Floor Statements

Mr. President, earlier this year, the Democrats who run Washington promised America things would be different under a reelected President Obama. Instead of politics, they would focus on policy. Instead of leaving everything until the last minute, they would get the people's work done ahead of time for a change--and through the regular order. Well, those promises didn't last very long.

Later this afternoon, less than 24 hours before the President's sequester proposal takes effect, we will vote on a Senate Democrat plan that does more to perpetuate the culture of irresponsibility around here than it does to fix the culture of spending that Washington Democrats claim to be concerned about.

Point of fact: Not only would their legislation fail to fix the spending problem facing our country, it would actually add billions more to the deficit. In other words, it isn't a plan at all. It is a gimmick.

Top Democrats already concede it will never garner enough votes to pass the very legislative body they control, much less the House. But let's be very clear: For the President and for his allies, that is really the whole point. They want it to fail so they can go around the country blaming Republicans for a sequester the President himself proposed. In fact, they are so concerned about preventing anything from actually passing the Congress they have limited the ability of Senators on both sides to debate the issue openly and to offer different ideas.

For instance, Senators Ayotte and Paul have introduced bills that deserve our consideration. And there are others too. Senator Collins has been working on a proposal, and Senator Whitehouse has a plan that would replace the sequester with a series of huge tax hikes. I don't support that approach, but his legislation at least merits a vote.

Republicans will get just one chance to offer a bill, and I will discuss that legislation a little later in my remarks. But if the President's sequester is going to be as horrible as Washington Democrats have proposed, shouldn't we spend more than just a few hours debating it? Is this really the best Senate Democrats can do?

As for the President, he too has yet to put forward a serious plan that could pass either the House or the Democrat-controlled Senate, and he has refused to engage in substantive discussions with congressional leaders. Now, this week, he finally invited Speaker Boehner and me to discuss the sequester; that is, tomorrow, the day it takes effect. In short, instead of changing as they promised, Washington Democrats are just turning back to the same old campaign-first strategy they have employed literally now for years.

Now, after thwarting every bipartisan attempt to avert the sequester, the President is ready to make it bite as hard as possible--all to send a simple message to the public: Do you want to control Washington spending, America? Fine. Let me show you how much I can make it hurt. That is the President's strategy: Let me show you how much I can make it hurt.

Instead of directing his Cabinet Secretaries to trim waste in their departments, he is going after first responders and teachers and almost any other sympathetic constituency you can think of. He will arbitrarily close parks and monuments too, all to force Americans to accept higher taxes.

He will claim his hands are tied. He will say he has no choice but to release criminals into the streets and withhold vaccinations from poor children. Somehow it will be everybody's fault but his. Nonsense.

Look, our country has a spending problem--a pretty massive one. Most of us in the Chamber at least acknowledge that fact. But we can either address the problem in a smart way or we can do it in the way he has proposed. That is what the Toomey-Inhofe legislation we will vote on this afternoon is all about. It is about giving agency heads greater flexibility to ensure the sequester cuts are implemented in a smarter way.

Some have raised concerns that this would give the administration too much power; that the President would just use the authority to punish his critics. I certainly understand those concerns. But the goal here is twofold: One, to make sure the American people get the same amount of spending cuts that were promised to them in 2011; and, two, to guarantee some accountability on the President's part so those cuts are administered in a more intelligent way.

You would think the President would welcome a proposal such as ours. Given his complaints and those of his Cabinet Secretaries about their hands being tied on cuts, you would think he would be banging on our doors demanding flexibility. But now--get this--he is complaining that having extra authority might mean he would actually have to choose which programs to preserve and which ones to cut; that he would have to prioritize spending within the Federal Government.

Well, with due respect, Mr. President, I think a lot of people who voted for you think that is your job, to make those tough decisions-- especially tough decisions to implement the plan you, yourself, proposed and insisted upon. Surely, you can find a little more than 2 percent to cut from the Federal budget, and surely you can do it without raining down a phony Armageddon on American families. They had to find ways to cope with the 2 percent less in their paychecks just last month after the payroll tax went back up. Why in the world can't Washington?

