. We are happy to have this intermission to congratulate him on yet another accomplishment in a long and outstanding career in the Senate.

orrin hatch's 13,000th vote in the senate

Mr. President, I too want to welcome the new Senator from Massachusetts to the Senate. He will find presiding over the Senate an enlightening experience. And if tradition is followed, he will get to do it a lot.

The Pivot

There are many overused expressions here in Washington. Game changer comes to mind. But I think the worst may be the so-called pivot. I say this not just because it is used too much to mean anything, but also because it is a troubling frame of mind.

I mean, the idea that the White House can pivot to jobs for a day or two and then abandon it for a few weeks or months and then pivot back again for a couple of days epitomizes the attitude that turns people off from politics. It is the notion that job creation is somehow more about scoring points at convenient moments than doing what is necessary to get Americans back to work. This is the kind of thing that angers folks in Kentucky and across the country, but it seems to be the only thing this administration and its allies in Congress are ever interested in because here is the thing. Not only should we be focused on jobs day in and day out around here, as Senate Republicans have been all along, but it is also not as though we don't know what is needed to get our economy back on track. It is not as though we don't know how to get the private sector moving again and creating jobs.

We don't need to pivot. We need to do the things that have been staring us in the face for the past 4\1/2\ years. If Washington Democrats are serious about turning the economy around, they would be working collaboratively with Republicans to do that instead of sitting on the sidelines and waiting to take cues from the endless political road shows the President puts up whenever he feels like changing a topic.

I mean, there are some pretty obvious things we should be spending our time on around here--things such as implementing a revenue-neutral reform of our Tax Code to make it fairer, flatter, and more conducive to the kind of economic growth that can generate the type of stable middle-class jobs we desperately need, things such as reimagining a regulatory state that was designed in the 20th century so that American companies and workers can remain competitive in the 21st. The regulatory state we have now is entirely geared toward the past, not the present and the future--things such as developing and refining more energy right here at home, instead of importing it from overseas.

But Washington Democrats haven't worked with us to do almost any of that. Instead, they have mostly given us higher taxes, an endless stream of regulations, and an unwillingness to pursue commonsense energy projects that could put more Americans to work right now.

They have given us a stimulus that ballooned the debt, maddeningly complex regulations that failed to solve too big to fail, and made bailouts the official law of the land. And they gave us a 2,700-page health care law that almost no one read, with a tower of at least 20,000 pages of accompanying regulations and redtape that almost no one can understand.

It is no wonder so many Americans remain out of work, with 54 months of unemployment at or above 7.5 percent. In Kentucky, the rate is, regrettably, even higher.

Meanwhile, Washington Democrats have been pivoting back and forth, back and forth. In fact, they pivot so much these days that they often don't seem to know what to do with themselves when there is an actual policy issue to be solved--an issue where you would assume many Republicans and Democrats would normally agree. Take the student loan issue. Right now the unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is about 13.5 percent.

For teens it is even worse--about 24 percent. The youth of our country are struggling. Yet, with that backdrop, Senate Democrats still continue to fight with each other over the student loan bill 23 days after the deadline they themselves warned us about.

Congressional Republicans and President Obama have actually been more or less on the same page on this issue from the very start. We have agreed on the need to pursue permanent reform for all students, not just a short-term political fix for some of them. Still, Senate Democrats persisted with show votes on a bill that always seemed more about politics than policy--wasting precious time. Then, with the July 1 deadline blowing past, they started bickering among themselves about the

way forward and continue to do so, apparently, even now. They need to stop. Democrats need to finally allow the bipartisan student loan reform proposal to come to a vote this week so we can pass it and ensure there is one less Washington-created problem for young people to worry about in this economy because it is tough enough out there for them already.

The Obama economy has not been kind to the youth of our Nation. I hope the White House and Senate Democrats will help us change that because this persistently high unemployment is simply not acceptable, and neither is pretending it can be changed by simply executing another pivot or delivering another campaign-style speech or just spending more taxpayer money because Washington Democrats have tried all that before, over and over, and, in fact, it is just not working.

I yield the floor.

Reservation of Leader Time

I suggest the absence a quorum.