Look, the American people will simply not accept replacing spending cuts agreed to by both parties with tax hikes, and I plan to make all of this clear to the President when I meet with him tomorrow. He already got hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue earlier this year when the tax law expired. Now it is time for the balanced part of the equation, and that means keeping our promise to reduce spending.

So the time for games is over. No more protecting waste and broken promises at the expense of those who actually need government help. The American people were promised more spending control, and Republicans are going to help them see that promise is fulfilled in the smartest way possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend the majority leader that I would object. He can either propound such a consent or not, whatever he chooses, but I would object.

Madam President, it is with deep regret and grief that I inform my fellow senators of the passing of my personal friend, Lori Acton. Mrs. Acton was a dynamic and dedicated woman whose absence in the community of Laurel County will be immediately and acutely felt.

Lori is someone who cannot be replaced. As the executive director of the Laurel County Public Library, she was a passionate leader who was visionary without being reckless, infectiously funny without being frivolous, direct and driven without being rude or mean-spirited, and a tireless worker who fully enjoyed the life and work she participated in. Her work with the library spanned nearly three decades, but the impact of her influence and passion cannot be measured by the usual metrics. Indeed, as one local writer noted, ``what people like Lori mean to a community cannot be seen by those who do not know her.'' She revolutionized the library system through hiring a stellar staff, instituting new, creative, and interesting programs, and constantly improving every issue she addressed.

Lori made an impact on people's lives. Not only did the library benefit from her enthusiastic approach to fostering a love of reading and learning, but her very presence and constant smile became signatures of her community. Countless testimonies from those who knew her speak to what an incredible impact she had as both a librarian and a friend.

At this time, I ask that we join together with the community of Laurel County, KY, in mourning the loss of my friend Mrs. Lori Acton. I believe that others can aspire to emulate Lori's character, enthusiasm, love and involvement with the community she lived in.

I also ask unanimous consent that an article lauding Lori from the Laurel County-area publication the Sentinel Echo appear in today's Record.

Madam President, I rise today to reflect on the loss of Mr. Jack Sizemore, an exemplary citizen of Kentucky and a genuinely good man. Mr. Sizemore, of Laurel County, was laid to rest on February 12, 2013, and is survived by his wife, 7 children, 20 grand-children, 16 great-grandchildren, and two sisters.

The words, ``let me tell you what Jack Sizemore did for me'' are commonly heard in Jack's beloved town of London, and represent just how sorely his presence will be missed. His legacy of goodwill is firmly established after years working in the Laurel County Detention Center, as he chose to build a reputation as a jailer who ``liked the job he was doing and [who] took care of the prisoners in a humane way and with the utmost courtesy.'' This testimony comes from his former supervisor Edd Parsley, who admits that ``you don't find many men like that.''

Jack was known to always have people laughing, and the community he loved so much has looked back and seen all the ways he touched their lives. The health problems that plagued his final years cannot begin to take attention away from his legacy and reputation.

At this time, I ask that my colleagues in this United States Senate join me in honoring Mr. Jack Sizemore. Along with our condolences to his friends and family, we simultaneously offer our gratitude and praise of this truly wonderful man.

I also ask unanimous consent that an article on the life and service of Mr. Jack Sizemore that appeared in the Laurel County-area publication the Sentinel Echo be included in the Record.

Mr. President, for months now I have been coming to the floor to urge my colleagues on the other side to help us replace the President's sequester proposal. Yet here we are, just 2 days to go until the cuts hit, and the Democrats who control Washington still haven't put forward a serious bipartisan plan--not the President and not his allies in Congress. They prefer to keep it alive as a political issue instead. Now, less than 48 hours before the clock runs out, all we are offered is a gimmicky tax hike that is designed to fail.

Look, I hope they are not expecting a round of applause for this particular act of political bravery. Is it any wonder the American people are so fed up with Washington? The American people didn't send us here to play games, they sent us here to solve problems. That means getting spending under control and putting the economy back on track.

The American people are clearly tired of the gimmicks. I can't tell you how many letters and e-mails and phone calls I have received about this sequester issue in particular, and the messages my constituents keep sending are simply this: Replacing spending cuts that both parties already agreed to, and to which the President already signed into law, with tax hikes is simply unacceptable.

One Kentuckian from Springfield put it this way:

Hold strong and do not give in to more spending . . .

Normal folks must adjust their budgets . . . so must the

government.

Another constituent said it was important to stand firm in the face of the President's endless campaigning. ``Make him keep his promise of a balanced approach,'' she wrote, and that means one thing: ``Cut spending.''

A woman from Bowling Green urged me to ``hold firm against spending and kicking the can down the road.''

She wants me to hold firm against that--spending and kicking the can down the road. She said:

I have had to cut, cut, cut. The least our government

should do is seriously make cuts.

And, of course, she is entirely right. It is absurd to think the government cannot get by with a little more than a 2-percent reduction in spending when every working American had to figure out how to make do with 2 percent less in their paychecks just last month.

Some have raised concerns about a proposal that would give agency heads more discretion in prioritizing these cuts. I understand those concerns, but let's be clear about the goal here. The goal isn't to hand over congressional authority, it is to make sure these cuts actually happen and that we don't cut a penny less than we promised the American people we would cut a year and a half ago.

Look, we know most Americans think Washington's spending problem should be addressed by cutting spending. So when the President goes off on a campaign for higher taxes instead of working with Republicans to replace the sequester with smarter cuts, and when Senate Democrats put forward tax hike gimmicks instead of negotiating serious spending-cut solutions, Americans feel as though they are not being listened to.

And they have reason to be upset. They sent a divided government here to Washington, but they expect it to work. The President may not like that fact. He may wish things were different. But he wasn't elected to work with the Congress he wants, he was elected to work with the Congress he has, and that means working with both parties to get things done. It means leaving the gimmicks behind and working with us to hammer out a smarter solution to his sequester.

Republicans have been calling for Democrats to work with us on the sequester over and over. We are still ready to work with them to get something responsible passed, but we can't do it alone. The President's party runs Washington. It is time they got off the campaign trail and started working with us to govern for a change.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Inhofe-Toomey bill at the desk be considered as the bill that qualifies for introduction under the February 14 consent agreement.

I now move to proceed to S. 16, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word about the sequester.

The President's top aides proposed this sequester as a way to help the White House avoid a debt limit debate during last year's campaign. In essence, the deal we struck was that in exchange for avoiding a second vote before the election, the debt limit would be paired with spending cuts only--spending cuts only--and would not involve a tax increase.

The President had more than a year and a half to revisit his proposal and to work with us to prevent it. He obviously thought his time and energies would be better spent elsewhere. In fact, I note that today he is off campaigning again in Virginia instead of working with us to resolve the issue.

So here we are. Here we are. The President has been running around acting as though the world is going to end because Congress might actually follow through on an idea he proposed--he proposed--and signed into law, all the while pretending he is somehow powerless to stop it. Well, it is time to put the record straight. As someone who was personally involved in the 2011 budget talks, I think I am in a pretty good position to do that.

On the question of who came up with the idea in the first place, it originated, as I noted, in the White House. I was less than 100 yards from this very spot when Vice President Biden called me at my desk to lay it out. He explained the sequester in exquisite detail. And then, as has been reported, the administration stubbornly stuck by those details throughout the negotiations, refusing any effort by Republicans to adjust the design in any meaningful way.

More important than who came up with the idea of the sequester, however, is the fact the bipartisan agreement that included it, and that brought us to this point, envisioned $2.1 trillion in spending cuts. That is what we voted for in August of 2011. Democrats and Republicans agreed to $2.1 trillion in spending reductions as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act.

So we can all go back and talk about what might have been or what the President wanted or what he now wants, but let us be clear about the facts. Those cuts were to come in two steps: First, through an immediate $900 billion spending reduction in the form of budget caps, and then by an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts to be achieved in one of two ways, either by the so-called supercommittee or, if that failed, through the President's sequester proposal, meaning automatic spending cuts to both domestic and defense programs.

While the President tried repeatedly to make tax hikes a part of the backup plan, he ultimately gave up on that in exchange for avoiding a second vote on the debt limit before his election. The President made a deliberate decision to give up on getting any tax hikes or revenue enhancements, or whatever the White House wants to call it, as part of negotiations over the sequester mechanism. He made the calculation that avoiding a second vote on the debt limit before the election was more important.

So any effort to bring taxes into the picture now is a ploy to move the goalpost, as the primary chronicler of this whole episode, Bob Woodward, has noted.

Of course, the White House has tried to refute those historical facts, but it hasn't gotten anywhere because we know what happened.

As the chairman of the Finance Committee helpfully reminded us last week, ``The President is part of the sequester'' because ``the White House recommended it . . . and so now we're feeling the effects of it.''

So it is time for the administration to at least accept reality so we can all move forward and focus on what the White House is actually doing right now. It is asking the American people for permission to break its word on spending.

Look, we reached an agreement to cut $2.1 trillion in government spending over 10 years, and we intend to keep our word. Should these cuts be implemented in a smarter way? You bet. But the President and his Cabinet Secretaries had a year and a half to think about that. They just can't show up now at the last minute and expect the American people to bail them out of their own lack of responsibility.

We can either secure these reductions more intelligently or we can do it the President's way with across-the-board cuts. But one thing Americans simply will not accept is another tax increase to replace spending reductions to which we already agreed.

It was my hope that the supercommittee would succeed. The Senators I appointed took their assignments very seriously. They put real skin in the game because they wanted it to work. They didn't like the sequester idea either. Had the President engaged in a

serious and supportive way at that time, the supercommittee may well have succeeded. But he was busy. He was campaigning and, I would argue, undermining the process instead.

But even after the supercommittee failed, Republicans continued to work to find another way to achieve these spending cuts. We repeatedly called for replacing the sequester with smarter cuts rather than tax hikes, according to the original pact. House Republicans actually passed two bills to do just that. But again, instead of engaging with us, the President just set up more roadblocks. For more than 1 year, he resisted and dismissed every Republican attempt at a compromise. He refused to offer any kind of reasonable alternative, and he even threatened to veto other proposals aimed at averting the sequester.

Now here we are, with the President presenting the country with two options: Armageddon or a tax hike. Well, it is a false choice, and he knows it, but the President is a master at creating the impression of chaos as an excuse for government action--do nothing, fan the flames of catastrophe, and then claim the only way out is more government in the form of higher taxes.

Look, the choice we face isn't between the sequester and tax hikes. Remember, we are only talking about cutting 2 to 3 percent of the budget. Any business owner or middle-class parent will tell you it is completely ridiculous to think Washington can't find a better way to cut 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget at a time when we are $16 trillion in debt. Every single working American had to figure out how to make ends meet with 2 percent less in their paychecks just last month when the payroll tax holiday expired. Are you telling me Washington can't do the same? It is absurd. It is utterly absurd.

There is no reason in the world these cuts need to fall on essential services or emergency responders. After all, even with the sequester, Washington will be spending more than when President Obama got here. We are only talking about cutting one-tenth of what the President spent on the stimulus bill. Enough. Enough.

Step 1 in this process of getting to a serious solution is to end the White House's denial of historical reality. We are starting to get there, slowly but surely. More important, though, is the next step, and that is when the President and his Democratic allies actually come to the table and negotiate in a serious way, without gimmicks and without games, on how best to reduce Washington spending. So let's shelve the tax hikes and the endless campaigning.

Finally, I think there is an even larger point to be made. The President has been going around warning of utter chaos if the sequester takes effect. While I agree that those cuts could be made in a much smarter way and I don't like the fact that they fall disproportionately on defense, what does it say about the size of government that we can't cut it by 2 or 3 percent without inviting disaster? Doesn't that really make our point? Hasn't government gotten too big if just cutting the overall budget by a couple of percentage points could have that kind of an impact? Personally, I don't believe the world will end if the President's sequester takes effect, but our country would be much better served if the Democrats who run Washington would get off the campaign trail and work with us to trim the budget in a more rational way.

Americans are tired of the manufactured crises. I know my constituents in Kentucky are. It is simply time. They want us to work together, and Republicans are ready to do just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

In just 15 days significant across-the-board cuts are set to take effect unless the President and the Senate Democrats come up with a plan to replace them with smarter, targeted spending reductions. The President and the Senate majority have known about this deadline for more than a year. Yet here we are just days before the so- called sequester is set to hit, and a familiar scenario is playing out once again. It goes something like this:

Phase 1. Republicans identify a challenge and actually propose a solution.

Phase 2. Liberals sit on their hands until the last minute.

Phase 3. They offer some gimmicky tax hike designed to fail and then blame everybody else when it does.

Phases 1 and 2 have gone exactly according to plan. House Republicans proposed and passed plans to replace the sequester months ago. As if on cue, Senate Democrats have doggedly refused to consider any of them, much less offer any of their own. Here we are again at phase 3. That means it is now time for them to swoop in with the gimmick.

That is why our friends on the other side have been huddled behind closed doors with pollsters and PR spinmeisters. They have been busy devising the most appealing-sounding tax hikes they can think of.

Don't believe me? Just watch what happens now. Later today, Senate Democrats are expected to roll out the gimmick. Remember, this is not a solution. Even they know it can't pass. But that is the idea. It is a political stunt designed to mask the fact they have offered no solutions and don't plan to offer any solutions. It is a total waste of time.

For nearly 2 months, I have been coming to the floor to ask Senate Democrats to work with us on a bill that could pass both Houses of Congress. If they were the least bit serious about a solution, they have had more than a year to write a bill in committee, bring it to the floor, vote on amendments, get it to the House and fix this.

Instead, they have waited right up until the moment of crisis, just as they always do, and then they get together not with the goal of finding a solution but to hatch an escape plan aimed at making Republicans look like the bad guys. Their whole goal here isn't to solve the problem, it is to have a show vote that is designed to fail, call it a day, and wait for someone else to pick up the pieces.

My message this morning is quite simple: There won't be any easy off- ramps on this one. The days of eleventh hour negotiations are over. Washington Democrats have gotten used to Republicans bailing them out of their own lack of responsibility. But those days have passed. Look, they run the Senate; they run the White House. It is time they started acting like it.

As a first step, Senate Democrats need to honor their pledge to return to regular order. Legislation that passes through this Chamber should be written with input from both parties. It should get a fair public vetting in committee, and Senators should get a chance to offer amendments. Just yesterday, the President's own Treasury nominee called for a return to regular order.

So it is time for the President and Senate Democrats to put the games and gimmicks aside. It is time they stopped waiting until the last minute to get things done around here. People are tired of it. I know my constituents in Kentucky are certainly tired of it. They have had enough of the political theater. It is time to put the stunts aside and actually work on real solutions. That is what we were sent here to do, and we should do it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize and salute the city of Jenkins in Letcher County, KY, as they celebrate 100 years of rich State history.

Jenkins's roots reach back before its official incorporation. Four smaller communities combined to form the city of Jenkins when Consolidation Coal Company purchased 100,000 acres of coal lands in eastern Kentucky. Consolidation Coal's director, George C. Jenkins, became the city's namesake in 1912 when it was officially founded. The communities that joined together, Dunham, Burdine, Jenkins, and McRoberts, helped build the new city, which grew quickly. On January 9, 1912, the Commonwealth of Kentucky recognized Jenkins as a city of the sixth class, and by April 20 of the same year, its government was established.

The people of Jenkins had an important role to play in the State-- mining the ``Cavalier'' coal that earned the reputation as the best coal in Kentucky. The success and importance of their work further facilitated the expansion of the city, and within a few years a bank, grocery store, sawmill, brick plant, hospital, bakery, drug store, post office, jail, hotel, recreation center, and a few churches and schools all opened to serve the population of the area.

Today, citizens of Jenkins enjoy the incredible Appalachian heritage as much as the beautiful mountains and scenery that surround them. The picturesque surroundings of the southeastern Kentucky mountains, and the Pine Mountain area, are on display in Breaks Interstate Park, known as ``The Grand Canyon of the South,'' and in places like the Raven Rock Golf Course. Set in this environment is ``Jenkins Homecoming Days'' and the

Zegeer Museum, which celebrates the history and culture of the town. These highlights speak to the hard work and dedication of the citizens of Jenkins in the past century, especially their pioneering work in the coal mining and railroad industries, which the Zegeer Museum details wonderfully.

At this time, I would like to ask my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to join me in honoring the city of Jenkins as we look back in appreciation on their storied past, and recognize the diligent work of the residents to keep up the traditions and build a bright future.

I also ask unanimous consent that an article from the Mountain Eagle noting Jenkins's rich history be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my honor to stand before you today to recognize an esteemed Kentuckian, Mr. Tony Whitaker, on the occasion of his recent retirement from the position of CEO of First Federal Bancorp this past December. I speak for the communities that Mr. Whitaker has served and worked in during his career when I say that his desire to help others, work diligently and contribute to the lives of those around him are certainly deserving of our respect and honor.

Tony has worked as a banker in Richmond, Louisville, and most recently in Hazard, KY, where he held the position of chief executive officer of First Federal Bancorp. According to Mr. Whitaker, his best years of the four decades spent in banking were spent at First Federal, something that the people of Hazard would no doubt confirm. His move to Louisville is motivated by a desire to be near family, but his assurance that he will miss calling Hazard ``home'' is represented by his fond memory of the welcoming community he found upon his arrival in the 1990s.

Tony has been an indispensable presence both in Hazard and at First Federal, and his strong leadership has prepared the bank to thrive, allowing those he has invested in to continue his legacy. He will continue to stay involved by serving as the chairman of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp. He genuinely wants to positively impact others, offering to be just a phone call away to anyone who needs his help.

At this time, I would like to ask my fellow Senators to join me in honoring Mr. Tony Whitaker. This well-known and well-respected man is a model citizen, and represents the best of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We are grateful for his input and impact on his community, and I ask unanimous consent that a newspaper article highlighting his achievements be printed in the Record.

I would like to say a word about last night's State of the Union. To me, at least, the occasion cried out for bold and courageous leadership from a reelected President who has run his last campaign. It called for a President who was willing to stare down America's challenges, reject the easy choices, and step outside his political comfort zone to unite a deeply divided public behind a common goal.

Sadly, history will record no such moment. An opportunity to bring together the country instead became another retread of lip service and liberalism.

For a Democratic President entering his second term, it was simply unequal to the moment. Following 4 years of this President's unwillingness to challenge liberal dogma, we have more of the same. The President spoke about energy infrastructure but didn't even mention the Keystone Pipeline. He chose the Nation's biggest stage to promote something that is inefficient and costly, such as solar panels, instead of something that is proven, reliable, and domestically produced, such as coal.

He advocated tax reform but mostly as a way to increase the size of government, not as a way to increase our competitiveness. He spoke of workers' minimum wages instead of their maximum potential.

In short, with the exception of his impressive delivery and trademark style, last night's speech was pedestrian, liberal boilerplate that any Democratic lawmaker could have given at any time in recent memory. Gun control, cap and trade, tax increases, and spending programs are exactly what we have come to expect from a liberal President who seems perfectly content to preside over a divided country and a stagnant economy.

Of course, everyone recognizes the President is a very good campaigner. We all acknowledge his skill in that area. He will be doing more of that today down in North Carolina.

A State of the Union Address should be about something bigger. Instead of dividing Americans, it should unite them. Instead of inflaming passions, it should show what is possible when the two parties actually work together.

I am glad he mentioned things such as expanding trade opportunities with Asia and Europe. That is an area where we can cooperate, and I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties to do just that.

Overall, I am disappointed. I am especially disappointed he chose not to seriously address the transcendent issue of our time, which is finding a way to control our spiraling debt before it controls us. If we don't do that, we will not be able to leave our children the kind of country our parents left us; that is, a goal all of us should share.

Take the Obama sequester as just one example. The President had a chance last night to offer a thoughtful alternative to his sequester, one that could reduce spending in a smarter way. That is what Republicans have been calling for all along, and it is the kind of thing the House has already voted to do not once but twice. We want to work with him to actually make that happen.

Instead we just heard gimmicks and tax hikes, just one more plan from the President that is designed to fail so he can blame others when it does fail. It is too bad for the country. It truly is.

The American people, in their collective judgment, decided to send divided government to Washington. I am sure the President wishes that weren't so, but it is the reality, and Americans look to him to use forums such as the State of the Union to bring people together and get things done with the government we have, not the one the President wishes he had. That is what Ronald Reagan did, and he accomplished great things. President Clinton was able to get quite a bit done with divided government too.

Why is it this President can't seem to demonstrate the same kind of leadership? He says he wants balance--balance. His approach so far has been anything but. Just as ``investment'' has become a Washington code word for more spending, ``balance'' has now become a code word for my way or the highway.

Remember, the President already received the additional revenue he wanted in January. He didn't agree to a single cut in spending then, just revenue. Obviously, the balanced thing to do now would be to look at cuts. Last night the President didn't propose any real cuts; he just demanded more and more taxes. With a $16 trillion debt, he actually called for more spending too, although he didn't say how he would pay for it or even how much it would cost. Pretend, for a moment, the Republicans agreed to go along with all those taxes and all that spending. What do you think he would demand the next time and the time after that? Of course, more taxes and more spending. And we all know Washington uses tax increases to fund even more spending on things such as robosquirrels and Solyndra, not to reduce the deficit. That is what history shows us. It is how we got in this mess in the first place.

So we are not going to play the Washington game. The stakes for American families are too high to keep taking the easy way out, with more taxes and more wasteful spending. Republicans believe taking on this massive burden of debt should be more important in this town than winning the next election. That is why we need commonsense reforms, such as a balanced budget amendment. All Republicans support it, and Democrats should too. But we won't get anywhere as a nation if the President refuses to lead. We just can't. So the question is, Will he lead or will he continue this endless campaign?

I want to end on a positive note, so I would like to point out that there were areas of agreement last night, and I particularly appreciated the President's reference to Burma. And Senator Rubio did a great job with the Republican address. I hope the President

will actually listen to some of the things Senator Rubio said, and I hope he will come back to Congress with some different ideas. We can get important things done in his second term, and if he is ready to come to the center, to the political center, we will.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a distinguished Kentuckian, a pillar of the Louisville community and a fixture at the University of Louisville, and a very good friend of mine. Dr. Larry D. Tyler is a professor of engineering fundamentals, and this year he celebrates 50 years of service with UofL's J.B. Speed School of Engineering.

Dr. Tyler earned his original appointment at UofL as an engineering instructor in 1963. He received tenure in 1970. He has taught more than 30 different courses in the fields of engineering mathematics and mechanical, industrial, chemical, and civil engineering. He has created innovative instructional methodologies for core engineering mathematics courses, including early detection of prerequisite weaknesses.

Dr. Tyler has earned all of his degrees at the University of Louisville: his undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, a master's in mathematics, a master's of mechanical engineering, and a Ph.D. in engineering and physics. Along the way he has been published in peer-review journals and presented at international conferences on engineering design and automation. He won the Speed School's Outstanding Teacher Award in 1975, 1980, and 1983, the University Faculty Favorite Award in 2007, the Speed School Alumni Outstanding Teaching Award in 2007, the University of Louisville's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2008, and the Departmental Professor of the Year Award in 2012.

Larry has served as a faculty advisor to many fraternity student chapters, and here I should mention that Larry and I are old friends. Not only did we attend UofL together as undergraduates, we were both members of Phi Tau fraternity together; in fact, we were in the same pledge class. So I've had the pleasure of seeing Larry grow into the incredibly accomplished and respected professor that we knew he was always meant to be.

Larry, it has been a privilege to walk alongside you for these many years. I know that we both care deeply about our wonderful hometown of Louisville, and we have both dedicated our careers

to serving the people of Louisville and giving back to this city by our own contribution. On this occasion to celebrate your success, I say, well done.

Larry's teaching philosophy is to be both student- and content- centered, in order to instill the qualities of desire, determination, and dedication in his students because, as he says, ``success in any endeavor requires all three.'' The life and career of Dr. Tyler is certainly proof that if you have those three qualities, you can go very far.

Mr. President, I would ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Dr. Larry D. Tyler, and congratulating him upon his 50 years of successful service with UofL's J.B. Speed School of Engineering. I hope he continues to lead our university and our city onward and upward for many years to come.